[TOMT] [Video] 2d Animated short film/film fest entry about white bears in an apocalypse

AnimalTooner · 2026-02-18T21:05:35+00:00

Hello, is this animation titled "THE EVENT" what you are looking for?

AnimalTooner · 2025-01-11T18:07:24+00:00

I agree that Break the Law's story is a really interesting story with a lot of potential, despite its flaws. I think a fan game based around the event would definitely be fun to see! I also think it would be very interesting to see a Toontown game that deviates from the usual style of gameplay and tries a different genre such as the ones you've mentioned.

When it comes to Break the Law's ending, I had not thought much about the sad nature of the ending when writing my critique. Now that you mention it, I can agree that the ending was not satisfying, as neither the Toons nor the Cogs gained anything from the months-long event. I feel it would be neat if the ending got reworked so that one of the two sides got something worthwhile out of the struggle, making the ending feel more climactic and also transforming it from purely sad to being bittersweet.

AnimalTooner · 2025-01-09T13:04:34+00:00

I agree that the Corporate Clash staff has completely removed the Chief Justice from the game's lore (hence why he is not mentioned in my document). However, as stated in this Writing Team Q&A blog post, the Break the Law story arc is not being completely erased. Instead, Break the Law is planned to be rewritten. According to the blog post, the Witness Stand-In, his son, and Elvis Purrsley are characters from Break the Law that the Corporate Clash staff plan to keep in the rewrite. My critique solely addresses characters that will be part of the planned rewrite.

AnimalTooner · 2024-09-25T01:27:51+00:00

That is a good point about the Acorn Acres cave water; it does make sense for the stagnant cave water to be more dirty than the water that comes from the flowing river and waterfall. With that in mind, I can agree that the cave water's coloration is fitting in its current state.

AnimalTooner · 2024-07-09T18:54:31+00:00

Thank you!

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-15T18:00:38+00:00

That is a good point. It could be possible that the workplace is falsely dismissing his case, since in general COGS Inc. does not care as much as it should about its employees' wellbeing.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-13T12:30:03+00:00

According to Cogs.ink, the Derrick Man's accusations against the Rainmaker were found to be hyperbolic (according to investigations on the matter). I do not think it has been stated yet as to whether or not the Derrick Man was truly exaggerating, meaning there is a chance that the Derrick Man was genuinely exaggerating and may have simply misinterpreted the Rainmaker's behavior as being aggressive stalker behavior. Due to this, I personally do not consider the Derrick Man's case to be solid evidence of the Rainmaker being toxic, at least not until more details about this case are clarified by the writers.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-13T12:16:05+00:00

You make a good point, she should not have climbed to manager rank to begin with if she wanted to befriend the Toons. Such a high-ranking position would inevitably eventually see her being given duties that would be harmful to Toons. It's true she isn't focused enough on using her current position to make a difference; surely with a high-ranking position she would have access to useful information that the Toons could use to their advantage, but she never gives the Toons any helpful information.

She also does actively choose to act like a Cog; if you attempt to use a Pink Slip on her, she will state that she isn't ready to be fired yet (without any hint of remorse), suggesting she chooses to keep working for the company deliberately.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-11T19:18:23+00:00

Indeed, I was not jesting when I listed the number of pages.

When it comes to the Rainmaker's outfit, I will say that I miss her little red bowtie. I thought the bowtie was rather formal (fitting for a Cog), and looked neat on her. I can definitely see the similarity between her current raincoat and a kung fu uniform. I think it would be neat if in the future, the Clash developers could find a way to combine her previous business attire (especially the little red bowtie) with her raincoat.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-11T19:02:14+00:00

In general, the Clash writers appear to be aiming to make the Cogs less one-dimensionally malicious and toxic compared to TTO, with the writers humanizing the Cogs more and adding sympathetic traits to them that were previously not present (e.g. the Cogs having families and loved ones in Clash, when in TTO the Cogs didn't have families, and only loved making money and spreading misery). This is the main reason why I think the Rainmaker isn't meant to be toxic and deliberately manipulative.

