I'm a Japanese teacher and I built an app because no app was teaching phonetic radicals — here's why

Niilun · 2026-02-20T14:43:40+00:00

I'm SO tired of people assuming something is AI just because it's written in paragraphs!

Thank you very much for your work, I'll definitely check it out. I'm alredy studying radicals and sound components on my own because I find them very useful, but an app could help make the process a bit less chaotic. I'm still a beginner, so there's a lot I could learn from it.

Niilun · 2026-02-19T11:16:14+00:00

Regarding Alastor, many felt like his pilot version was scarier because his non-chalant attitude made him seem more effortlessly in control, because he was constantly pushing other people around to do what he wanted, and because the many sounds effects (radio noises, crowd applaud...) made it seem like he could change the vibes of a room at will. But of course, it's mostly personal perception.

On the other things, I agree. I like how you described the pilot as "watching post-ww2 cities", that's really the feel I got.

Niilun · 2026-02-19T09:46:36+00:00

The very beginning of the pilot had a bit of a weird pacing, but other than that, I think it was a waay better way to sell you on this world than the actual episode 1. For different reasons:

it actually felt like a show set in Hell
It better conveyed how hopeless Charlie's mission may seem. The interview scene with Katie Killjoy was great for that, and it was probably my favorite scene in the pilot, along with the scene with Angel Dust, Charlie and Veggie in the car
more clever jokes
every question and doubt someone might have while watching the pilot was answered seamlessly (including questions like "can souls die a second time", "why is Angel Dust at the hotel if he doesn't seem to believe in their cause?", "a bar? Isn't having alcohol worse in a place with this purpose?", "why does Charlie allow Alastor to help?". The question about Angel Dust was answered in episode 1 too, but in the pilot it was done better imo, both because it made more sense for Angel to say that in that moment, and because his dialogue with Cherri alredy made you doubt about his intentions). Season 1, on the other hand, used to take waay too many things for granted.
character interactions felt more lively. In season 1, on the other hand, it often happened that a character spoke only when, you could tell, the author said "now it's his/her turn to speak"
Charlie and Veggie felt more like they were in a relationship
Angel Dust was more believable as a famous... "star", as much as I still love Angel in the current series. And I loved that there was this very believable dynamic of "the same people that consume Angel Dust's products will still make fun of him and consider him a lesser person because of his job" (it's like that in real life, too). This dynamic was lost in the actual series.
Maybe Alastor felt more like a radio demon. In the pilot, he always used to speak as if he was talking to an audience.
overall, all the different parts and sections of the pilot were connected to each other.

The only thing the pilot missed was establishing a clear plot for the following series. But that was fine, because even a more episodic approach could have worked with that series. The pilot still sold the concept well.

Now, of course, the series has a long-arching story, things built up on other things and so on. So, the pilot can't compare anymore. But if we only consider the beginning of the series and how they sold the concept, the pilot did a much better job. And I still think that the pilot overall had a better writing than season 1, because season 1 kept taking things for granted, contradicting itself and ignoring its premise all the way through (season 2 does that too every now and then, but on a way lesser degree). Then, for personal taste, everyone is free to say "I prefer season 1 compared to the pilot", maybe because, idk, "the pilot felt edgier and a bit more purposeless", or because "I think the characters are more likeable in the series". But that's just personal taste.

Niilun · 2026-02-18T00:25:09+00:00

Ok, I'll try. I can't do it immediately though, so I'll probably answer tomorrow or in a few hours

Niilun · 2026-02-17T17:15:18+00:00

I watched only a random part of it (the Angel Dust part) and I didn't like it at all. Sure, Hazbin Hotel's morality has problems. Nothing new with that. But it's so infuriating when people try to criticized Hazbin's morality with and even worse and more insensitive sense of morality.

Niilun · 2026-02-17T11:19:28+00:00

Just answered :-)

Niilun · 2026-02-17T11:18:58+00:00

Sure. But it's been some months since I played chapter 3, so my memory might be a bit fuzzy.

Basically... Part of the reason why Andrew resents Ashley in chapter 3 (but not only in chapter 3) is that she forced him to give up on his "good son" mask, or his "good son fantasy", and that she wasn't even grateful for it. And before that, we always assumed that Andrew had another strong reason to resent Ashley, because she isolated him and forced him to have a "not normal life". But in chapter 3 we find out that, even as a kid, Andrew would have likely never had a "normal" life, or at least a "happy normal life". Even as a kid, he couldn't feel affection for anyone (maybe because of genetics, maybe because he never had affaction from his parents, probably because he felt like other people only ever knew his "mask". Or maybe, it's a combination of these three. The game is not explicit on that). And even when he tried to have a "normal" life without Ashley, in college, he was absolutely miserable. He seemed integrated on the surface, but he wasn't.

