-
Posts
14730 -
Joined
-
-
Quote:The reason my working model for Kragoss looks like this is because I don't like the Enforcer boots, I'm already using the IDF boots way too much and the Olympian Guard boots don't fit the design. And that's all the big boots I have access to, so I followed my own Praxis', instead. I would have used boots if I could find a pair that worked, though.I agree about the boots btw. IDW and Enforcer need some more company.
---
Additionally, and I'm trying to not mention the Beta items that reminded me to resuggest this, I have another old suggestion that I want to revive, and it has to do with Tights With Skin. Here's what I'd suggest:
For women, separate all Tights With Skin options into two categories - "painted on" patterns and full textures. Now, do the following:
Take all painted-on tights out of the editor as their options. In their place, add a new option that just says "Tights" under Tights With Skin. This will be a texture choice the same as any other category, displaying the base skin texture. Unlike every other category, this would not have a "none" option for pattern, and would default to "Bikini 1." From there on, the player can choose, AS A PATTERN, any of the existing Tights With Skin options which were painted-on.
Now, after this, add another skin option, say a muscular one like what's in the new Body Suit set... Crap, that's what I didn't want to say. Either way, put a muscular skin texture, call it Muscular Tights, and then let that use all of the existing patterns from the previous selection. From there on, move on to:
Angelic Plus
Animal Fur
Barbarian
Bioluminescense
Bridal
Bridal and Lace
Excess Plus
Heart Plus
Imperial Dynasty
Leather
Metal
Monstrous Fur
Tank Top
Witch Bare
Witch Lace
Zombie
Metallic Dress
Those are all the options that would be left in the main list, none of them with pattern options of any kind. Before them, however, would be "Tights" and Tights Muscular that I described already. These two would have the following patterns:
Bikini
Angelic
Assassin
Athletic
Bandeau
Bandeau Saleeve
Baroque
Belly Tee Long
Belly Tee Short
Blast
Blocks
Desire
Disco
Eden
Excess
Fade Line
Fire Stripe
Frost
Hacker
Horns
Jungle
Jungle Sheer
Keyhole
Keyhole Sheer
Mesh
Mod
Mod Sleeve
Savage
Sport
Strapless
Straps 1
Straps 2
Tanker
Thin Stripes
Tee
Thorns
V
V Deep
V Neck
Now, once we do this, we can get rid of the "Tights With Skin" section entirely the same way we got rid of "Masks With Hair" by simply dumping the two sections above into the basic Tights category, giving them a base skin texture and then forcing them to use one of the patterns above. We can then dump all of the other textures from the other list as simply new Tights options and we'll simplify the editor significantly without actually removing a single option. -
Quote:To be fair, I do agree with Arcana, in the sense that "the man without a past" isn't literally a man without a past, much as a man struggling with his past. We are all, the lot of us, creatures of habit and upbringing, so even when we want to run from our roots, we still carry the habits and memories of them. Even subconscious, they define who we are, to a large extent.There is a terrific chapter in one of screenwriter William Goldman's film books, I think Adventures in the Screen Trade, where he goes into detail about what went wrong with the film The Ghost & the Darkness. It was a legendary 'unfilmable' screenplay- everyone loved it, nobody would finance it. Until along came Michael Douglas, and suddenly the money was there. But the character he played was, in the script, an archetype- the Man with No Past, along the lines of Shane. But Douglas, as fine an actor as he can be, is also a movie star, and one who got the finances for the film squared away. As an actor, he wanted to dig into the past of his character, and as one of its backers he had the leverage to make it happen.
The result, in Goldman's eyes, was to destroy the screen effectiveness of the character and undermine the dramatic foundation of the story.
That's one aspect I've always found is crucial to any hero becoming villain or villain becoming hero, and it's why I find FrostFire's heel-face turn so unconvincing. People don't "change," they adapt, finding new ways to use old tools in order to achieve new goals to satisfy old cravings. For instance, when a villain who was ruthless, merciless and greedy becomes a hero, he shouldn't turn into a saint. He should turn into a stubborn, driven hero with a quick eye towards frugal means. Alternately, when a hero who was just, honest and generous turns into a villain, he shouldn't turn into a complete monster. Instead, he would believe in revenge, he would be very judgemental of others and have little respect for personal property.
What I'm saying is that every virtue is a vice contained and every vice is a virtue failed, thus every hero could be a villain and every villain could be a hero, and all without changing the core of who they are. A true-blue noble pure hero who came from a history of villainy is, thus, not terribly interesting if the old life has been completely forgotten, nor is a villain who fell from heroism and turned into a complete monster. A person's experience and life lessons, his beliefs and desires, are what gives that person depth of character, and cross-faction characters simply have experiences that conflict with each other.
To go back to FrostFire, what sinks his transformation (aside from him being a whiny *****) is that he goes from a pretty nasty gang leader to a puppy-eyed nice guy that might as well be a completely different character. To me, FrostFire as a hero needs a "clique" more than he needs a girlfriend. He needs to be part of something bigger than just himself, a group that supports him and which he can support. Most people who get into gang violence get into it not for the crime, but for the "family." He would be protective of "his people," but both distrustful of other heroes and critical towards them. He would be a person genuinely trying to do good once he realises this is what he was missing, but at the same time a person who needs a convincing reason to do good, because he has learned that not everyone deserves another's sacrifice. He would have learned to take things to extremes and push himself, to make examples out of people and would be less inclined to slap villains on the wrist.