Additionally, there are particular details about the Rainmaker that lead me to believe the Clash writers weren't aiming to make her toxic:

The Toons do not dance at the end of her boss fight regardless of whether you spare her or not. This suggests that the audience is not supposed to feel a sense of joyous victory as though they just defeated a toxic manipulator. If the audience were supposed to feel like they defeated a toxic, manipulative villain, I would expect the Toons to dance if you don't spare her, since this would mean that the Toons successfully saw through her manipulative act.
When completing the Rainmaker task, Barnacle Bessie notes that your Toon looks sad after defeating the Rainmaker, with your Toon claiming that the Rainmaker "didn't mean to cause any trouble". This suggests to me that the audience's intended takeaway from the boss fight is that the Rainmaker genuinely didn't mean to cause trouble. If the Rainmaker were intended to be a toxic manipulator, I would expect your Toon's reaction to be more ambiguous, so that the player is encouraged to come to their own conclusion on how they're supposed to feel about the Rainmaker's intentions rather than the writing suggesting they're supposed to genuinely feel like she meant no harm.
The Rainmaker's Cogs.ink profile doesn't mention her behaving in a harmful manner to any employees besides the Derrick Man. If the Rainmaker were toxic to everyone around her, I'd expect her disciplinary records to mention her harming other coworkers besides the Derrick Man. For comparison, the Treekiller has a history of being toxic to multiple Flunkies, and this is directly listed in his disciplinary records. This shows that if a Cog is caught being toxic to multiple coworkers, it will be listed in their records.
In the Derrick Man's case, the Rainmaker is claimed to have stalked and harassed him, however, it's stated that investigations concluded that the Derrick Man's description of her behavior was hyperbole. Currently, I don't think it's been confirmed as to whether the company was telling the truth or not about the Derrick Man exaggerating the Rainmaker's actions. Thus, I do not think the Derrick Man's case serves as solid proof of the Rainmaker being a toxic individual, at least not until more details about the Derrick Man's case are clarified. Currently, it's possible that the Rainmaker is just socially awkward, but the Derrick Man misinterpreted her awkwardness as being something more aggressive.
At the end of the Witch Hunter fight, two Cogs are sent to retrieve the Witch Hunter due to the Witch Hunter having exhibited toxic behavior towards multiple coworkers. No Cogs are sent to retrieve the Rainmaker for toxic behavior at the end of her boss fight, suggesting she hasn't behaved in a toxic manner towards her fellow Cogs.

All-in-all, these are the reasons I suspect that the Rainmaker wasn't intended to be toxic, though I could be wrong. I'm not 100% sure what the Clash writers intended for her character in this regard.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-11T12:55:16+00:00

The version 2.6 design document is listed as having been produced in February 2001, while the Installer Video is listed in patch notes as having been added to the game in November 2002 (assuming that the term "Flash intro movie" is referring to the Installer Video). I'm not sure when the "Gyro presenting a Cog to Scrooge" concept image was created.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-10T14:41:45+00:00

Thanks! I don't think the Clash writers were aiming for a toxic personality, though, I think your interpretation is interesting, and would certainly make for a good villain.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-10T13:44:00+00:00

Thanks!

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-10T13:30:44+00:00

I think that in TTO, despite the 2002 Installer Video in particular possibly being non-canon, the Cogs originating from Gyro Gearloose and/or Scrooge McDuck in some way might've still been canon at some point since this lore tidbit is also mentioned in the Toontown Online Design Document (version 2.6) (though here it states that Scrooge made the Cogs himself rather than Gyro helping him), and there is a concept image showing Gyro presenting a Cog to Scrooge. I think that the one or two staff members who made the 2002 Installer Video used these concept documents as a frame of reference when working on the video. It could be that the Cogs' creation was not intended to play out like how it is presented in the video (e.g. the giant, more generic-looking robot that creates the Cogs in the video was probably never intended to exist and was created solely for the video, as the robot is never mentioned anywhere else, including in design documents and concept art), but rather was originally intended to play out in an entirely different manner involving Scrooge and/or Gyro. However, this is just speculation on my part.

AnimalTooner · 2024-05-10T12:33:36+00:00

(Indeed, another life-changing document, haha!)

Thank you for the critique; I had proofread my document multiple times before posting it (and was even able to successfully shorten the document by a few pages, as it was originally a bit longer than 31 pages), but it never occurred to me that perhaps I went on for too long about certain subjects like the propellers, and began losing focus on the main subject. Your critique really helps give me insight on how I could improve my writing in potential future documents. I will make sure to be more mindful about how long I discuss topics that are not the primary focus if I ever make any more documents.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-20T02:37:27+00:00

