>>115027481I see (and I love the comics). Eggman is indeed an unshakeable thing (as much of negative it can be for him), but in reality, himself being overly-evil compared to other counterparts of him already shakes him.
Ian's Eggman and how he executes him is not enjoyable, through the one-note personality (his manchild self is much less often to appear than his sociopath lunatic), the very lack of payback and consequences for his acts, and especially, how outrageous and devilish his acts tends to be by proportion, which seems less necessary for the story and more relying to just shock value.
I dislike this kind of Eggman, as I feel he's not being used as a character. He seems to be used as merely just a poster boy, as a figure that represents the only importance he has, which is just how much farther can the evil triumph, and this is shown plenty of times, making it all rather tedious. I feel Ian's usage at Eggman disregards the characterization of his, and opts him only for stroking the shock value. I feel Ian forgets that Eggman is more than just a very apathetic maddening villain he tends to write as.
I dislike it, and I prefer Bollers' take at Eggman. My memories are foggy, but if I'm not mistaken, I liked that his Eggman was only evil by the minimum necessary to denote himself being a bad person (and paybacks were done in proportion of his bad acts), while it didn't overshadow his other traits (more especially, his goofiness), and when it comes to show how evil he can be, it's expressed only by his visible actions and manners, not by just his wordy dialogue and expressed threats, which I believe they serve no worth as long we don't see it in action, arranged in the hands of Eggman. Gallagher's Robotnik is also good just by how much of goofy person he is (though, maybe I'm being an hypocrite if I say it).
But of course, I suppose it's just me unsatisfied that it's not my Eggman or the like. Sorry if I'm seeming rude, and I hope you understand me.