What FrostFire should have turned into was a hardass with a heart of gold. When he was switching over, FrostFire acted and felt as though the whole world hated him, and when you feel this way, you begin to hate the whole world back. He would have learned to keep his expectations low, his heart shielded and his friends close. He would be the kind of person who's very difficult to get close to, but who really opens up when you do. He should not have been the parody of a meek hero. -
When the LFG feature was first added, I was so excited! I thought finally! I could run TFs and Trials without having to go through the hassle of team-forming and broadcasting. It would be like most conventional multiplayer games where I just ask the computer to do it, and it puts me on a "server" that's right for me. All I had to do when I wanted to run one was queue and wait. And now I can even do it from instances! Woo-hoo!
Except no-one ever uses it. I'm not "waiting" when I queue, I'm still running missions, but in a five-hour session of gaming, the queue never once kicked in, yet I saw numerous Trials form over global channels. I've tried this intermittently since, but it never happens. I have, thus far, never, ever, EVER been able to join anything by queueing up for it alone. The system that could have gotten even me to team frequently simply sees no use at all. -
This may well be the first instance of a quote streak where I agree with everything I quote:
Quote:Thank you for putting it so succinctly, Arcana, as this is more or less what I mean. This is really something I want our writers to embrace - that the antagonists they create for our heroes and the roles they create for our villains really should resemble someone we want to see more about. A villain whose scenes are painful to get through is not a good villain, no matter how evil, powerful or Villain Sue he may be. A good villain is one whose scenes I look forward to.Setting Sorceress Serene aside for now, I think that while the details of the question are obviously very complex, at its heart I think the answer to the question "what makes a good villain" is pretty simple. Its a villain we want to see more of.
Quote:But generally, all of these kinds of villains share one common trait. Either we think we know them, or we want to know them. Now, that doesn't mean actually knowing more about them is a good thing. Hannibal Lector is the classic example of a villain we *want* to know, but its not good for us *to* know. But until we knew more, we wanted to.
A good villain, to me, thrives on a combination of intrigue and mystery. We want to know more about the villain, but we can't. Instead of being given direct answers, we're left to examine the villain's actions and try to judge for ourselves. Recluse shows up to fight Wade, but why does he do it? Because despite it all, the Statesman was his friend? Because he's angry someone beat him to the punch? Because he really is fighting for the greater good? To show up a demigod? We never really get an answer to that, and as far as I'm concerned, we're better off not knowing. That way, when Recluse goes back to his tower and claims "I did it because I wanted Wade's power!" he can save face as a villain and yet we can still suspect he has the heart of a hero underneath it all.
And yes, I consider Lord Recluse to be a good villain. One of the game's best, in fact. If only he had more to do in the story...
[QUOTE=Arcanaville;4329292]As you say, some villains appear irredeemably annoying. But nothing is really irredeemable, its just that it can seem that way because our first impression of them is a character we don't *want* to know any more about.[/quote
Nothing is truly irredeemable, but what stops villains like Serene from being redeemable, at least in my book, is that they're being mishandled in two very drastic ways. First of all, Seren's ENTIRE BODY OF WRITING paints her as an annoying *****, if you'll pardon my English. At no point is an attempt made to redeem her into a good villain, so if she is to be redeemed, whoever's writing it will have to start from scratch and do a LOOOT of work. Secondly, our writers don't seem interested in redeeming her at all. They just keep writing her as a cackling, bitter complete monster. Getting killed in First Ward should have been the perfect opportunity to give Serene more personality and make me want to know more about her. In fact, let's imagine how that might happen:
Let's say that Serene's anger and rage were focused around the death of her Cabal, and her plan was ultimately aimed at reviving the Ravenwing. That plan fails, she gets killed and the Furies let loose out of her control. Now as a spirit, she sees everything falling apart around her, the Furies are rampaging out of control and even desecrating the spirits of the Ravenwing Cabal. This is horrible! This is the exact opposite of what she wanted! Serene is desperate, so she forges an alliance with the Black Queen of the Black Knights. Serene's idea is to salvage her original plan for control of the Furies by freeing Lamashtu and controlling them through her, and in return for this, she offers to help the Black Queen gain control of the Black Knights by helping her kill Lorn.
At the end, Serene sets the Black Queen up to be killed as the final key to opening the Eternal Prison. With Lamashtu now free, Serene offers her body as a physical vessel with which to open The Gate That Never Opens. Using Incarnate artefacts that Diabolique took from Tyrant and Serene took from her when she held Diabolque prisoner, she had already enchanted her body to act as a power syphon for the goddess' power, gambling on being able to control her that way. In the end, the gamble fails, but it is the gamble of a desperate person who has put it all on the line in one final attempt to recover from a terrible fate. She can then be written as a QUIET evil in Night Ward, and a hand from the shadows that barely anyone noticed - a person who has learned her lesson that revealing herself and starting a war in person is a bad idea. We'd have had character progression and a less irritating villain, and maybe, just maybe, a villain I'd want to see more of. But right now, I just hope I'll never see Sorceress Serene again.