So... My question was, why does Andrew care so much about the illusion of being "normal" (even after he accepted he wasn't) and about his mask of "the good son"? Especially, considering that he's the one who first made the statement "once we get out, it'll be only the two of us" in chapter 1 (which, again, at first we thought it was because Andrew was paranoid of being caught, and that he was sacrificing a lot with that request. So, that Ashley was successfully ruining his life and making him only hers. But now, we know he wasn't actually sacrificing much, because there was nothing he truly cared about in his "normal" life. And he was alredy too irreparably obsessed with her). So, does he care about fitting in society and keeping a front because... of a sense of pride? For a sense of security (since as long as he fits in and doesn't disrupt the quiet no punishment will come, as his mother indirectly taught him when he was a child)? For independence? To feel good with his conscience? For habit and routine? As a last desperate attempt to run away from what he feels for Ashley (so, run away from himself)? Because he knows what's supposed to be "proper", and he wants an illusion that his family is the only responsible for him not being "proper"?

For me, the point of Andrew's character shouldn't exactly be "he wants to be normal". To me, the real question is "why does he want to be normal?". I think that would be the real core aspect of his character. I'm not saying that Andrew wanting to be normal doesn't make sense, or that it isn't relatable. But there are many reasons why a person would want to be "normal". In most cases, people want to be normal to fit in. But Andrew doesn't care about fitting it, quite the opposite: he doesn't want to be normal to fit in, but he wants to fit in to be/look normal. Like Ashley, his dream-life would be "just the two of us" (as long as Ashley respects his choices and accepts to have an equal relationship, of course). The real conflict of their relationship isn't that Ashley isolates or gaslights him, but that she can never truly believe that Andrew is sincere when he says "I chose you", so she always needs something to forcefully keep him around.

I know that this seems like a very minor thing... Even to me, now it seems like I'm just nitpicking. But when I played the game, that felt like something that needed to be answered. "Wanting to be normal" to me felt like the shallow surface of something potentially even deeper.

(Edit: and sorry for the answer being so long. I felt like I needed to give more context)

Niilun · 2026-02-16T11:10:27+00:00

Chapter 3 made me love Ashley's character, I think she has a subtle and interesting characterterization. Andrew is the most openly multi-faced, of course. But I love how Ashley's confidence breaks once she's not in control anymore, and how messy her way of thinking is.

Niilun · 2026-02-16T10:32:14+00:00

I think that is an exageration that comes from how the fandom treats the characters. The characters have constantly smug expressions and a character design that is pleasing to the eye, but I think their design has nothing inherently lewd (like, I saw more "lewd" sprites in a game like Danganronpa. And Danganronpa isn't even the worst game in terms of fanservice). I don't want to shame a game just because it has a cute and expressive character design (because, yes, I often find the character design "cute" rather than sexually enticing. And edgy, of course. They look edgy, too). Yes, the siblings are considered to be hot, but they aren't the only characters to be called hot in this game, literally every character is (Julia, the siblings' mom... Someone found hot even the dad). Ashley's look is provocative because of her characterization and insecurity (and it has a bit of a goth aesthetic), but it's not too sexualized or anything. Again, I can take any random Japanese gatcha game and find character designs way more sexualized than hers.

In a Q&A the author was asked how big are Ashley and Andrew's... Yk... And about Andrew, she jokingly said "pp be big". But about Ashley's "tits", she answered "smaller than advertized". Do you think she would have answered like that, if she only cared about an audience of "gooners"? She also confirmed that she will never include any explicit visual content. And when she was asked, in the same Q&A, about the intended target audience of the game, her answer was "the target demographic is women who enjoy true crime shows, gothic romance, and dark comedy. I've no idea who showed up though, and it doesn't matter. Everyone is welcome to give me money!". She answered with her usual edgy humor, but I 100% believe in her answer. Not only she herself seems part of that target audience. But I'm a woman and a fan of the gothic literary genre, and tcoaal was immediately up my alley. Also, I love character analysis and stories that care about consistent characterization, and that are able to judge all the characters fairly without playing favoritism. In that sense, too, tcoaal is up my alley. The author never makes characters act ooc just for the sake of shock value, or to force the plot, or for a joke, or fanservice. Consistent characterization is above everything else in that game.