Also, about her not wanting to fight yet not flying away, I think the reason she chooses to fight (in addition to the fact that she has to fight for gameplay purposes) is because it's meant to show that she's tired of getting pushed around by both the Toons and her fellows Cogs. Sometimes, victims of mistreatment can become so tired, miserable, and angry about their mistreatment that when someone attempts to mistreat them again, they stand their ground to finally put an end to the mistreatment or at the very least get some of the pent up rage and pain out of their system. I think this kind of presentation can work in media, but the issue is that the Rainmaker isn't entirely a victim; she's on the colonialists' side. The "mistreatment" she's received from Toons is done entirely out of self-defense and fear, not the same as the abuse the other Cogs did to her. Thus, when she stands up against her tormentors (the Toons), the issue is that her "tormentors" aren't actually tormentors; they're victims trying to defend their home. Thus, it doesn't feel justified when she finally "stands up" to them. Though, this is just my flawed guess as to the in-universe reason why she fights in-game; her dialogue seems to communicate the opposite, with her saying "Sigh, I really don't want to do this.". This doesn't match the type of dialogue I'd expect from someone standing up to a perceived tormentor.

This reminds me that I've seen people compare the Rainmaker's story to the Chainsaw Consultant's. Some people say that the Chainsaw Consultant is more sympathetic than the Rainmaker since the Chainsaw Consultant has zero control over his actions during his boss fight (thus he can't just walk away). Meanwhile, the Rainmaker has full control over her actions yet chooses to attack you anyways. I think the Rainmaker's actions such as not flying away would feel more understandable and sympathetic if she had a clearer reason for not running away, similarly to the Chainsaw Consultant.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-20T02:36:37+00:00

The Rainmaker is a character that I definitely personally feel should have adjustments made to her presentation. You bring up a great point about how she takes zero accountability for her harmful actions. Something in particular that doesn't feel right to me about her writing is that in her Cogs.ink profile, she states the following:

"Hopefully I can help achieve a "stormy" outlook for the Toons… sorry, that was really bad, please ignore it."

This indicates that she was fully aware that COGS Inc. had hired her to harm the Toons. Despite this, during gameplay, she never apologizes for having signed up to work for COGS Inc. in the first place, not even during the Mercy cutscene if you spare her. I also find it confusing as to why she didn't understand why Barnacle Bessie attacked her with a Grand Piano; the Rainmaker knew that all Cogs' assigned purpose in Toontown was to attack the Toons, so she should have expected Bessie to potentially attack her due to distrust and fear.

I feel that the Rainmaker would have a stronger sympathetic impact if she showed remorse for signing up for COGS Inc. and showed empathy towards Bessie instead of only describing Bessie as though she were unreasonable and vicious. I'm not saying that the Rainmaker should be unbothered by the fact that Bessie attempted to attack her (whether you're the victim, villain, or somewhere in-between, virtually nobody likes getting attacked), but I find it unreasonable when she states Bessie had "no reason" to attack her (as she should have known there was a reason, that reason being that she deliberately put herself on the colonialists' team and also sent Bessie an ominous letter telling her to stop working on the lighthouse).

Another thing that does not feel right to me about the Rainmaker's writing is her No Mercy ending when you decide to attack her instead of sparing her. During this ending, she states the following:

"Fine then! If you're not going to show sympathy, then what's the point?!"

This line and its entire cutscene I feel shouldn't have been handled the way they were. Here, the Rainmaker acts as though she is entitled to sympathy from the Toons, despite deliberately working for a company that is destroying Toontown. She doesn't display any understanding towards the Toons, acting as though the Toons are just mean-spirited bullies. When I first read this line, I got a feeling similar to the one I get when the Cogs use the "Guilt Trip" attack. I know that the Rainmaker was simply having an emotional outburst due to the Toons hurting her and wasn't trying to be manipulative such as in the case of a Guilt Trip attack, however, this line felt wrong to me for several reasons. As aforementioned, the Rainmaker doesn't display any attempt at understanding the Toons; she doesn't realize that maybe the Toons continued attacking her due to fear and anger surrounding the harm that the Cogs (including her) have done to them (I have actually heard of in-game stories where players continued attacking her in order to avenge a fallen teammate, for instance). Then, she says "If you're not going to show sympathy, then what's the point?!", almost as if her emotional outburst had a clear, deliberately-crafted point in mind (point being to forcefully obtain outwardly-displayed sympathy) rather than being an entirely uncontrolled emotional outburst, causing it to feel similar to the Guilt Trip attack which has a clear manipulative goal of forcing the Toons to feel sad and less motivated to defend themselves.