Quote:I do know that you are far more likely to hit the mark when you start by creating a real person, with real motivations, a real personality, and a real background. I've said before that I think much of the villain content is bad because I believe the writers don't believe in it. They don't really believe in villainy and they don't really respect villainy, so much of villain content is either pedantically bland or cartoonishly psychopathic.
The right question when writing villains is more along the lines of: "How can I make my villain players enjoy themselves without grossing them out?" The answer to this isn't as simple, but it is the question itself that matters - how can we make villains FUN? Because at the end of the day, if a game's not fun, it's not worth playing, and there's nothing to gain from making villain content aggressively demoralising. As I said before - intentionally unpleasant gameplay is still unpleasant, and that's not good for a game. At least not for this one. If a good villain antagonist is someone we want to see more of and learn more about, then a good player villain is one we want to play as more, and that's the meat of the argument when Dean McArturh or Bane Spider Ruben come up - these are pieces of content that inspire us to want to run them again and again, because they aren't so emotionally draining as, say, Peter Thermai.
Remember, a good villain is not made good by the monstrosity of his evil. He's made good by being a legitimately good character ASIDE from being evil.
Quote:But I don't think Ledger was playing a man with no past. That's not a real person. I think he was playing a man who has deliberately destroyed his own past. And that's a real person.
Quote:Don't aim for [Raul Julia's M. Bison]. Unless the stars align perfectly and you have the ghost of Raul Julia helping you, you're probably going to miss, and miss badly: [Arnold Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze]
I still wouldn't shoot for this, however, because that's kind of cheating. It's creating an interesting villain, yes, but he's interesting less for his character than for his antic, which typically limits his use to pretty much just the work he initially shows up in, as it usually requires the whole work to be balanced just right for the villain to come over so well.
Quote:On a personal note, I think all of the villains on my personal list of best villains of all time share one additional trait. With one relatively small change, they could have been the hero.
You said earlier how it's a good idea for writers to consider what they would do if they were evil, and I think this is what contributes to my feelings here. Maybe I'm just not as morally pure of a person, but I really can have fun with a true villain with no real redeemable qualities, so long as that villain feels glamorous and powerful. I can, occasionally, put morality aside and just have fun being a megalomaniacal, self-serving tyrant or a ruthless, cheeky trickster, so long as the evil those portray is in some way constructive towards a goal, rather than destructive towards malice. This is where my notion of "destructive evil vs. creative evil" comes from. Sometimes, evil itself can be fun (and harmlessly so) if it can be made to embody many of the same traits that make us naturally inclined to want to be good.
Having a goal, solving problems, creating great things and wielding enormous power are not, in and of themselves, evil, but they are the stock and trade of most good villains. These are things we enjoy for their own merits and, whether we like to admit it or not, villains are the ones who most often get to play with these cool toys. Heroes are hampered by consequences and morality and laws and common sense, but villains are the ones who can just ignore all that and have fun. THAT, to me, is where player villains should be heading. -
Here's something I've given a lot of thought to that has to do with this game's writing, and no, this won't be non-verbose. I'll do my best, but no promises.
---
What makes a good villain? That's a dead-end question that has no answer because it's different for different people, but I think by tackling an easier question, I can look at part of the bigger picture, at least. Instead, let's ask this: Why is Sorceress Serene a BAD villain? And when I say a "bad" villain I don't mean evil. I mean that she's the kind of villain who can singlehandedly ruin a story, and she is EASILY the worst thing about all of First Ward AND Night Ward combined. I'll try to give as few spoilers as I can, but honestly... I really don't need anything beyond what's in her bio. Sorceress Serene is the alliteration duplicate of the Primal hero War Witch and shares much of her story, only in Praetoria, her "Ravenwing Cabal" was killed to the last woman by Diabolique, causing Serene to seek revenge, that eventually turns into cackling pointless villainy.
Right there, my question is answered. Why is Serene a bad villain? Because what you saw up there is literally the ONLY characterisation she's given - Serene wants revenge and is willing to go to any lengths to get it. That's it. That's the entirety of her character, and it's barely ankle-deep. Without any sort of characterisation, personality or depth, all we're left with in order to "endear" us to a villain is their modus operandi. What we have here is a paper cutout of a character whose only defining characteristic is a self-expression mannerism that's basically "scaring the little girl."
So what is Serene's "modus operandi?" Well... She whines a lot about boo hoo my cabal and rants a lot about revenge, all done in aggravating scenery-chewing outbursts, but at no point is she actually respectable as a villain. I'll talk about "respecting villains" later, but Serene's problem is that she's whiny, she's annoying and she's one-dimensional. Even her evil is one-dimensional, consisting pretty much of the same clichés as something like Dr. Evil or Hector Con Carne. It's destructive evil without a purpose, it's power without a point, it's a villain that is so focused on being a villain that she never finds time to be an actual character, and thus she brings nothing to the table to endear he to us.
