Samuel_Tow

I'd say the reason melee is so popular is because melee ATs play less like your typical hamstrung MMO class that can't tie its own shoes without a team. Melee are still encouraged to team, of course, but in more subtle ways, such as that teams enhance their performance, speed up their gains and open up the "team-only" content and challenges.

They drop hints that said bad blood EXISTS, but never any explanation on WHY it exists or WHAT it is about.

No, I don't like "in mdeias res" stories when that's how they're told in their entirety. That's why I have an intense hatred for movies like Cloverfield and War of the Worlds, because I'm interested in a complete story, not in the trek of a bunch of people I couldn't care less about.

The story is separate from JUST the action of the actors in it. A "story" that is a basic retelling of events with no background, no knowledge and no understanding is profoundly uninteresting, because it's just events. If this is a real story, it's sometimes interesting when the events that happened are extraordinary, but this is not a real story. It's a fictional story. I am fully capable picking a random sample of event and chaining them into a linear sequence that makes sense on my own. I don't need what should be professional writers doing that for me. What I expect out of professional writers is the ability to use events to tell a broader story.

No-one here is asking about more exposition. In its most basic form, exposition is just bad writing. What we want is more of a background and more of a broad view on the world at large. Just because the game is focused around meta-game instanced missions doesn't mean the story has to be told in instanced, unconnected episodes where nothing outside the bubble of the specific story matters. I want an actual narrative structure, not the cliff notes from the 8 o'clock news.

If you want an example of weaving exposition into natural dialogue, watch 1989's Leviathan. This movie has TONS of exposition delivered through offhand remarks that slot perfectly into the dialogues they show up in, and the narrative as a whole does a great job of giving us the background on the various characters and the setting as a whole, all without the story ever having to stop to explain things. Including exposition in a way that doesn't make it feel like exposition is the first step towards good writing.

To quote Tami Baker: "I bet it's going to be real juicy and not something boring, like, 'Oh, it was random person A who was the leader all along'. That would be very unfortunate." Yes, Tami, it is very unfortunate, indeed. Circe the Sorceress comes completely out of nowhere with no prior build-up and no hint that she even exists or who she is. She is LITERALL "random person A who was the leader all along."

I suspect that whoever wrote this expected that all we'll want to know about her is that she's the Praetorian War Witch... I think. They give us a real name, but I don't know War Witch's real name, as it's never given in-game. The only reason I think it's her is because she has hair with coloured streaks through it, but by that logic she may as well be Crystalia Amaquelin for all I know. She shows up once, does something, then shows up again, disappears before I'm able to see her, then shows up once more and dies.

Now, I know what you're thinking: How many times does Dr. Vahzilok or the Clockwork King show up? Once? Twice? OK, granted, but at least those people receive many, many, MANY mentions in the game. "Oh, no, Dr. Vahzilok has released a plague!" "Oh, no, Dr. Vahzilok's henchmen are cutting people up for spare parts!" "I did not know that the Clockwork King had been put in this state by a hero!" Even though they don't show up in person, we spend a lot of time talking about them and building up their threat, so that when they DO show up, it's a big thing. Circe the Sorceress is mentioned I think once and shows up I think twice. Most of the time, we're dealing with the Talons. She's just sort of there.

Actually, to semi-quote the Spoony One: Oh, no, Surge! No! ... Who the **** is Surge? I'm serious! We haven't even Surge's face! We don't know anything about him! We haven't established anything about... We haven't established Surge! It'd be like in Star Wars if we've never seen Obi-Wan before and he suddenly shows up and gets killed by Darth Vader and Luke is like: "Who was that old guy?" ... Who the **** is Surge?!?

This is something of a running problem in recent content - a few named characters sprinkled throughout filler and chaos. Once upon a time, if I went to fight, say, the Outcasts, I was actually fighting to push back the Outcasts as a whole, even if I didn't have a named target at the end, and the plot established my reasons for caring. These days, we have a select few "actors" and everything else is just filler, because the actors really aren't affiliated with anything that's going on. They're free agents chasing their own agendas amid a see of derelict, leader-less critter groups.

I'm not sure when this started, but I want to say towards the inception of Going Rogue. All of a sudden we started seeing those "free agents" who just had an enemy group assigned to them because they... Kind of needed minions to spawn in the instance. The first time I remember this is "my double" taking over the Faultline Dam with a gang of Freakshow. Why Freakshow? Why not? We spun the wheel of critters and it landed on the Freakshow. But wait, wasn't there an entire arc about a civil was within the Freakshow over Dreck selling their services for money? Or is it that the don't want to sell out to CREY, but they're perfectly fine selling out to Slime Girl? Why the Freakshow?

It devalues the persistent world when writers consistently treat it as background noise and source for filler in-between plot points with their pet characters. It devalues the world when it isn't being used to forward a story directly, but rather as just a basic setting.

I was just going to say pretty much the same thing - he looks suicidal, like he's about to crack his how tank

That's intentional. They deliberately disable eye auras with some head styles like the Animal heads and the Think Tank. I'll have to see if the eye auras don't leave the tank in some of the animations.

That's OK, I can deal with it

Wait, you're offering your own tentacles? I am intrigued

Aaand... Bookmark! Thanks!

That was on my mind, yes

Frankly, I think the objective going forward is for the game to include as many disparate concepts and thematics as the art team has the time of day to create. We got Steampunk, animals, horror, barbarians and we're soon going to get cowboys (but not Indians). I really don't think there's any way to say what the game is "about" and not be wrong. I simply feel that City of Heroes is about everything and nothing at the same time.

Essentially, this game is about anything you want it to be, as long as you can actually create it.

Me, not you

Personal preference, really. I don't hate them in the sense that I want to destroy the industry, but rather in the sense that tights costumes just look infinitely goofy to me, especially ye olde tights costumes with the full head cowl.

Besides, with how many times people have used the excuse that "You can't have what you want because it's not in the most famous comic books!" or "This hideously bad design is justified because it's like that in comic books, too!" I've developed a certain level of resentment for the genre. For the past seven years, it seems "comic books'" greatest contribution to my gaming experience is excuses and limitations for why my gaming experience isn't as pleasant as I'd like it to be. It's right behind "Because this is an MMO!" actually.

So, wait... One weapon in one set that you're clearly not going to use is going to cause you to quit? Dude! I trudged through a WHOLE YEAR of nothing but iCrap and I'm still here, yet you will leave after one sword from one set that's unlike anything else in the game?

Pardon me for saying this, but this strikes me as an overreaction to limited information.

Here's the funny thing: I hate comic books. Whether that's what the game is "about" or not is irrelevant to the fact that I hate comic books. I hate tights costumes, I hate the basic aesthetic, I just hate the concept. The solution to this - and that's worked for me for the past seven years - is to not make characters I don't like and let other people make characters they do like. I frequent the Best Costume Designs thread (mostly as a spectator) and probably over half the costumes there are tights. And yet I keep coming back because of the half that aren't, occasionally there's one I TOTALLY want to use.

You know, speaking of saving my money, I just bought this set and you know what the first thing I'm going to do with it is? Buy more character slots... Rasa frasa rasa rasa!

Well, good news - the cape and the ascot are fixed on Text. I'm just disappointed that the Ascot moved to a Chest Detail, since now my Victorian Dutchess can't have it while still retaining her corset. Oh, well.

I still don't see eye auras with the Fishbow Helmet, though. That, and I still don't see a way to colour the actual brain.

I agree. This will hurt quite literally no-one.