That is why we in the USSR acted honestly and declared war criminals not only enemy heroes, but also our own.

Like Blade, only there is more diversity.

Niram implied that Ace isn't quite as devoted to supporting the Ukiyo family as he could be. Everything else would be speculation and headcanons until we see or hear otherwise.

People who don't receive the familial love they need usually look for it in others instead. Like how Gou sees his honorary big bro Shinnosuke as the male role model that Banno wasn't, same for Rintarou to Ogami and Makoto to Ryu. Huh, this is surprisingly common for Secondaries. It's never too late to be a parent or older sibling to somebody who needs one.

Rather, the DGP has problems with exclusivity, as they realize that altruists won't provide the same level of sadistic entertainment for their competitive deadly game.

I don't remember, but I believe. Hmm, it's strange that the show just threw it in, left it undeveloped. Especially, considering the crossover with Revice, the most family rider. Apparently, a fragment of the plot line cut from the script. Or we are waiting for Ace's family showdown on the eve of the final.

There was this little bit at the end of Wizard.

Just watched a special about PunkJack and his friend "Retired" clearly did a good job. Yes, and Dapan, most likely, too, although I think that in his case, the audience hastened to turn the gloomy teenager into the horseman of the Apocalypse. As Tsumuri said, dropped out players can still find new dreams.
For example, Morio instead of avoiding prison will want to get out of it as soon as possible.

Not sure how controversial this will be, but I wouldn’t mind getting less V-Cinemas since I feel like a lot of them are wholly unnecessary (Gaim/Build) and kinda limit what they can do in the main show. What I mean by that second point is that having V-Cinemas be guarantee every year means that most of the immediate side Riders have to be fine (alive/still have their powers) in order for them to have their special spin-off at the end of the show (especially since most V-cinemas they day take place post series).

Actually, Saber proved not so long ago that in the case of V-cinema, quality is more important than quantity. But still, the survival of the riders is not necessary for them, which is proved by the same Gaim. By and large, I would say that V-cinema should be removed if there is a good idea, and not in order to sell a new toy.

I'm only bringing this up to counter against the view of how all Riders are bad (of which it does happen here shortly after), and don't like the fanaticism view to Keiwa here to think good or bad is decided if you're on the same page of Keiwa or not, which also got Kekera, before his true colors are shown, praised for supporting him thus "the one who appreciates goodness". But overall, being good isn't perfect by itself, flaws aren't only doing bad things like selfish side/moments, his naivety or gullible nature is his flaw, but ofc many seem to treat that as a part of goodness instead of a flaw one should work around (thinking that not being naive means not being good anymore). Also while every Riders aren't morally perfect, don't like that other Riders showing that are given different reaction - more demonized like with Neon desperately performing her last DezaStar mission being used to frame her as a piece of shit like others, even though it's forced and had high stakes (anything it takes to make her commit that, as she usually hates throwing others under the bus).

You're basically describing the exact examples of how he fares being left out with Ninja here....

This one doesn't feel like people's personal taste though that, even those who like good people also don't think they're strong or badass. This just feels like the stereotype belief people holds that is widespread, regardless of liking or hating them. Well in general it's common that the heroes are bashed for their weakness if they had failure, but if villain has failure, the complaint goes to the writing instead for giving them the short end of the stick.

You have it for Geats, Sh Ranger has it for Gaim, Kurona (and MKDremare) has it for Faiz, etc. it seems to be just varying personal preference to deem certain shows as too unbearable. Also there can be some criterias of considering a show to have no light, it can be also about if those unyielding good characters are made purposely ineffectual and useless, as if purposely being a satire and/or deconstruction, like being idiot losers whose belief is seen as a joke, crushing their ideals in the face of cruel reality, etc. which someone like Keitaro can feel like that. It'd be my problem for not series-specific, but kinda franchise wide for KR, tbh, like many medias to make good being pathetic underdogs, it can look unappealing for people to discourage it instead due to it being depicted badly.... but my enjoyment would be much more limited if it only revolves around this.

Ace now wanting to make a world where everyone is happy doesn't mean that he wasn't genuine in helping others before though, don't want for him wanting to meet his mother to be shat on only because he's not using his wish like Keiwa or such, because there's nothing wrong for someone to want things for themselves. Ace's problem was that he can be ruthless like his strategies on the first DGP, but his help to others is genuine, it doesn't need to have the main goal of making everyone happy for that.

The Keiwa and Michinaga part though, I wouldn't want for Michinaga to be lumped as genuinely wanting to help too (even though he has good intentions), maybe at least at that time. I think both at that time showcases the difference between protect vs destroy. Keiwa knows that the threat is still around and he should prevent the present people getting hurt or other kind of damages. While Michinaga has been established as someone who hates anything related to DGP, including the Riders, thus his reason to join is to clean up the DGP's remains in Beroba and the Jamatos, currently Michinaga's main target is the deserving one.