Why is Serene a bad villain? Because she's insufferably annoying with nothing to counterbalance it. I know that's the point - she's the chaotic, needy, arrogant child to Primal War Witch's veritable sage, but I'm going to re-purpose a line from Yahtzee here: intentionally annoying is still annoying. She's Superboy Prime all over again. A villain can be annoying, as a villain tends to need character flaws of some kind, but a GOOD annoying villain has other character traits that help us look past the irritation. A whining, petty villain is not interesting, because those scenes are the COST of creating a specific characters, and they need to be offset by allure coming from somewhere else. But like the Talons of Vengeance themselves, Sorceress Serene has none. She is not a character, she is a construct. It's as if someone asked "What if the villain summoned the Talons of Vengeance to get revenge on Diabolique?" and they just rolled with it with nothing to give her personality beyond that. You can swap Sorceress Serene for ANY other woman from the Ravenwing Cabal and not a single moment of her story would change. THAT is what makes her a bad villain.
But how can we respect a villain? How can we afford to like a villain? Isn't the point to having a good villain so we have someone to boo? Yes. Yes it is. But that's why I like to see this as "face vs. heel" rather than "hero vs. villain." See, the thing is that professional wrestling got it wrong, in the sense that both the face and the heel are good wrestlers and good characters you want to see more of, you just want to see the face so you can cheer him and see the heel so you can boo him. But, at least ideally, neither character should make you want to switch the channel when they come on-screen. Wrestling shows are smart about this, because they don't WANT you to change the channel, or you might not come back. Video games seem to have skipped over this lesson, however, and they have no problem creating infuriatingly bad characters, fully knowing that you won't shut down the game just because Navi is stuck on endless "Hey! Listen!" repeat.
A good villain is not a villain that makes us want to speed past his scenes. A good villain is one that we WANT to see more about so we can boo him more. A good villain - a good heel - is one you intentionally tune into specifically to boo him, because booing the heel is as fun as cheering the face. A good villain is a character that we want to see lose, but whose scenes still ultimately make for an enjoyable experience. A good villain is one we want to lose, but who's still fun at the same time. And that is exactly what Serene is not. She is not someone I want to see more of. In fact, learning she showed up in Night Ward (spoilers, she shows up in Night Ward) was one of the major reasons I took so long to get through that zone - because I couldn't stomach more of that horrible character. Her scenes feel like needles into my eyes, and there is no payoff for this. None whatsoever.
But what brought this about? Well, about a week ago, I burdened Nuclear Toast with helping me salvage a villain of mine whom I'd found to be lacking. Long story short, his goal was to destroy all created things and rebuild them in his image, which just didn't cut it for me. It's evil, yes, but the person behind the evil was, ultimately, a whiny *******. "Oh, I don't like the world. People have free will. They won't do what I say." Whine! Yes, destroying the world is classic villainy, but the WHY of it is what sank me. NT's insight is what helped me find the very simple, very crucial and yet still very little difference that turned it around: Instead of destroying everything because he's unhappy with it, this villain was changed to want to destroy everything because he firmly believes he can do it better than the original creators of the universe did.
Now, to you, the above may not seem to matter. Who gives a toss why some guy's fanfiction Villain Sue wants to "destroy the world?" But the difference here actually IS meaningful, and it's the difference between destructive evil and creative evil. Destructive evil, especially when destruction is born out of spite or other character flaws, is whiny and irritating. It's the little kid taking a magnifying glass to an ant hill. Creative evil, on the other hand, is respectable, because this represents characters for whom evil is merely a tool, rather than the end goal. These are characters that, through their very ideas, become at least partially likeable. These are characters who aren't just complaining that "Everything was better on my earth!" These aren't the Firebrands and Icedrones who spend their time whining what other people are or aren't doing. No, these are characters facing problems head on and doing something about them. And whether we want to admit to it in relation to a villain or not, that kind of attitude is actually incredibly positive for most people.
The truth of the matter is that we want to sympathise with people who don't back down from problems, but rather face them and solve them. When heroes do it, we cheer them, because it's what makes a good hero. When villains do it, we boo them while at the same time kind of wish they won't be killed off for real so we can see more of them. When characters rise to a challenge and deal with a tough situation, that makes them appealing characters be they hero or villain, face or heel. Sometimes we cheer them for it, sometimes we boo them for it, but always, we respect them. Because no matter how much you may want to hate a villain, it's still difficult to resist being impressed when that villain does something truly impressive.