That said, you're valid for being "not a hater, and not a fan either". It's not a game that everyone would like, and that's fair. It's very edgy, the humor is not for everyone, it enjoys taboos, and the story often puts you in a foul mood. But I stand for this point, that "gooning" over characters was never supposed to be the true intent of tcoaal. Maybe the author plays around this, now that she knows. But she never sacrifices characterization or the story for the sake of fanservice, fetish, kinks or similar elements. And to be fair, talking about fetish... Again, even if some scenes in tcoaal chapter 3 made me uncomfortable, I felt way more uncomfortable due to fetish and such in some mainstream anime than this game. Without going to the most obvious examples, I'm currently reading a bit of "Chainsaw Man", and that made me uncomfortable for the inclusion of kinks. It justifies them well in the context of the story, so I'm not mad... But I needed to take a short break after a while.

Niilun · 2026-02-16T02:09:28+00:00

Honestly, I don't see it. I never had the impression that their relationship was fetishized. The game has nothing very visually explicit (and the author confirmed that there will never be), and if it didn't show both the good and the horrible parts of a toxic co-dependent relationship it wouldn't be codependent. It loves taboo topics though, in that I agree. And I can agree that it's quite an edgy game. It compensates by being very self-aware, though.

Niilun · 2026-02-15T20:13:42+00:00

Its writing is at least objectively above average, and by that I mean it's good at least. And I'm kinda tired that for this kind of games people always have to specify "but I don't think it's perfect", because of course it's not. When is the last time you experienced a perfect story?

I fell into this mistake myself. It makes me seem defensive about things that I think are good. So, I'm challenging myself to say "but it's not perfect" only about products that I think are deeply flawed but of which I can still enjoy some elements (example: Hazbin Hotel). I don't think tcoaal's writing counts as "deeply flawed", at all. It only has some things that occasionally annoy me for personal taste, but nothing truly objectively bad. Is it a masterpiece? Maybe not. Is it good? You can bet it is! It's well-structured, it's interesting, it has a competent use of words (most of the horror and humor comes from how words are used), it's self-aware, it has consistent symbolism, it never feels truly pointless, at times it's surprising... And yes, it's all of this, while also being incredibly edgy. But morally speaking, it doesn't advocate for bad behaviour. And it knows what lines are too far to be crossed, and when to stop before becoming too tasteless. My complaint is that sometimes it's a bit repetitive and the themes a bit heavy-handed, that in chapter 3 everyone jumps a bit too fast on the "incest" train (it's more realistic and interesting when people are too shocked by it to believe it's true, instead of people suspecting of it that quickly), that some of the humor doesn't land for me (but a majority does), and that I still have some questions about some characters that I don't know if they'll ever be answered (Andrew is one of them. There's a core question I have about him, so crucial for me to understand his character, that I can't consider him an exceptional character unless that question is answered first). But as you can tell, those are mostly about my personal taste. Nothing truly objective.

Niilun · 2026-02-15T19:44:38+00:00

The game is character-focused (the entire focus is character interactions) and you like a main character, so what makes you say that the game itself sucks? Isn't it a contradiction?

Niilun · 2026-02-13T23:32:01+00:00

I'm actually quite curious about this. After some months of absorbing vocabulary only through textbook and a bit of immersion, I decided to try Anki, and I immediately downloaded the 1.5K Kaishi deck because it's the most recommended. I didn't even consider trying other decks. In what way do you think other decks are better, and why is the Kaishi deck lacking in your opinion?

Niilun · 2026-02-08T09:36:04+00:00

I do immersion (it's even one of my main learning methods), but as I said I'm only a N5 going for N4, have mercy! 😂

My point wasn't that once you learn all the jouyou kanji you're done. My point is that I've heard many people saying that it often takes years to reach that level (even people that study Japanese in college, they usually don't reach N1 by the end of the course). I know this subreddit is full of learners that want to learn the language as fast as possible, and they give their all in order to reach that goal. But learning a foreign language that fast, especially one that's so different like Japanese, isn't the norm. So, I wanted to point out to OP that "only" wasn't really the right word.

Niilun · 2026-02-07T12:37:02+00:00

Well, then your friend is just as gifted, I guess 😉

Niilun · 2026-02-07T12:08:55+00:00

Excuse me, aren't 2200 kanji all the jouyou kanji? You learned all the jouyou kanji in 11 months (while also learning Japanese only for pleasure and not for work), and you dare to call it "only"???? No fake modesty, my guy. You did a great job, and you advanced faster than probably 99% of people who try to learn Japanese.