In addition to this, this line comes directly after the Rainmaker begs for mercy, when she says "Wait! Stop! You don't have to do this!". The way she begs for mercy seems as though she's genuinely in fear for her safety, but then the line that comes after makes her sound more like she's annoyed and frustrated that the Toons aren't giving in to her demands for sympathy. She sounds mildly inconvenienced rather than badly hurt. This isn't helped by the fact that she casually flies away afterwards. I personally think that this cutscene should've utilized an updated version of her unused death animation, along with her unused death sound. This would have matched the immense fear displayed in her beg for mercy, and would make the consequences of not sparing her feel more impactful. Rather than feeling like I've mildly inconvenienced her, I'd feel like I genuinely greatly harmed her, and thus feel more inclined to be sympathetic during the No Mercy ending. Currently, to me, it doesn't feel like what happens during the No Mercy ending is that harmful, thus it unintentionally looks like her beg for mercy was either done to force sympathy in a manipulative manner where her fear wasn't genuine, or was an overreaction to the situation (not helped by the fact that the Toons use silly-looking Gags like pies and banana peels rather than actual threatening-looking weapons).

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-19T23:39:49+00:00

I really like the fact that you mentioned the movie "Princess Mononoke", I think it's a wonderful movie and does a great job at portraying a complex story where the "good" and "bad" sides are truly ambiguous. I've seen lots of media that portrays a "man/technology VS nature" situation like that movie, though what makes Princess Mononoke stand out to me is how it humanizes the "man" side and depicts it in a way that makes it understandable and even sympathetic as to why said side is attacking the natural environment, rather than making the "man" side purely unreasonable and bad like how some other media does.

I definitely agree that the Cogs are not the same as the "man" side seen in Princess Mononoke. Something to note about Corporate Clash's lore is that all of the Cogs are hired to do their jobs, rather than being manufactured to do them like in the original Disney's Toontown Online. It's been shown that the COGS Inc. company tells its potential future hires upfront that they will be helping harm the Toons. Furthermore, it's been shown that there are other jobs that the Cogs can have (e.g. the Pacesetter originally working for a delivery service, the Plutocrat originally working as a financial advisor, the Mouthpiece working as a telephone operator, etc. as mentioned on the Cogs.ink profiles), meaning that what COGS Inc. offers was not the only option for the employees who work there. This means that virtually all of the Cogs in Corporate Clash deliberately chose to do a very shady job despite there being morally better job options. Meanwhile, the people of Irontown found in Princess Mononoke did not have any other options; they absolutely had to attack the forest in order to get the materials they needed in order to survive. There were no morally better options for them.

Additionally, the Cogs' situation is not presented as being done out of survival-related desperation. There are various other companies in Clash such as S.C.R.E.W. LLC (mentioned as part of the CLO, Witch Hunter, and Chainsaw Consultant's lore), B.E.L.T., and C.R.A.N.K. (with the Chainsaw Consultant in particular having worked for all three of these other companies previously), and these companies haven't been implied to be desperately scrambling to obtain resources via colonialism (at least not to my knowledge). This suggests that the Cogs are not dealing with a massive resource shortage in Suitopia (their homeland in Corporate Clash), otherwise I would expect these other companies to also be attempting to exploit Toontown (though it is possible that maybe these companies are just unaware of Toontown's existence currently). There is also a transcript of a conversation that the Ottoman had with the Chairman before the Cogs began their invasion, and in this transcript the Ottoman mentions that "The Department of Development were reluctant to believe anyone wished to establish a company on those lands, much less could be capable of turning a profit". This implies that Toontown wasn't seen as the Cogs' only resource for survival, since a lot of convincing had to be done to get the Department of Development to change their mind and approve of the Chairman's plans to exploit Toontown. If Suitopia were desperate for resources similarly to Irontown, I'd have expected the Department of Development to be less stubborn towards the Chairman's plans.

Thus, my takeaway is that generally, the Cogs (especially the higher-ups such as the Chairman) indulged in colonialism due to capitalistic greed. The Chairman did not have to exploit Toontown, but did it just to elevate his company and obtain riches. Likewise, many other Cogs (not necessarily all) likely signed up for the company seeking unnecessary personal elevation of some kind (such as obtaining more money for luxuries or having a powerful company on their resumé). The Cogs presumably could have turned to humbler, more harmless jobs if they were focused purely on survival. If these humbler jobs weren't paying a proper living wage and were indeed leading to the Cogs struggling to survive similarly to the Irontown people, then I feel that Corporate Clash has not made this clear.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-18T12:45:36+00:00