This, I think, is where Serene fails. She does nothing to rise to the occasion and face a tough problem creatively. Instead, she is all too happy to wallow in the pettiness of revenge, live in the past and make increasingly irrational decisions, all because she's angry and malicious and whiny. She's essentially I'll never give it up! Not to anyone! personified, and all of her performances are grating to sit through as a result. And without anything whatsoever to upset her irritating character, the end result is a villain that essentially ruins everything she's in. That's a large part of what sinks both First Ward and Night Ward in my view, because the bulk of those zones that DON'T involve Sere are actually kind of pretty good. -
Quote:But the question is more about whether the character has considered using time travel not as a means to change things but as a means to find out facts. Which, if you've done anything in Ouroboros... You pretty much have. These days, you can start running the Pilgirm's arc at level 14, and that arc includes two instances of time-travel for the purposes of intelligence-gathering - once to literally get information from the past that doesn't exist today and once to see the results of actions which would otherwise take many years to develop. SSA2.2 takes place 35+, so the only way that line is a safe bet is if the writer assumes people went from 14 to 35 without running anything in Ouroboros, which isn't a safe bet.The way I look at it, you only just found out about this brand new thread at the very tail end of SSA2.1. The first mission of SSA2.2 you are just about to start trying to look for it, when an invaded Longbow base distracts you with generic hero duty. In the middle of that invasion, Dr Echo asks about time travel. If we work with the idea that the chapters are sequential, then your character hasn't had ANY time to think about where to find this item in the here and now, much less put any thought to finding it 'somewhere' in the mists of time.
And again, a single extra text screen fixes that. -
-
Quote:I try to be as comprehensive as I can be because words don't always mean to another person what we think they should mean. This is never more true than when writing fiction (with the possible exception of legal documents), so what I try to get across is less the words themselves and more the "feeling" of it. A lot of times, and this is equally true for good AND bad writing, it doesn't really matter all that much WHAT story you tell as HOW you tell it, and that's not an easy subject to talk about. I'd actually like to get Nuclear Toast here to testify to the manner of crazy story minutia I tend to waste his time with occasionally. I was actually going to talk about what makes a good villain after our last talk, but decided against it. I still might, but as you can imagine, it's not a "simple" topic to discuss.I did not say that they needed to be shorter. When I am not too sleep-deprived to read them, I find Sam's posts are actually improved by his verbosity. He takes a lot of time to put in details and clarify his ideas, which makes it very easy to have a conversation with him despite the limitations of Fora.
I honestly think we and the game can benefit from more discussions about writing, and all the tangents that come with it. Good ideas about storytelling tend to stick with people and help inform how future stories are told and parsed. I'm not sure if I can help with that in any way, but I'll do my best at the same time. -
Quote:Huh... OK, I wasn't aware of this. I know we have doctorates, as well - two types, in fact. One you can achieve when you're still an assistant or an associate which I don't think carries over when you become a Professor. I also know for a fact that here a "Professor" is an actual academic degree and not at all linked to leading classes, though most titled Professors still do. I also have quite a few colleagues who are Doctors without actually having an academic degree proper.In the US, a professor is a person with a Doctorate that teaches in a University. All Professors are Doctors (posses a Doctorate Degree,) although not all Doctors are Professors.
I guess that's different in the US.
*edit*
So there are significant differences. I couldn't find an article about my own education system, but ours is a very close mirror to the Russian one, being a former Soviet country. This does a somewhat decent job of explaining what I mean.
That said, I still don't believe swapping titles in the middle of a mission is a good idea. You don't see us swap to saying Doctor Echo, right? -
Mission 5:
*Already I have a problem with this. First of all, Nash mentions how Harvan has delivered more than his other sources and wait... He has other sources? Since when? I thought I was his only agent and my wild goose chase his only source. In fact, just prior to me going to look for "Doctor" Harvan, Nash told me that "it's better than nothing," implying he has nothing else. So when did he get "sources?" Why not just say that Professor Harvan has made a break-through? Speaking of which...
*Harvan found the key to Pandora's box. OK, how? What did he do to find it? What does Harvan do that any other Greek historian or archaeologist couldn't do with his research notes? I get that there has to be something special about the man, in the same vein as Indiana Jones being more than JUST an archaeologist (along with not actually being one), but what, exactly, is it that sets Harvan apart? Does he have a knack for finding ancient document sources? Does he have extensive knowledge of ancient history? Is he psychic? Aside from "because he's a plot device," why exactly did I recruit Harvan? Ground me here, please.
*So the "key" is in Oranbega. OK, why? How did a Greek artefact end up in North America? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's worth addressing, ESPECIALLY since Oranbega has been lost for 14 000 years, so the Oranbegans couldn't have brought it with them. So how did it get here? Just drop me a single sentence. Say the Spanish found it and brought it to the New World during the great archaeological discoveries period, it got stolen by the locals and brought to the Circle, the same way the idol of MoT was brought over from Cimerora. Or, here's a better idea - say that someone from Cimerora planted it on Marcus Aurelius' ship and THAT'S how the key came here. Just... Something.
This is the sort of thing I rile against when I criticise vague writing. We bring up abstract plot points and give them no grounding in the actual fictional world, with their only function being to prop up the existing plot. Even when these things can be solved in a single sentence. "It's somewhere in the City of Oranbega. Professor Harvan estimates that it might have been shipped here from the ancient fort town of Cimerora. It's possible this Romulus person you met might somehow be involved." That's all you need to say.
*Also, we're back to Montague's speech pattern of saying "You up for..." as a sentence opener, even though this doesn't match Antonio Nash's speech mannerisms thus far at all. Instead of "You up for some spelunking?" why not just say "I think you should help them out?"