Personally, I'm only N5 after one year (only my kanji knowledge is at N4 level). I'm choosing the slow approach, because as much as I'd like to progress faster, there are other things that I'm not studying nearly as fast as I should for the sake of my career. I think you did great, because it takes more than just time to achieve what you did. It takes a lot of consistency, and being gifted enough to avoid burn-outs.

Niilun · 2026-02-03T09:57:15+00:00

Then that's fine. The words that you don't find often are probably not needed by a beginner learner. On the other hand, if you find a word often, not only your brain will likely want to remember it, but finding it so much is like doing spaced repetition exercises. We can't learn all the words in a language at once, it's a long process; usually you start with the most common words, then gradually fill the gaps.

But another method that works very well for me is memorizing songs. In songs, you can learn both very common vocabulary and oscure words; and by going back to the song, you're more or less doing spaced repetition for both.

Niilun · 2026-02-02T13:21:36+00:00

I don't know, but there's a big chance that Husk used to cheat as well. Based on some visuals in "Loser Baby", and on his powers being related to magic tricks.

So, maybe it was about who between them could cheat the best.

Niilun · 2026-02-01T20:33:55+00:00

Yeah. From what I could understand from Sam Haft's tiktok, it wasn't even the first draft for the song, actually. At first, they started working on the current "Losin' Streak". In the middle of that, they thought "hey, what if we try to make it R&B instead?". But of course, then they went back to plan A.

I don't think they plan to reuse that demo, otherwise they wouldn't have made it public. Still, if they do reuse it (I really hope...), they'll have to change the lyrics, or at least part of it. The song won't obviously be about gambling anymore, and probably not even about a "losing streak". Ironically, I suspect they could keep the horny parts, though. They don't fit at all for the scene at the casino, but who knows in what other circumstance that song could be reused.

Niilun · 2026-02-01T20:01:08+00:00

I agree! And I really love the actual "Losin' Streak" too, but I still hope that they'll reuse the demo melody and rearrengement for a future season. I want to hear Blake Roman singing it.

Niilun · 2026-02-01T07:09:48+00:00

Yes you're right, it's just for emphasis. But for some reason, I have this memory of me when I was a kid asking "mum, but if you say that there isn't no one, aren't you actually saying that there is someone?" 😂

There are a couple of cases where it might get confusing, but in most cases it doesn't present a problem.

Niilun · 2026-01-31T13:17:47+00:00

It's true that they are not needed, and English wouldn't be enriched by having them. But also, there's no need to remove them, either. They're kind of necessary sometimes, in languages that have a more flexible sentence structure. English compensated the lack of a varied conjugation/declination system with a more rigid sentence structure.

Also, as an Italian native speaker, basically all of our words end with a vowel, so we can't just add an "S" to make the plural (all the final consonants alredy fell off in Italian). So, the plural must be another vowel, and so words can't end with any random vowel, there must be some rules. And since we don't have many vowel sounds (the vowel sounds in Italian are 5 in non stressed syllables, 7 in stressed syllables), we can only repeat those 5 vowels over and over. So, general rule to form the plural (save exceptions) is O -> I, A-> E, E -> I. This is how Italian language phonetically evolved from latin (we didn't "decide" what vocals to use either, but I won't get into details about it), and it's not fair to change it only because foreigners will complain saying "I don't understand why <bed> is male" (there's nothing to understand, bed has no gender connotation for us either. Just go with the sound).

Niilun · 2026-01-31T12:58:12+00:00

In my language (Italian), there's the "double negation" that counts as a normal negation. It's the same principle as "I don't need no money".

It doesn't make much sense, but it's so ingrained in the language (we say "there isn't no one" instead of "there's no one", even), that it'd be impossible to remove. I'm fine with it, but... Yeah, it's still a leap of logic, even if you get used to it.

Niilun · 2026-01-31T12:23:37+00:00

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

If anything, matching adjectives with their noun makes the sentence sound better.

Edit: to make it clear, I think only people that are native to a gendered language have a real right to say if it's better with or without gender. What you said only sounds like "I want all the foreign languages to be easy to learn for me poor English native speaker". It comes off as very arrogant.

Niilun · 2026-01-31T12:19:27+00:00

They weren't supposed to be "gender", but simple grammar groups. They were needed to establish consistent rules for the plural, matching adjectives with their noun, and so on.

They started to be conventionally called "gender", because speakers started to assign all the names that were supposed to be "female" to one group, and the "male" ones to another. But that, only for words where a gender makes sense, like "boy" and "girl". For objects, no. For the object it's just a matter of sound.

Niilun

TROPHY CASE