>>58534114
Lysandre's dilemma is about human greed, not about Pokemon. The reason why he openly weeps is because they are, and have always been, an unfortunate victim of humanity, and that once again, perhaps for the final time, they will become the victim and he must be the one who brings down the scythe. His nihilism comes from exposure to humanity in its worst elements, and not once does he ever state or imply in XY that Pokemon are part of the problem that he plans to eliminate. Pokemon, in both XY and Z-A and all games, are victims of human interests. I disagree that the game provides many opportunities for both sides because the game is lacking a major character who is consistently and vocally against what's happening. One side is a colorful cast of characters that are featured in the main story with unique designs, dialogue, designs, arcs, while the other side that asks those questions are generic characters, shuffled into side quests, and generally shown in a light that highlights they're wrong for their beliefs. The chef is interesting because his intention is to exploit Skarmony by taking its feather for his own business, and ultimately convinces Skarmony that it should allow him to do so because it would help his restaurant. I don't thonk this is a pro environmentalist message: environmentalists don't want wildlife to be exploited, put into danger by humans or corralled into tiny cages so humans can find ways to exploit them. Humans in Z-A seem to boil down to: how can I benefit from this? Instead of: how to help the Pokemon? And the issue is that this is presented as the right course of action. That being said, I do understand that a game needs to happen, and quests need to be there, and these things need to exist to facilitate gameplay, and the story isn't that serious, ect... I'm just generally not satisfied with how the game handles its treatment of Pokemon. The game severely lacks a "voice" for the Pokemon. It lacks an N to champion for them.