*Something doesn't add up here. Aren't I working with the Freedom Phalanx? I mean, I found Harvan, yet I'm not included in the Oranbega mapping operation? Why does Nash have to be the one to tell me about the operation which has apparently already started without me? Why wouldn't they wait for my help? Positron just finished telling me they couldn't do this without me, yet now they're trying to do this without me? Am I supposed to be surprised when they fail?
*And the instance sends me to Echo: Dark Astoria. I can't even make a joke about that.
*"Positron appears to have already established a safe zone inside Oranbega. Time to establish your plan of action." says my entry message. I can't decide if this is a bad redundancy or if it's done deliberately for style. I will say, however, that this is the first time I've seen the phrase "to establish a plan." Formulate, maybe, or put together, or even make a plan, but never establish.
*Harvan postulates that Oranbega must be thousands of years old (over 14 000, yes) and must have originally been built underground and sunk. Which is a prudent assertion for an acheologist, but as an arc that's concurrent with The Envoy of Shadows and following The Library of Souls, we already kind of sort of knew that and any archaeologist worth his salt would have read up on Oranbega. For reference, Akharist, the Circle traitor goes face in the Library of Souls, and begins explaining the history of Oranbega 30-35. 35-40, he actually writes a book about it. This arc is 35-50, and I'm running it on a level 50 Incarnate.
*OK, so apparently my joke about Dr. Harvan being Indiana Jones was more accurate than I thought, considering his father is apparently Henry Jones Sr., by his description of the man. This is sort of the same complaint I had with the endless Ghostbusters references in Night Ward, but at least this is the first and so far only blatant movie reference so far, meaning I can give it a pass. The rest is just a similarity of character traits. However, this is about as blatant as the Television contact describing the shows we're supposed to be watching in such detail as to basically call them out by name, and thus it has already expended the arcs entire allotment of reference points.
*Also, colour me surprised that Positron's incursion into Oranbega hasn't gone horribly wrong and ended up with many Longbow agents (why are they working with Longbow?) dead and Posi and the Professor captured. Sure, they got 10 feet from the door, but they're safe, and that actually makes me quite happy. I guess Posi is the one getting a push this time, but so long as the Phalanx shows competence, I'm happy.
*Wait, has Lilithu always looked like this? As in, like a green Succubus with custom corns? ParagonWiki suggest so, but... Wow, it's been a long time since I've run MuDrakhan's arc, apparently. And why IS she there, anyway? I thought she got summoned on the Rogue Isles and immediately stuffed into a Spirit Trap via Mu'Drakhan. What am I missing? When did she have time to come States-side and kidnap Fusionette? And is this before or after Fusionette joined the Vanguard? She has the boots, but...
*Also, wait, was Limithu supposed to have been empowered by Pandora's Box? Fusionette's dialogue suggests that she was, but Lilithu wasn't any easier now than she's ever been before, plus she wasn't glowing. Are we missing an aura here?
*That's funny. Fusionette raises an eyebrow "Working with the Phalanx now, huh?" Yeah, it's so surprising I didn't know I was working with them until you told me. Because up until now, they've been almost entirely uninvolved with anything I've done and when they did show up, Positron went on ahead without me and didn't even so much as drop a warning. It's a good thing Nash remembered to tell me.
*The final conversation, once again, scrolled by far too fast for me to read it. I'd get to about half-way through reading one caption box before the next appeared. I'm reviewing my NPC tab right now, but this is not the proper way to experience a cutscene. Also - music. Please, if you'll have a cutscene with a major revelation (even if it's not that surprising), then you need to put music behind it for effect. Not necessarily "dun dun duuun" but just... Something.
*Nash's final debriefing is pretty solid. He does admit he was more or less useless, which is more or less how you build a contact when you want to present a story arc with the hero as an actual protagonist. I approve of it wholeheartedly. It's just enough ego-stroking to be meaningful without going overboard and throwing established characters under the bus.
*The final mission had quite a bit of fighting and not too many interruptions. I'm happy about that. It was a nice scrap and the conclusion, though open-ended for the next episode, is solid. This ends on a high note, critically speaking, and that's always a good thing. After the fourth mission, I wasn't very optimistic.
*OK, explain something to me: What was the point of the first two missions? The Professor Echo mission existed solely to set up the Cimerora mission, but the Cimerora mission accomplished nothing beyond "Your princess is in another castle!" A good chunk of the story arc accomplishes nothing and serves only as padding. I don't want the arc to be shorter, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather get plot and character development instead of filler.
Overall thoughts
This one's really hard to call, honestly. On the one hand, the technical side of the writing is nearly spotless. No text errors, no faulty grammar, almost no redundancies. On the other hand, the actual writing style leaves a lot to be desired, hinging far too many minor and major plot threads on abstract elements that are not even addressed and relying on vagaries in place of explanations. Again, I remind you of Roy Cooling and his circuit-board-or-chip" abstract "tech." Things that can be explained with just a single sentence to give the story more grounding in the overworld and the overall canon should be given such explanations.
