It has to do with the story ending in the most predictable and least compelling way possible.
I mean, technically all of these characters getting second chances, and the ability for their stories to continue mean they have the opportunity to go anywhere, which would make it not so predictable? People are just offering possible solutions (like living happily in Twilight Town) because they are coming up with ways for these people to be saved but to not be active in the plot, but that doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. They still easily could be active in the plot, they still easily could have new things for their characters to want and to have motivations. Look at Axel, when he got recompleted, he didn't just sit in RG happily content. No, he had new things he wanted to achieve and so his story continued on.
Why must every story have the happiest ending? Because it's a Disney game?
This would be a better argument if not for the fact that the only game out of this eight game series to have a truly happy ending was KHII. At this point, the series has earned a happy ending lol.
A perfect example is Axel. It's safe to assume that "Axel" as we know him is never coming back. But do you look at Lea and feel like their situation is unfair and sad? Probably not... and you shouldn't. Because in the end peace was still found, and Lea is still continuing on in earnest for the both of them.
Axel is a weird example for you to use... Lea IS Axel, like, that was Axel "being saved", him being recompleted. Nomura even said as much. Lea is Axel's second chance, just like all these characters will get second chances, and, as we see with Lea, that doesn't necessarily mean a "predictable, luckiest way possible, ending" because, by being given a second chance, Axel/Lea's story was able to continue and his character was given new things to want and fight for and struggle for.
Honestly, for me, my least favoruite argument against this stuff is when people say it tarnishes the various characters' sacrifices and I just cannot agree. They don't tarnish or take away from anything because the characters had no idea that a second chance was even possible. When Axel killed himself to save Sora, he didn't know he would wake up as Lea. When Roxas accepted his "fate" and went back to Sora and ceased to be his own individual, he didn't know there was the possibility he could be his own person. And so on. They still made these choices believing them to be the last choices they'd make, and just because we find out that there is more beyond that choice doesn't mean that choice is now meaningless. That's kind of like arguing that someone taking a bullet for you is a meaningless gesture if they manage to survive. They didn't know they would, and yet they still did it.
I'm sorry but that's a load of bullshit.
A number of people in this thread alone including myself have given plenty of reasons why these three should stay gone. It's not about having to like or dislike the character 100% of the time. From a narrative point of view and how their endings left an impact, it makes more sense for them to stay gone than come back. But they'll be back because unnecessary fanservice that fans of their characters would jump onto disregarding their conclusions and just want the good ol' "everyone has to have a 100% happy Disney ending." .
It's a little disingenuous to argue that it's bullshit that people who are against them coming back only are because they dislike the characters, but then say that the only reason they are coming back is "unnecessary fanservice that fans would jump onto disregarding their conclusions". If it's bullshit that people who are against it are only against is because they dislike the characters, then it's bullshit to say that the people who are for it are only for it because they like the characters. There are arguments for it on a narrative standpoint after all.
