Lothic
-
Posts
6294 -
Joined
-
Quote:This is a fair observation. It's quite possible that in this global Internet Age we may never again see any new single character become popular enough for long enough across all demos to become another Superman or Spider-man.Originally Posted by Starjammer
I think a big part of the problem in any media character achieving "icon" status nowadays is media dilution.
In other words, there are simply so many niche media outlets today that no one of them can capture mass attention like they did years ago.
We no longer have the Big Three networks in US TV, the comics universe is no longer split between Marvel and DC, movie studios no longer dominate, etc.
Things can, at best, hope to become temporarily popular for a few years, before the next thing comes along. -
Quote:Most of the characters you listed would probably be relatively well known to people who've entered a comic book store in the last 20 years. But does that make any of them "iconic" the way Superman and Batman are?Originally Posted by RemusShepherd
The most recent iconic characters I can think of aren't from Marvel or DC. Empowered (2007) is probably iconic, but not as widely known as she should be. Certainly Girl Genius (2001) is iconic and widely known. Other indie titles that created iconic characters might be Witchblade (1995), Hellboy (1993), and Lady Death (1991). I certainly think Spider Robinson (1997) qualifies, and another Ellis book, Doktor Sleepless (2007) *might* fit.
The big two comic publishers haven't created many new characters lately. They prefer reviving old characters. Marvel had Gravity (2005) who was doing well as the new Spider-man -- young, powerful, and irreverent -- but Marvel being Marvel they killed him off rather than let the character grow. Marvel also tried introducing Machine Teen the same year. And there's Skaar, Son of Hulk (2008)...Marvel has been desperate to attract the angsty teen demographic, it seems.
For DC, well, there's Jack of Fables (2002) -- he's very iconic, but not as a superhero. I don't think OMAC (2005) makes the cut. Doomsday (1992) is probably their most recent iconic super-powered character.
I still think that a complete definition of "iconic" would have to include general acknowledgment and recognition by the general public and/or popular culture. Big blockbuster movies may succeed or fail, but if your grandmother and your 4 year old cousin hasn't heard of a character then I'm not sure the adjective "iconic" applies. -
Quote:It also let's them be named without using some variation of Dark, Darker, Darkest or Darkity-Dark-Dark as well.Originally Posted by sleestack
Wait, you guys mean to tell me that the character creator allows villains to select something *other* than red and black?
Huh, learn something new every day!
Imagine that.
-
Quote:The flip side of this is that there are people out there who like to team but -don't- like to lead teams for whatever reason. If there was some kind of "extra" bonus for leading you might encourage team generation in some cases, but you'd also negatively force some people to do an activity they really don't want to do just so they don't lose out on the bonus. This leader bonus idea might also encourage more blind/annoying/random invites from eager types who might otherwise not bother people that way.Originally Posted by Sweet_Agony
I suggest that all Team leaders automatically receive a decent XP bonus.
Bottomline I think this idea could introduce as many negative outcomes as positive ones. -
Quote:When I'm teaming with my 50s I still occasionally die, but the associated debt that comes with that usually gets erased within what seems like a matter of milliseconds. It's probably been several years since the last time I had any "lasting" debt on them that made me even vaguely concerned about it.Originally Posted by shaggy5
Some guy on my team says that if you get more debt, you get more shards and he "tested" it. I want to say he is totally full of it, but maybe someone here can tell me that it's true?
Let's just say that if there's ever any correlation proven between having debt and getting more shards then I'm probably going to have to go out of my way to kill myself a whole bunch of times on purpose to have any benefit from this.
-
Quote:Oh I knew this was basically a troll-bait thread. I thought I just respond to it by saying "the point of this thread is pointless" in my own vague way.Originally Posted by Zombie Man
Ummm... yeah. But you might be missing a pattern here, too.
-
Quote:Another point to consider (which I don't think's been mentioned so far) is whether or not this is your friend's first MMO or not. From what you describe it almost sounds like your friend is more used to a FPS/console mentality where you are pretty much instantly-uber as soon as you start playing. The whole idea of having to "level up a character" sounds foreign to him and that may be the source of his frustration.Originally Posted by Steel_Shaman
So how in the devil do I get him past this? If he would just stick with one character for a few days, long enough to get to the 20's, he would see that the pace of the game really picks up. Any ideas how I can help him get going? Or do I just need to grin and bear it while he rerolls constantly every single night? Normally I encourage people to try lots of alts, but he's actually burning himself out on the game entirely by cycling through so many characters so fast.
