Talk:Isekai

From 1d4chan

Fucking hell, this page was bloated. Next time you need to bitch about bad and,try /a/.--Newerfag (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Dude what is your problem? Stop erasing stuff without discussing it. If you think the page needs to be trimmed then argue about it here first. --2602:306:B88B:FB60:2936:2857:3AC5:6909 06:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Just look at the page, half of it is just pointless bitching that has nothing to do with /tg/ or tabletop games. Burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.--Newerfag (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Erasing everything you don't like isn't the answer. If you think it needs a clean up then do some actually cleaning. There is a big difference between cleaning and nuking. Obliterating half of the page is just lazy.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:2936:2857:3AC5:6909 06:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
That implies any of it was ever worth keeping in the first place. If you want to deal with garbage, you throw it out, not try and clean it. --Newerfag (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
That is because lots of it was worth keeping. If you don't like the complaining you could have just simplified it down to a simple summary of why people complain about it. And what is wrong with having a list of isekai? It is relevant information. --2602:306:B88B:FB60:2936:2857:3AC5:6909 06:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Nah, looking at it now he's actually right. It was pretty overbloated, and the last bit of 'discussion' actually contributed to a lot of that. Probably best to leave detailed recs and shit of that nature to Approved anime in the event it's bothered with at all. --LGX-000 (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

time travel?[edit]

So if a person suddenly time travel to the past, does that count as isekai?--TheSpoilerHeretic (talk) September 2019 (UTC)

At a guess, if it's a (preferably Shonen) anime, yes. Otherwise, probably not. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
if you could replace time travel with just traveling to another world and the plot would still be mostly the same then you can probably count it as an Isekai. --2600:1010:B040:9122:E143:BC32:BE73:67CB 23:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I think that it should count as an isekai in this case only if the time they traveled to also has fantasy elements, and the time they came from does not. Really, I think you should judge if it counts as an isekai based on whether or not it feels like an isekai by comparing it with other shows that definately are.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:469:8FA6:E89A:9575 18:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Except it's not. Some people think of this, but in reality it's the same world but in the past or future. That doesn't count as a isekai. - Ben (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The definition of isekai is either "weird world" or "the other world". So long the character that was transported to that location finds it weird or alien, it could count as isekai. For Example: a person living in ancient Roman without any concept of the future or area which they haven't explored (American and the entirely of Asia in this case) would be freaked out if they were suddenly transported to modern Japan. I think this is also why modern isekai failed because mc finds the world they've transported to be nostalgia (RPG element, cheap JRPG fantasy cliche) instead of strangeness.--TheSpoilerHeretic (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If we're using that broad a definition a story where the main character is a pressganged landlubber or shipwrecked on a populated island would be an isekai. --Agiletek (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If the populated island has strange fantasy like culture and is not on the world map then it would be an isekai. However, the main character has to be intelligent or at least knowledgeable to differentiate the common sense in the strange world he find himself in and the world he had entered has to filled with either non-human technology the MC cannot comprehend or supernatural phenomenon that is used as some kind of tools or weapons by the natives of that place. One of the main selling point for isekai I believe is where MC describing in detail on figuring out the rule of the world he had arrived and how he break through from it. Still, I think your definition of isekai may very well considered as one if it was a story written during the Europe's Age of Exploration.--TheSpoilerHeretic (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Problem is such a broad definition would include almost any adventure story where the protagonist encounters a strange land: Kino no Tabi is an isekai under this definition. At the very least a definition need to include that the character is trapped in the world in some way. --Agiletek (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I know arguing over pointless things is very much a /tg/ wheelhouse, but I'd just like to note that this is especially pointless, as the edge cases (like "Isekai Quartet") are filed under "Weird Ones", and the series that started this discussion, "Thermae Romae", belongs there. It'll only be an issue if there are any Bad Weird Isekai. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Arifureta?[edit]

So, there's this "So Bad Its Good" Isekai anime named Arifureta. The most interesting thing about it is how insanely incompetent it is. My guess is it should go in as a "Bad One", but there are three objections: (1) It's still airing right now (as in, 2 more episodes are going to be shown, probably starting next week), (2) I'm not sure how to write it up, other then to note that only the anime is Failtastic, and (3) it's apparently jumped the shark into generic harem anime bullshit, rather then the previous awesome badness. So: Arifureta: "Officially Bad" or "not worth listing"? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely list it if you think it is notable.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:3874:1522:57DB:1505 07:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Dividing shows into smaller subsections[edit]

Given how people have gone into longer detail about each, we should probably split them individually so it doesn't look so cluttered, instead of listing them in bullet points. I'll do it when I have the time, but if someone wants to do it, go ahead. Tactical Mehren (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Danmachi[edit]

OK, who's idea it was to include Danmachi here? There is absolutely nothing isekai about it? Gods entering the mortal realm and live among humans is isekai? BULLSHIT, since these gods already lived in the setting albeit as actual gods. This is NOT isekai. It's not traveling to another world since they are in their own world. People are starting to go and stretch this term further and further I see. I am, again, blanking the part of this page of Danmachi. Also I will tell you this. Isekai is literally going to another world with its own laws entirely (both world and laws) or an alternative version of a world that only differs in certain aspects, but largely is the same. It's not isekai if it's: -Time traveling -Somehow freezing yourself or whatever and later thawing yourself, which also counts as time traveling -Traveling between planes that essentially are linked with each other (like heaven or hell or whatever since they are all part of that specific world) -Going underground or underwater -Going to a completely undiscovered place in a pre-established setting in which the MC lives in since forever I will include more later. - Ben (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

>Again, to be clear: DanMachi is not an Isekai by most definitions, but it so closely matches the other trappings of the genre that it may get described or (mis)categorized as one anyway (and thus its inclusion here).