Though people like Yuusuke would count, by technicality, some other morally upright main Riders like Shinji or Ryotaro, also isn't an idealized hero, tbh, because they suffers from flaws and weakness that can hinder them, which are something they have to conquer. But speaking about moral strictly, as weaknesses aside they're equally upright, well those are straight heroes, and Geats still has that too.

And as you bring up Squid Game there, I also gotta say that, someone like Ali is also morally white (approved as pure good too) - it is possible for a morally white person to unwillingly go against his beliefs and doing something wrong due to certain circumstances, like having limits when it comes to certain enemy like Ali punishing his boss. But yeah, one single/few wrongdoings won't make those kind of people morally grey, and oftentimes, a morally white character will be filled with remorse when they failed to adhere to their moral principles (this is also still used as a praise for their moral standings). Guess want to state that it's not only lighthearted shows that can have straight heroes, of which perhaps their can be overlooked in those shows only because no hard consequences.

Having a black and white view to immediately brand people as piece of shits for showing human error is a harsh appraisal, and not being good either. The kind of people who have this mindset are depicted as well-intentioned extremist villains in the fiction, such as Stain from MHA, if you'd think that the heroes that don't live up to your expectations (for even small things that feel wrong to you) can be lumped with actual bad people and deserve to be eliminated or purged (I mean if you think that those who "tolerate" them are being "too nice")... I kinda thought at first Kekera would be this kind of villain, if he's made bad, but actually it's a different one.

No just because someone has good intentions, it doesn't make them a good person. Actions first before characterization (though they also). Since joining the Jamatos, he has been doing whatever it takes, without caring much about the victims, only caring about the ends ("for the greater good") or at best, statistics ("the many") - that'd be a bad guy, well-intentioned extremist kind, many are like that in media, and other than that he was limited to showing some little standards. While it's not 100% evil, that'd fit anti-villain at best. He may be on the path for change now but below...

People's alignment can change, so someone having some good traits shouldn't be necessarily considered a good person overall, they won't be good unless they act on it, and if they keep it while being bad it'd be still only redeeming traits. While Keiwa was straight up good before, now he had heel turn, so regardless of what he did before, he is currently a bad guy (not 100% bad obviously), but he'd be turn good again if he had his redemption.

From here, they seems to be the type who measure heroism by how much suffering they get, as it seems that they have the belief of humans being fundamentally good, but it's used to downplay the good deeds if it doesn't torture themselves and make heroes stand out (yeah it often happens to make heroes stand out, and some did it to the point of dehumanizing them).

And here "pieces of shit" and "human errors"? It seems that you are again talking about some kind of general case, tying it to the topic. I literally wrote that I would not want to have such people next to me. These are deceivers, traitors, those who believe that a difficult situation is an excuse for morally controversial decisions. Would you like to? Being intimate with a person who lies about a sick child, when in fact he does not have enough money to go to a resort? No, you wouldn't. Moreover, even if he told the truth, you would no doubt lend him a resort, then after revealing the lie, you would still hasten to move away. Simply because you have lost confidence in him. So how, then, does the condescending attitude towards such behavior of characters differ from the same passion for villains? If I do not forgive such behavior to my brother, friend, colleague, then why should I put up with this in a fictional character? I didn?t call anyone ?pieces of shit?, but I?m not going to pretend that shitty deeds don`t stink either.
Plus, what kind of nonsense about elimination and purge? When I wrote about not wanting to be next to me, I meant moving away from them myself, because it’s easier that way. At this point, I should ask what made you think otherwise.
And about the claim, which is not a claim, but rather a remark that people vaguely imagine communicating with someone similar to Ace in real life. Because in fact, they would hate him after the slightest deceit. Again, remember all those who have deceived you with serious consequences. How do you feel about them? Did none of them have a good reason? Since we mentioned shit, it's like in the case of Amber Heard and Guardians of the Galaxy 2. In both cases, they shit in bed, but in the first, the audience is outraged, and in the second, they laugh and applaud. Because it's not real, which means it can't happen to them. As well as lovers of villains never put themselves in the place of their possible victims.
And about human error. A error is something that is done by accident or is recognized as wrong. One of the strongest arguments in favor of the reformed Gai Amatsu was that he apologized. Ace never apologized for anything, which means he thinks his actions are right. Moreover, these actions are considered right in the universe, because, although they do not directly admit it, other riders look up to Geats as the most experienced and successful player. So, until the show says otherwise (directly or indirectly), it still broadcasts the message: "Deception is the way to success." And in most cases, this idea is as far from the truth as possible, which I wrote above.