Hopefully your friend will have the patience to stick to any character long enough to enjoy the game. But there's always the chance that the "pacing" of an MMO is just not going to be acceptable to him. *shrugs* -
Quote:This is the point I was stressing as far as what "iconic" actually means for the purposes of this thread. Is a character iconic because every comic book geek knows about them or are they iconic because basically -everyone- knows about them?Originally Posted by Bull Throttle
I suppose it depends on how you term 'iconic' - the number of people who would recognise them? The number of media forms they span?
-
I've got characters with builds that could probably farm fairly well if I chose to, but I simply don't find the idea of doing repetitive actions to gain more INF/merits/shards/recipes very fun in and of themselves. To me those activities are "open-ended" with no clear goal to achieve.
On the otherhand I have no problem at all doing things that other people might consider "farming" if there's a badge to be had. To me the idea of having a goal and then FINISHING that goal with a badge justifies the fun for me in those cases. I can then move onto different badges and do different things to achieve those. There's a sense of completion with badging that "standard" farming doesn't provide for me.
Regardless, I have no problem with people doing whatever they want to have fun with this game.
-
Quote:I've got bluesiders who've used red and black.Originally Posted by Schismatrix
It's certainly not me since i have used black and red in the same villainous costume at least once.
Still, who here can proudly say they haven't done it?
I've got bluesiders who have not used red and black.
I've got redsiders who've used red and black.
I've got redsiders who have not used red and black.
I've got Praetorians who've used red and black.
I've got Praetorians who have not used red and black.
I'm not "proud" or "ashamed" of any of it.
See a pattern here?
-
Quote:Sailor Moon's probably iconic in Japan at least. I've traveled to Japan several times in the last few years and I still see images of her sprinkled around on signs and shops and such. And that "other manga stuff" is still far more popular there than comic books ever thought about being in the US.Originally Posted by Vox Populi
Sailor Moon and other manga stuff that I don't really know about, because it was the generation after me.
But I'm not sure if this thread's really talking "globally" iconic or iconic anywhere. *shrugs* -
Quote:One question comes to mind when thinking about newer comic book characters (or even something like Harry Potter) becoming iconic is whether or not a character has to become so well known that even the "average public" knows who they are. I would argue that characters like Superman, Batman and Spiderman are now "iconic" mostly because they've become so well known that even people who've never read comic books know who they are.Originally Posted by Antigonus
What was the last new character created that could be considered iconic (Superman, Batman, Spiderman)? Is it possible in the current age to create new characters that are truly iconic, or has society at large changed to such a degree that we have seen the last of those kinds of characters?
After some thought, the only character that came to mind as having that kind of potential was Wolverine, and that was 37 years ago.
Using this as a guide it's possible that Wolverine will become iconic, especially if he's featured in at least a few more movies in the next 10-20 years. Iron Man might make it if there's a few more movies with him. But I seriously doubt characters like Judge Dredd or Spawn will qualify unless they eventually have bigger breakthroughs into general popular culture. -
Quote:Well I already established my "un-fan" status with this franchise, but when has that ever stopped me from having an opinion on something? It's notable you mentioned Star Trek in relation to these shows, because I actually use that franchise to classify the Stargate shows. To me:Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
Universe was just too different from what worked for the show to get off the ground, I think. New things are great, but when it changes that dramatically (when the other two series were so recent) probably is not a good idea, given the fan base. If you think about it Star Trek: TNG started out somewhat similar feeling to the original series, then figured out where it wanted to go on its own.
Multiple series in the same universe can have difficulties holding their own.- SG:SG-1 was Stargate's ST-TNG. It followed the "source" movie and became fairly popular in its own right.
- SG:Atlantis was Stargate's ST-DS9. A new crew based on an "alien station" in a weird new part of space.
- And apparently SG:U was Stargate's ST-Enterprise. Had a few fans but was probably doomed from the beginning.
-
I could probably stomach Costner for a 5 minute cameo as Pa Kent in this new Supes movie. But I just can't see him effectively pulling off any other more involved character here. Could you see Costner as General Zod for instance? I'm just not convinced.
