Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-37549899-20181118161545/@comment-31598739-20181125011409

The point I'm trying to get at is that saying a specific color can't be taken seriously is just wrong. Take Tusk for example. The stand is pink, but Act 4 is still very menacing. That's because it's a stand that can shoot infinitely piercing bullets and punches heavy. This goes for Giorno as well. He's pink, but he can be taken seriously because he has huge aspirations and has the power to do so. Gold Experience is a really strong stand, and Giorno knows how to use it well. Labeling colors as specific attributes cuts down design as a whole.

And I'm not saying it as concrete, but it's very easy to assume. I'm not the only person that thinks they changed character palettes to make all stand out for different reasons. Marketing was probably the main goal for the change. What other reasons would there be? Possibly to make them look good.

And saying pink doesn't work with Giorno is completely subjective. Why else are there two sides to this argument? If enough people like something, that proves there can be appeal. Fashion can look bad, but what looks bad about Giorno other than "he can't be taken seriously".

Tl;dr how seriously you take a character should be made from their attributes and actions, it's likely that DP changed palettes for marketing and to make them look different from each other, and saying pink is not serious is very close-minded.