The last two computationally double the work and resources wasted by the company.

Every individual message sent to AI is more processing power it has to use to respond, however benign and meaningless. Character length can matter but the big thing is the extra message e.g.:
- ask for something useful
- get useful reasons
- send thank you message
- get your welcome response

Ooooh oooh. This one is Morphling right? And it was going to be Clone?

So it could be harder for some to just trust Fujimoto and sit with that for a long period of time.

In that sense it kind of forces you to sit in the discomfort longer than the one-shots do. Instead of understanding a few minutes later why a girl painted her older sister naked in school, you have to wait multiple episodes or even multiple arcs to get the pay off.

It has a lot of the charm of his One Shots tbh, just in a slower burn. There's a lot of playing with anime tropes by leading you on into thinking something is going to pan out in one cliche direction and then taking it somewhere completely different or at least deeper than normal.

Oh yeah, I think it's just a useful excuse they're reaching for to try to play both sides somehow, but even if it was the law and they could somehow get sued, there's always options to completely avoid that.

But how could you not pick her?

Follow your heart Jenny!!! You will find true happyness!!! Maybe. No refunds if you don't.

Yeah, there was a clear push to squeeze in as many monsters as possible to these secret lairs and it's mildly unfortunate. It kind of proves the massive amount of content they have to work with that hopefully encourages them to make a fully set or at least some commander decks or something.

I think the idea is that the sun is behind him shining in a kind of ring through his wings. It's a more abstract sol ring but we've had a lot more of those over the year really. (Of course the big thing is that Valstrax takes the focus pretty much no matter what.)

You're a fucking god holy shit.

in order to train an AI on someone else's work. In the same way that it's not fair use to digitally enhance a movie you don't own and publish it yourself, even if you improved the quality in some way.

property of the artist to which the artist holds rights to. Now, fair use exists, allowing some level of general rights to the work for everyone in specific contexts. However it isn't really hard to argue that this goes being the pale and legally you should need some form of license or agreement

It does binary encodings that particular programs translate into pixels that happen to resemble brush strokes and photographs and the like when interpreted by programs. Without those programs it's meaningless 0s and 1s. And yet, courts have ruled that those 0s and 1s are still the intellectual

So the thing is, when you're talking about things that are digital this argument doesn't really work, or rather, it doesn't work in a way that applies only to ML models and not to all digital content. Your computer doesn't literally store paint strokes and photographs inside of it.

DQ still has to play within the scope of a suspension of disbelief. (Which it does perfectly well for me.)

I can understand saying realism makes it worse but I think that's subjective. It's a matter of differing tastes which is what makes either side claiming to be objectively right infuriating.