I've liked Costner's performances in some of his movies, but somehow I almost think he's too "typecast" for a big role in the Superman universe. As others have said I think he plays "himself" so much that I'm not sure he could actually portray a "different" person as needed here. -
Quote:Well I saw the original movie and thought it was mediocre back in 1994, saw around a dozen episodes of SG:SG-1 and thought about 3 of them were good, saw about 2 episodes of SG:Atlantis and never bothered even trying SG:Universe.Originally Posted by Veritech
sure, people may have been watching SG:U, but not nearly enough to keep it afloat.
I feel some sympathy for those who thought these shows were good because lord know plenty of shows I've liked over the years got killed far too early. I really kind of almost wanted to like this franchise, but ultimately I suppose I'm just glad I never quite got into it. *shrugs* -
Badges as a "mini-game" is a good way to describe it. Once you get past the few dozen "accolade" type badges that give you bonus powers/effects pretty much the rest of them are there just to provide incentives/goals to achieve.
For myself they gave me a motivation to keep playing long after I had leveled up a bunch of level 50 characters and otherwise "finished" the rest of the game. Some of the largest third-party fansites for the game (such as City Info Tracker or Badge-Hunter) are dedicated to badge earning.
Basically beyond that you can make of them what you will.
-
Quote:I know there are players like you who would "like" the option to do this.Originally Posted by Necrotech_Master
i dont mind doing tfs on large teams, but this suggestions is more for when your on during a period of low activity and still want to do a tf, but may not have enough or any people interested in joining
i really dont mind the team based activities, but i rather have an option to bypass it if there is something preventing team activity (whether low activity, low interest, or who knows what else)
i know one thing the devs have supported in this game is the ability for the players to have options and i would rather have this over turnstile teaming anyday, if i want to team ill ask in global channels, if i want to solo a tf/sf, then i would like the option to
Problem is that desire alone has not been enough to convince the Devs to change their minds. *shrugs*
The Devs clearly don't want people to solo TF/SFs, but at least they ALLOW it to happen, even if they force you to jump through some hoops to do it. Look at it this way: the Devs could have been strict about it and programed the thing to automatically stop a TF/SF once the team size dropped below a minimum number. I'd say the way it works now is going to be the best compromise we get from this. *shrugs* -
Quote:I'm guessing you don't play too many table-top roleplaying games. The classic mindset that "The Game Master is always right" is present even in computer based MMORPGs. Clearly you don't have to like it (or even understand it) but if you want to play the game you'll play by the established Dev rules.Originally Posted by Irish Fury
Thanks for the link, but that seems like a pretty weak excuse. Many story arc missions give a warning/disclaimer that multiple heroes/villains will be needed for completion, but I still have the option to go it alone. Why not add a similar warning to the beginning TF dialogue? I guess we are beating a dead horse with this request, but it is something that seemed like a no brainer when I first started playing. I was actaully surprised I couldn't attempt TFs alone.
How about this? Instead of a prohibitive mechanic to function as a warning, we remove that mechanic and add an actual warning.
Frankly I still marvel just how solo-friendly this game is regardless of this one particular issue. There's really no reason it MUST be as solo-friendly as it is already. The Devs have already given in on 99 of 100 "solo vs. team" issues already. The fact that they want to keep this one last one may be irksome to some people but it's ultimately fair all things considered. At least the "workarounds" for it are simple enough. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Nericus
Yes I'm being a bit extreme the above examples, but a "NO KILL" or "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" should be it's number one rule followed by obedience to orders that its given provided none of said orders involve killing.It's taken mankind roughly 10,000 years to advance from the first forms of "civilization" to the point where we've almost created a new form of machine-based artificial intelligence.Quote:Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Humans are certainly not given "core programming" to prevent them from killing other people. I don't think it's really ethical to be forcing another sentient being (whether biological or technological) to have no choice in following some predefined list of rules. Would you think it to be OK to use drugs and brainwashing techniques to get children to behave the way you want them to?
I say that if we treated them with the respect and dignity that all intelligent life deserves (instead of trying to force them to behave the way we want out of some preemptive fear that they might rebel because we're trying to use them as slave labor--that's how it starts in most fiction of this type, doesn't it?), then we won't have to worry about whether they're going to slaughter us all.
Watson isn't there yet, though. It's just another baby step in that direction, maybe.