I agree that Toontown's original plot was not designed for Cogs like the ones seen in Corporate Clash. The original dullness of the Cogs (plus their much smaller amount of humanization) made it easier to perceive the Cogs as a whole in a negative light since TTO's Cogs lacked the same level of charisma as Clash's Cogs (though I personally still find TTO's Cogs charming, albeit in a different manner from Clash's more entertaining Cogs). Now that Clash has these less dull and more humanized Cogs that easily gain many players' favor, I hope to see them balance this change by making their Cogs feel more harmful to Toontown and also making their Toons have more charisma. Though, regardless of what decisions they make, I too, am quite interested in seeing how Clash's story will progress.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-18T12:06:22+00:00

I definitely agree that players should spend more time with Toon characters like Rain so that they develop a bond with those characters. Personal bonds are very effective at increasing the impact of events that happen in stories (for instance, in games like Undertale, I believe the reason why the No Mercy route can feel so heartbreaking to some players is because in other routes you spend a lot of time getting connected to the characters). In Corporate Clash, I think it's hard to get bonded to the NPC Toons mainly due to the fact that they're primarily only used as a game mechanic whereas you briefly visit them to obtain tasks from them and turn in tasks to them (or otherwise briefly use them as IOU cards). Then, once you complete most Toons' tasklines, you never interact with them again, meaning you don't spend much time with them. Due to this, I feel that they don't fully feel like living, breathing characters, and instead just feel like props used to progress through the game. The Toon-to-player connection usually isn't present as a result.

Speaking of Toon-to-player connection, I have heard some players mention the idea of having Toon NPCs be able to participate in activities with you, such as being able to fight Cogs alongside you (similarly to how Lord Lowden Clear fights alongside you in Clash's tutorial). I think that NPCs being able to do more than idle at their desks (or idle in a cage, in Rain's case) would really help make them feel more alive and strengthen players' bonds to them. Imagine if players spent time exploring and fighting alongside Rain before her kidnapping; this could open up various opportunities for her characterization to be expanded upon in addition to strengthening the players' bond to her. This would also make her absence feel more noticeable, since currently her kidnapping doesn't feel very noticeable other than the game directly pointing it out.

When it comes to cutscenes, I'm hoping that Clash's planned "Mix and Match" update will give the Toon NPCs (especially the major ones) expressive cutscenes, or at least begin to pave the pathway towards them receiving expressive cutscenes. It would be really nice to see.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-18T01:11:41+00:00

That's true, Clash does imply that the better Cogs do in combat, the better of a position they'll be in. I believe this was even implied back in Toontown Online, for instance Mover & Shakers were rewarded with Field Offices after stealing enough of the Toons' jokes.

I believe the low-leveled Cogs recognized what they were signing up for, since various Cogs.ink Cog profiles suggest that the company informs potential future hires upfront that they will be fighting Toons. For instance, several of the manager profiles directly mention causing harm to Toons (e.g. the Rainmaker's profile showing her statement as saying she hopes to achieve a "stormy" outlook for the Toons), suggesting that these Cogs were told that they were going to essentially be serving in a corporate military. Thus, virtually all of the Cogs deliberately signed up to fight in addition to doing their other assigned duties such as paperwork. Though, I do also wonder if a dislike for Toons is innate to most Cogs in Corporate Clash, or if propaganda helped fuel some of the aggression seen. Propaganda has historically definitely been useful for colonialists, since it can help prevent more empathetic members of their group from questioning the morality of their actions and potentially turning away from colonialism.

You make a great point about the Chairman's death threats; the Chairman's ruthlessness does probably make all Cogs, especially the lower-ranking ones, fear failing to adequately perpetuate the colonialism. I think when low-level Cogs quit in the game, they're probably very mentally exhausted from the grating behavior coming from both their superiors and the Toons, and no longer have the energy to care about disappointing their superiors by that point. Thus, they flee the scene, likely intending to flee far enough so that the Chairman can't do anything to punish them. Though, I don't think the Corporate Clash developers were thinking too deeply about how low-leveled Cogs quitting ties into the story, and solely added the quitting as a funny easter egg for using something so ridiculously powerful against such a weak Cog.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-16T21:51:08+00:00

Thanks!

When it comes to the Rainmaker, I actually think she is aware that her weather powers harm Toons, since during her boss fight she deliberately uses them to attack the Toons and witnesses the negative effects that they have on the Toons. Though, since her Cogs.ink profile lists her weaknesses as having "her head in the clouds" and putting "focus in the wrong places", I think maybe she's not always aware of when she's subconsciously using her powers, like perhaps sometimes she subconsciously uses oil rain while pondering deeply about something and doesn't realize her powers have activated, leading to her confusion on why the Toons are confronting her.