Kinda convenient you omitted the above just prior to making this argument. Particularly since Thermae Romae in particular is included on the Weird Ones, and its plot hinges on a case of what's effectively time travel, thus setting a precedent for other similar edge cases to be listed. That you're nerd raging over this is whatever, but invoking purist standards over an addition to a list of explicitly "might-sorta-count-but-also-not-really-question-mark" examples is just a bit stupid imho.

The standards being invoked are rather arbitrarily inconsistent to boot. Just to name some examples: "oops, Dunbine is implied to be under the Earth, guess that doesn't count anymore LOL" "well, Tanya the Evil's main setting is basically WWI with magic slapped on, so one could technically argue that time travel is involved..." etc. etc. It's a flimsy argument that invites other similarly flimsy "slippery slope" judgments if pursued to its logical conclusion, all over the addition of a work - an addition that was already amended to acknowledge it may not strictly qualify, but is mistaken for one enough in discussion to be worth a mention.

That latter point alone justifies its addition in my opinion, even if it's a bare minimum of clarifying how such a confusion can occur - such would be appropriate for a list of "almost-but-not-quite" edge cases of isekai. Not to mention said addition mentioned that it pretty much checked off every other pertinent item on the "typical isekai" list: it's certainly going for the usual wish-fulfillment harem shit, at least at first and the concept of "gods abandon the divine realm for the mortal realm" could qualify as a twist on reverse isekai - gods/immortals incarnate in the mortal realm and settle in one of its major cities, thus creating an elephant in the room with regards as to why they left and whether or not they can (or will) return.

Honestly, the fact the term "isekai" is itself rather loosely defined to begin with, on top of the above makes it all the more inane to suddenly get up in arms about this specific example, and makes me wonder if there isn't something else prompting this. --LGX-000 (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on the fact that this term is used loosely. All of these instances should be researched much more deeply, yet I still say that Danmachi is NOT an isekai even in a more unconventional way. Hell, even various descriptions of either the novel, manga or anime says nothing of it being an isekai. Even on Mangadex, that implemented the isekai tag so that people could filter these kinds of stories from other works, Danmachi is not labelled as one so I don't know why people even force it. We really need to re-evaluate the titles here. - Ben (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And thus we circle back to the "it comes up in conversation enough with other isekais" point, the "resembles 'typical' isekai in certain ways upon closer inspection" point, and "the section it was included in is explicitly devoted to strange edge-cases that might not fully qualify" point - none of which can be sidestepped with any amount of "b-but it's not labelled!!1!"
There's a tab of "isekai-like" literature just below it, for fuck's sake. --LGX-000 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah right. Also I should've been more precise. That every new title that appears on the list should be verified. My bad. - Ben (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

So, in short, Ben: If I put DanMachi back, with the "Again, to be clear" bit, will I be reverted again? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

NO. Because there is no argument that even supports on a loophole level that Danmachi is an isekai. Everyone will tell you it's not an isekai. The novels have not even residual traces of it, the manga also doesn't, the anime, spin-offs and etc. YOU HAVE STRETCHED THIS TERM. And no, Gods coming from their realm to the mortal one doesn't count as an isekai due to the fact that it's not a totally different world for them since they already existed here. They were, are and were a part of it. They literally didn't come from a different reality where there were no fantasy races or where everyone else are a robot or some shit. That along the fact that isekai literally means GOING TO ANOTHER WORLD. And by that I mean A DIFFERENT WORLD, raging from alternative versions of our world that have some or many differences, to worlds that are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN EVERY. SINGLE. WAY. Whatever argument you would present would be nullified by any other person. - Ben (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

...why are you so passionate about this, if you don't mind me asking? My position is that DM is not an Isekai, but gets confused for one enough that its worth mentioning that it's not one here. I'm not stretching the term, I'm trying to head off somebody who is, intentionally or unintentionally. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, stop being a giant fucking baby about it and realize where we're coming from. Whatever the solution is, it isn't to enact some inane verification process that's probably just gonna kick off more edit wars and talk page text walls. Even if that kinda standard isn't totally unnecessary, it's more than a bit unproductive. If people keep mistaking it for an isekai, then we put it in the "weird edge cases" section, explain why it isn't actually one like some of the other items there aren't, and clarify the points of confusion for the reader's convenience, per the three points I mentioned in my previous point. You disagreeing with that perspective won't change the fact that it exists, never mind the shift key abuse or this arbitrary adherence to textbook definitions when literary genres aren't always necessarily cleanly defined (e.g. as often happens with sci-fi and fantasy). --LGX-000 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Gripes" Section[edit]

Probably worth keeping, even if the "Examples of Isekai" isn't, because (1) it can be useful for somebody considering running an pseudo-Isekai campaign, and (2) it can be useful for referring to in non-Isekai that share the same problems (and there are a few). There are probably other good reasons, but those two alone probably justify inclusion here. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I really think that the gripes section needs to be significantly shortened. Since it is just complaining and isn't really doing it in a way that is funny it is kind of boring in its current form and should be rewritten into something shorter and maybe funnier.--107.136.191.182 07:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me. The crucial gripes that I think worth preserving in some form are on the "worldbuilding" side, and I figure the "protagonist gripes" subsection is the main source of mess. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly stupid question: Are there any objections to the current version of the "Gripes" section? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It still is a little bit too long.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:AD48:5209:1967:85F6 16:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Any bits in particular? I know it's long, but that's because there are so many grievances to list. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the Gripes section is just fine as is. That may simply be because I actually have another gripe I wish to add to the World section, but overall I think that the listed points are relatively concise and don't have too much overlap.