Gameplay-wise, this story is disappointing. Three out of five missions are mostly talking with very little fighting, two of the five missions are almost completely pointless and one of the "fighting" missions is all patrols. I really liked SSA2.1 because while it did have two "talking" missions, it did have three solid fighting missions. Instead of improving things, SSA2.2 regressed back towards SSA1 with every mission being awash in dialogues, even for things that didn't need to be dialogues. For instance, what, exactly, was there in the Azuria "dialogue" that wouldn't have been equally well-served as a clue? Or the Silos and Prometheus dialogues, for that matter? Or the Positron/Harvan dialogue? There are a few dialogues that have options in them, but there are far too many that didn't have to be dialogues. I honestly want to see more than half of every new story arc being devoted to what City of Heroes does best - action.
The plot itself isn't actually bad. Stripped of all the filler and cameos, it's a solid idea. Pandora's box is causing havoc and we need to find it. We learn that Indiana Jones might know where it is, recruit him and find the key to locating the box. In the meantime, we find out Arachnos and the Circle are interested. It's a pretty solid foundation for a pretty solid story. But it's crammed full of guest appearances, often by people who make no sense to do what they're doing or act like they're acting. Prometheus doesn't sound like himself, Silos is skittish like a kitten when he should be self-assured, Nocturne and Sands are working together, Penny is in this AGAIN (why not swap her with BABs? Or Numina? Or anyone else for her short cameo?).
Honestly, the whole thing feels like it might have been a pretty fun story if it WEREN'T an SSA, because it seems like our mission designers try to make everything BIG for SSAs and in the process forego basic storytelling. SSA2.2 is all flash and very little refinement. It's huge in size but small in content. It feels bloated by filler and things that didn't need to be there butting out legitimately good content and solid gameplay, and that's really disappointing. SSA2.1 let me play the game budgeted its talking segments. SSA2.2 feels like a TNA show - lots of talking, but they aren't saying anything that can't be summed up in a few sentences, and by the end of the show I'm yelling "Wrestle! Wrestle!" at my screen. It replaces action with talking, yet that talking doesn't have almost any story in it. It's mostly padding, and that's the one thing you can't afford on content that's produced on a tight schedule. -
Mission 4
*OK, so Antonio Nash chartered a Freedom Corps sub to take me to Albania? Let's hope the Professor isn't very far in-land, but why not just mention this proper? Instead of "I've set up transportation," why not have him say "I chartered a Freedom Corps sub for you?" Just to be a little more specific and tie this to the physical world a little more, is what I mean. And if the situation is dire enough for Longbow to lend a whole sub for me, why aren't actual soldiers going out to look for the professor? Or am I just hitching a ride on a sub that's going to Europe anyway? And why not a plane? It seems like just snagging an American Airways ticket would be both faster and cheaper than riding in a sub. I'm led to believe there's a time pressure involved. I know I'm nitpicking, but this is the sort of thing that can be solved by an offhand remark.
Quote:That's all you need to say to make the real world "stick" to the text.I don't actually have the budget to requisition an air ticket for you, but I did talk Freedom Corps into lending you the jump seat on one of their Subs heading for an allied base near Albania. They'll drop you off.
*The entry message confuses me. I thought I was going to look for a professor who's on an expedition to Albania (even if going on an "expedition" into a civilised state confuses me), but if that's the case, why does the entry pop-up tell me I hope I'm the first person to discover this place. WHY did I come here if not because the professor had already discovered this place and was there? Did I flip over two pages at once? And sure enough, there are archeology students inside, so I'm NOT the first person to discover this place.
*Also, it's weird that I'm looking for the professor at his dig site, yet I don't stop to ask the archaeology students where he is, if he's at the site or anything of the sort. They also don't respond to a 10-foot-tall green woman carrying around a steel girder of a runic sword traipsing through their dig. You'd think that would catch someone's attention, elicit a comment, something... No, I just walk on by and keep looking. Honestly, for as talk-heavy as this arc was, I'm surprised this mission didn't start off with me chatting up a student and asking if the professor is here. The one place where there SHOULD be dialogue, or at least a clue, there isn't one. I'd honestly have traded the Prometheus and Silos dialogues for one here.
*Huh... OK, I did NOT call Arachnos being involved in this, but it makes sense. Recluse hasn't been relevant lately and an old Greek artefact that has to do with the power of Zeus and, potentially, the Statesman's death would be something logical for him to involve himself in. Point to the story - that makes sense. I'm just surprised no-one was able to identify Arachnos as being suspicios, what with them walking around in either plate mail armour or shiny skintight latex. I get the Albanians might not be familiar with Arachnos, but I have a hard time believing that someone can see a Crab Spider and NOT tell he's all sorts of bad news. ... I take that back, the student they were holding hostage has clearly spotted the evil in Arachnos' dress code... Which leads me to question why Professor Harvan's colleagues or the other Archeology Students didn't bat an eye.
*OK, I have to say something here. Nocturne the Night Widow being in Albania? I can see that happening. Random chance, even if I thought it was Veluta Lunata at first. But Nocturne AND Arbiter Sands both? Now it's starting to feel contrived, like we're pretty much just reusing any Arachnos operatives with names attached to them. I half expect to run into Bane Spider Ruben deeper into the cave. And why are Nocturne and Sands working together anyway? She tried to have him killed and he had her arrested. Approximately half of Faultline explores the story of how they hate each other and are constantly competing and ruining each other's operations. Why are they working together all of a sudden?
