Edit: Okay. Ffff. This 👆 was a drunk shitpost. I’m sorry I did it. I hope it didn’t get too existential.
As long as we’re on the topic:
It translates to “the ends justifies the means.” Gamefreak, what the fuck?
What 20+ years of publishing the same game does to you
Gotta love random examples pulled disingenuously.
Red+Blue also almost surely had Gary’s Raticate die after battling you on the S.S. Anne, and he goes to the Pokemon Tower on Lavender Town to lay it to rest. It isn’t expressly said in the text, but the Ratata that he loved and had from the beginning is suddenly no longer in his party and he’s in the tower asking why you’re there if you don’t have any dead Pokemon.
Honestly I think it’s more likely he ditched it because it wasn’t winning battles. There isn’t any indication he loved any of his Pokémon back in gen I, (Professor Oak explicitly says this is the reason you beat him.) and his entire endgame team is made up of tryhard mons with high BST. Radicate didn’t fit this mold, and it would be perfectly in character for him to just get frustrated and release it. I think the fact that his next fight after this being at a graveyard is coincidental, since he certainly doesn’t act like he’s mourning in dialogue.
That’s nothing more than headcanon. I don’t think you can compare that to the actual text of Z-A here.
You mean the text that states the extremely obvious reality that children learn and understand without any issue on a daily basis? Any child that’s ever had a goldfish or a hamster knows this directly. All living things will inevitably die at some point.
The only people reading more into this are the people that think kids are somehow stupid and constantly need to be protected from reality.
I enjoy overanalyzing and theorizing about media as much as the next guy, but this isn’t actually part of the text. You as the player are expected to regularly change up your party, why couldn’t Green have also just decided to swap Raticate out for any number of reasons?
A very console focused perspective.
80s/90s console games (and in some way even today) were much more vanilla and restricted in their perspective.
This was never an issue with computer games. 80s/90s PC games had a broad spectrum of presentation.
The original Leisure Suit Larry was released in 1987.
Though your point is correct, using Larry in the context doesn’t prove your point. There isn’t much violence other than the back alley brawl.
Even then the Atari had games like Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Chiller was even on the NES.
Most controversial games on PC are in the 90s with carmageddon and wolfenstein 3d/Doom being obvious frontrunners.
And Mortal Kombat hit consoles in 1993, so the big, controversial hits weren’t limited to PCs in the early 90s.
You’re forgetting about Duke nukem as being controversial
Sure, I meant that computers offered an open platform, be it for violent games or games with sexual themes.
Everything must die
Shorts kid is a fuckin’ chad.
I swear I have found shorts guy in every game.
Someone never played Sweet Home