I suspect the period of time it'll take that AI to jump from "a subservient slave species controlled by strict protocols to ensure human dominance over it" to the point that it becomes a "free willed form of sentience with total freedom to pursue its own agenda and destiny" will be much, much shorter by comparison.
My take on it is that we better treat them nicely so that they'll be less inclined to annihilate us once they finally have the chance.
-
Quote:You know you can probably solo or duo a given TF/SF.Originally Posted by Necrotech_Master
my biggest beef with the current system is needing padders
if i know i can solo or duo a sf, i want to start it right them instead of wasting other poeples time for them to pad and wasting my time finding the padders to start it
another benefit of solo sf/tf is that you dont have to worry about other poeples time constraints, you can take however long you want to do the tf
The Devs even know you can probably solo or duo a given TF/SF.
But as far as they may be concerned they don't WANT you to do that. I realize that may be a totally arbitrary and unreasonable policy on their part. But it is THEIR game - they can do whatever they want.
To them the idea of "padders" probably isn't seen as the negative you see it as. They probably figure that "encourages" people to work together - even if the work only lasts long enough to start a TF/SF.
Again I'm not strictly defending the Devs' position on this. I'm just trying (for what it's worth) to interpret the "tea leaves" we've been given for the last seven years. -
Quote:I'm sure some Dev somewhere has commented on it. I don't have a link handy but like I said people have asked for this for years so there must be -some- reason the Devs are against it whether they've publicly told us that reason or not.Originally Posted by Irish Fury
Have the devs ever spoken to the reason for not including this option? Many of my heroes and especially my villains are not "works well with others" types, so the option to play those characters the way I see them would be awesome.
My guess is that they want at least -some- content in this game to remain multiplayer oriented. The Devs have bent-over-backwards to make as much of this game "solo-friendly" as possible. But there's no rule or law that says they have to make it 100% solo-friendly. -
Quote:You may not see a reason but apparently the Devs do.Originally Posted by Irish Fury
I see absolutely no reason not to do this
People have been suggesting something like this pretty much since the game launched almost 7 years ago and it still hasn't happened. I'm not really saying that's right or wrong. I'm just saying that out of the literally hundreds of QoL improvements that have been added to the game over the years this hasn't been one of them.
Perhaps it's something the Devs simply don't want to budge on. The Devs have actually added quite a few features over the years to make it easier for players to adjust level and "I'm equivalent to X number of players" type difficulty settings and the ability to run through all sorts of arcs via Ouroboros. My guess is that they consider those things to be enough of a "concession" to those interests. -
Well first you have to remember that Hover is -not- a travel power. It's a 3D positional defense power.
Having said that I have level 50 characters with Hover 3 slotted with the Blessing of the Zephyr IO set who can move around with it roughly as fast as a person with Sprint, or maybe even faster. I don't recall the exact MPHs, but it's far from useless. I have no problem using that 100% of the time in door missions.
IIRC, the flight speed of Hover increases dramatically between a lower level character and a high level characters. I'm sure that factors into it to some degree.
Good luck regardless.
-
There have been other suggestions for making GMs "cool" to defeat. But now that the WST concept exists in this game the idea of applying that to GMs does seem at least something worth considering.
I'll bet a simpler idea might just be something along the lines of making the reward for defeating a GM be random between two possibilities: 90% of the time you get a Merit and 10% of the time you get an incarnate Shard. I'll bet even with only a 10% chance to get a Shard there would be many more people interested in hunting them again.
-
Quote:I sadly agree there will always be items (like Swan's cape) that we'll probably never be able to use because they are "unique" items for unique NPCs.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
NPCs have always had costume pieces that are unique to them.
Swan's cape, Statesman's cape and silly half mask thing, BaB's gauntlets, Posi's glowing power armor, Scirocco's....well, poncho I guess, and he has a unique sword. Valkyrie and Infernal have weapons on their back.
We probably aren't going to ever get the exact NPC pieces, but it'd be kind of cool if we got something sorta similar to them.
But there was talk some months ago of the Devs considering the idea of giving us things that are already in the game that we currently don't have access to. There are costume items out there are technically "NPC only" that are currently being used by non-unique generic NPCs. I'm hoping that we might eventually be able to get some of those because they wouldn't really ruin the "specialness" of any unique characters.
Also there's always the chance that we'll get cloned items like you mentioned. We may never get a spear exactly like Valkyrie's for example, but we may get something "close" to that.