Well, I don't know if I'm aware of just how critical you are of the game. I think the only post of yours I've read about that was one you wrote in the other SMT Final topic. But judging by that one, we seem to have very similar feelings on the game. Enjoying the story and characters (in the beginning). And also how you attribute the law vs chaos system to why you didn't like the characters later. I feel that is a big reason for me as well. For example, I feel like they accepted their allignments along with their extreme methods too easily, without the hesitation and questioning that I came to expect from them. And much of their character became very one tracked and focused on that somewhere around halfway through the game, and there wasn't really anything like the scene of bonding on the castle rooftop again. Where we differ in that post was that you said you loved the game, and the atmosphere. And the atmosphere was one of the biggest things I loved about Shin megami Tensei 3, so that I was disappointed in it in SMT4 is also a big reason for why I can't say that I ended up liking the game.
But yes, I did go with the Neutral rout, and the forced side questing was tedious. But that wasn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, so it doesn't play into why I didn't like the game. Nor does my early frustration on the enemy back attack mechanics for that matter.

My feelings about SMT4 probably have to do with playing SMT3 first, and comparing it to that game. As you've mentioned before, SMT4 does have a lot more story than SMT3. And yet I ended up more disappointed in the SMT4 story anyway.
The complex plot with rather simple story telling is something I ended up liking in SMT3, and came to expect from the mainline SMT series. It felt a bit unique in an interesting way. But SMT4 did not start out that way. To my surprise, it was the opposite. And I liked that. But perhaps that's why I became all the more disapponted when it seemed to revert back to what I originally came to expect. But also because the things the story chose to focus on, and ignore.
The way the game started made me feel more disappointed when interesting characters like Akira weren't explored enough. And I feel the whole different worlds thing had a lot more potential. When Jonathan told Akira, "That would make you Lord Akira of the Western Kingdom of Mikado... Huh? What's going on?", realizing that it sounds awfully similar to "King Akila Kila of the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado", it made me think that it would be cool if they had actually gone back in time, and were part of the creation of the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado that they come from. But that idea aside, I thought there was a lot more potential in that part of the storyline in general. The fact that someone else had done what they did several times before, and the ghost images of Walter and Jonathan reminding you of that in the beginning of the game, it felt like the story dropped the ball on this potentially very interesting part of the story by barely mentioning it. The Goddess of Tokyo felt pretty random. But there's actually more to that story in another SMT game. Same for Steven.
I also had issues with the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado role in the game, but it would take a long time to go over all those things. Maybe I'll make a topic about it some time.

I wouldn't call SMTIV a bad game. It did a lot of things well also. But by the end of the game, I disliked it more than I liked it. And the reason I wouldn't recommend it is because I feel like there are many other games in the genre that I'd recommend before it. Or games in general.
But it did raise a question that I'm very curious about. Would I have liked SMT III as much as I did if I played it today?  Do I not like the mainline SMT series any more? Or was it just SMT IV? It's hard to find the answer to that. But perhaps if I play SMT IV Final, I can get a better indication of that.

Well, I don't know if I'm aware of just how critical you are of the game. I think the only post of yours I've read about that was one you wrote in the other SMT Final topic. But judging by that one, we seem to have very similar feelings on the game. Enjoying the story and characters (in the beginning). And also how you attribute the law vs chaos system to why you didn't like the characters later. I feel that is a big reason for me as well. For example, I feel like they accepted their allignments along with their extreme methods too easily, without the hesitation and questioning that I came to expect from them. And much of their character became very one tracked and focused on that somewhere around halfway through the game, and there wasn't really anything like the scene of bonding on the castle rooftop again. Where we differ in that post was that you said you loved the game, and the atmosphere. And the atmosphere was one of the biggest things I loved about Shin megami Tensei 3, so that I was disappointed in it in SMT4 is also a big reason for why I can't say that I ended up liking the game.
But yes, I did go with the Neutral route, and the forced side questing was tedious. But that wasn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, so it doesn't play into why I didn't like the game. Nor does my early frustration with the enemy back attack mechanics for that matter.

My feelings about SMT4 probably have to do with playing SMT3 first, and comparing it to that game. As you've mentioned before, SMT4 does have a lot more story than SMT3. And yet I ended up more disappointed in the SMT4 story anyway.
The complex plot with rather simple story telling is something I ended up liking in SMT3, and came to expect from the mainline SMT series. It felt a bit unique in an interesting way. But SMT4 did not start out that way. To my surprise, it was the opposite. And I liked that. But perhaps that's why I became all the more disapponted when it seemed to revert back to what I originally came to expect. But also because of the things the story chose to focus on, and ignore.
The way the game started made me feel more disappointed when interesting characters like Akira weren't explored enough. And I feel the whole different worlds thing had a lot more potential. When Jonathan told Akira, "That would make you Lord Akira of the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado... Huh? What's going on?", realizing that it sounds awfully similar to "King Akila of the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado", it made me think that it would be cool if they had actually gone back in time, and were part of the creation of the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado that they come from. But that idea aside, I thought there was a lot more potential in that part of the storyline in general. The fact that someone else had done what they did several times before, and the ghost images of Walter and Jonathan reminding you of that in the beginning of the game, it felt like the story dropped the ball on this potentially very interesting part of the story by barely mentioning it. The Goddess of Tokyo felt pretty random. But there's actually more to that story in another SMT game. Same for Steven.
I also had issues with the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado's role in the game, but it would take a long time to go over all those things. Maybe I'll make a topic about it some time.

I wouldn't call SMTIV a bad game. It did a lot of things well also. But by the end of the game, I disliked it more than I liked it. And the reason I wouldn't recommend it is because I feel like there are many other games in the genre that I'd recommend before it. Or games in general.
But it did raise a question that I'm very curious about. Would I have liked SMT III as much as I did if I played it today?  Do I not like the mainline SMT series any more? Or was it just SMT IV? It's hard to find the answer to that. But perhaps if I play SMT IV Final, I can get a better indication of that.

~Edit~
Fixed some typos.

Was about to post those scans.
Merkabah, Medusa and Lucifer look much better. He still has the "cancer arm", but still a big improvement.

Medusa is my favorite redesign so far.

Where do you see Jehovah

Ah, that's Lucifer.