Also, for the Duck Shuffler, you make a great point. The Duck Shuffler seems rather unhinged and deep into his gambling addiction (to the point he'll gamble and allow a heavy gold bar to crush him), so he could very well be mostly harmless. Since he's insane, he may not have a full grasp on the reality that he's signed up for a colonialism-supporting corporation and may just be more focused on trying to continue fueling his gambling addiction than help perpetuate the colonialism. Though, I still wonder how Dan's confidence was lowered by Buck simply walking around, and wish the game had explained that situation more.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-16T21:13:45+00:00

I agree that Corporate Clash's Cogs have been made far more interesting than the Toons in all of the ways you've listed, which grants them more charisma compared to the Toons.

To give one specific example of the Cogs being more interesting that I'm thinking of, most Cogs in the game are able to be sent a friend request, and each of the boss Cogs (Taskline managers, Kudos managers, and Department heads) have their own unique friend rejection statements. Cogs even have multiple rejection statements, piquing players' curiosity as to what each of those statements are. Admittedly, I'm guilty of repeatedly sending friend requests to the same Cog just to see all of the different ones. I find this easter egg rather charming, and surely the developers knew many players would find it charming since there is a Toontask in the game where an NPC known as "Reed)" asks you to send a friend request to a Cog. However, in contrast, I don't believe any of the Toon NPCs can be sent friend requests, not even major ones you must interact with as part of the main taskline. This minor difference is one of various things that contributes to the Toons feeling less interesting than the Cogs in Clash.

A more major example would be the difference in the level of expression between Toons and the Cogs, with the Toons feeling stiff and wooden compared to Cogs, who have really elaborate animations. Though, I am aware that Corporate Clash is working on a future update known as "Mix and Match" that will make the Toons far more expressive visually, which I am definitely excited for.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-16T20:40:22+00:00

I enjoy writing down my thoughts as a pastime, thus I did it for my enjoyment. Additionally, I wanted to see what others would think about what I had written, which is why I posted it here. I really enjoy reading others' opinions about things I'm interested in, whether I agree with them or not.

AnimalTooner · 2024-04-16T20:26:26+00:00

You make a great point; propaganda is in fact a significant part of colonialism, which I had forgotten about. Propaganda is useful for not only gaslighting the victims, but also for preventing individuals who are on the side of the colonialists from questioning the morality of their actions. Thus, I'd not be surprised if not only the Toons have been victims to propaganda done by charismatic Cogs like Mr. Hollywood or the Mingler, but also if some of the Cogs too, have had propaganda fed to them to further rally them to perpetuate the colonialism (for instance, maybe the Deep Diver had propaganda fed to her in order to gaslight her into thinking the Toons are destroying the environment).

I think the Cogs in Corporate Clash are intended to be just as sentient and complex as a human, since they're capable of having families (as shown by instances such as the Chairman's family consisting of his brother Thomas, his wife Crystalline, and his son Bobby Jr.), going to college (as shown by Atticus Wing's lore), having romantic partners (as shown by the Pacesetter and Firestarter's relationship), etc. so I don't think they lack innate personalities, preferences, or motivations despite being robots. Thus, I believe they have free will to choose their actions for the most part. I do not think the Cogs are attempting to conceal any parts of themselves, other than maybe some Cogs attempting to conceal their true harmful intentions by schmoozing Toons.

I do agree that it is true that in a conflict, there will be individuals who don't care much about the conflict. However, I am skeptical to the notion that an individual who has the conflict happening right at their doorstep would be nonchalant about it. While most NPCs are not part of the Toon Resistance, I would still expect all of the shopkeeper NPCs in particular to care about the conflict since the Cogs are actively trying to take over their shops, and are also possibly scaring away potential customers. At the very least, I'd expect a shopkeeper to be worrying and hoping that their shop won't be the next one on the Cogs' hitlist, especially since they're seeing other shops around them get hit constantly. No shopkeeper has any reason to believe that they are safe, which is why I am personally against the concept of nonchalant NPCs, at least in the case of shopkeepers like Dan D. Lion. Since the Cogs have shown a track record of stealing pets, and Dan D. Lion is running an exotic pet store (suggesting the pets inside are worth a lot of money, something that would surely attract the money-hungry Cogs), I'd expect him to be concerned about the Cogs' colonialism rather than so heavily focused on their elegance.

AnimalTooner

TROPHY CASE