*James Harvan's outfit is quite cool, actually... Even if I'm not sure why he looks like a 1930s African explorer. Albania isn't exactly the Congo, after all. Still, nice look.
*Wait, "Doctor Harvan?" I thought he was a professor? Those aren't the same thing. Now, I don't know if it's different in the US, but where I come from, "doctor" is a secondary scientific degree, appended to a primary degree. My father, for instance, is a Prof. Dr. of Biologial Sciences as his official degree, with "Professor" being his primary title. Those shouldn't be interchangeable. And then MY dialogue has Xanta refer to him as "Doctor?" Why? He has never been referred to as a "Doctor" up to this point. He has always been referred to either as Professor Harvan or just "The Professor."
*And another cutscene where I have to wait for the villains to stop monologuing before I can attack them. Honestly, why do I have to stick to the old tropes? Why do I have to wait for them to finish explaining their plan? Well, obviously, so Penny and Synapse can come help while Positron stands outside... Being heroic, but again - this could have happened mid-fight. In fact, why not have that happen when Ghost Widow drops to, say, 75% health - Penny and Synapse come as an ambush, but they con friendly to me. Job done, and I don't have to look at what might as well be a cutscene that just doesn't do the "super widescreen" thing. Also, again: WHY are Sands and Nocturne working together? They should at least be tossing snarky remarks at each other!
*Wow, Positron just promised "Doctor" Harvan that he'll be completely safe with the Phalanx. I would bet money that will be proven false either the very next mission or at least by the end of the arc. And why is Antonio Nash there? And why are the Freedom Phalanx there? As far as we knew, I was just going to go speak with the professor. How did they know Arachnos would be there? And even if they did, why did Nash go with them? He's a SERAPH pencil pusher. Moreover, why is he there when his "input" has been entirely irrelevant to the arc? Even from the start, he admits this is out of his depth, yet they brought him along for... What, exactly? He can't fight, he's not an expert... Aside from being associated with me, how is he even relevant?
*Oh, OK, so Positron "detected some heavy Arachnos activity" after I left. Now, if only there were some kind of invention which allowed people to communicate instantly between land and subersibles, some kind of... "Radio" by which they could WARN ME I was walking into a trap, that might have been useful. But, no, I guess travelling half-way around the world to Albania was the better solution. Seriously, this is the death of Statesman all over again - we can't warn him because in the 21st century, people move faster than wireless communications. One has to wonder what all that money spent laying cables along the bottom of the Atlantic went for. Might as well go back to the Pony Express, I guess.
*Also, this brings up a good point. Positron is "mobilising the Phalanx" to react to Arachnos searching for Pandora's Box, but I have to ask... What were they doing up to that point? I was the one time-travelling and going to Albania, and I was supposed to be working with them. You'd think that when I found out all that stuff about the Box, I'd take it to smarty Positron to figure out the next step, but it seems like neither Nash nor I actually did that. I wonder if they were standing by the phone waiting for me to call like a lovestruck girl. Well, yeah, Nash did bring in the Phalanx eventually, but that was at the end of mission 3, and I just have to wonder why it took so long.
*OK, I have to quote this bit from Harvan because there's so much to comment on:
Quote:I must say, I did not expect my savior to be so well-associated with the Freedom Phalanx. I'll say to you what I said to Positron, Xanta. If you have the resources available to enable my research, and you can vouch for my safety, then you'll have my utmost cooperation. This may be the best chance I have of completing my life's work. To see the legendary Pandora's Box with my own eyes... why, I can hardly wait to get started! Hah!
*Also, this is the third conversation I've had this mission. So it's had three conversation and a cutscene. Mission 2 also consisted of three conversations and almost no fighting, plus a quasi-cutscene. Mission 1 was essentially three boss fights with lots of dialogue and a conversation. I think so far Mission 3 is the only ACTUAL mission I've run to this point. Come on, guys! This is SSA1 writing, and I thought you were doing better this time around. Please, give me a larger instance with more spawns than conversations. I beg of you!
*And then there's "making Superman look bad so you can make Batman look good." I'm in agreement that this is a bad way to put the player over. It's not enough that the Phalanx need my help, but Positron has to explain how they're lost without me. This really wasn't necessary. You can thank me and praise me without simultaneously discrediting the only real super group we have in the game... Any more than SSA1 already discredited them. Oi!
*And again - WHY was Nash in Albania? I never had to speak with him, so why was he there? Did he just want to see the world?
*And right after this, Antonio Nash's debriefing has me chuckling to myself. "I'm not sure how much help I can be to you, Xanta, but I'll give it my all." Well, apparently you were of enough help for the Phalanx to take you to Albania. Or is it the other way around? Oh, I know! The Freedom Phalanx didn't have a map, so they needed Nash to take them to Albania. He was there to show them the way. OK, now it makes sense. O_o
I'm moving on to Mission 5 and I pray to Cow and Chicken the last mission is a step up, because LORDY! -
Quote:We do? But he says the opening of the box gave him super powers, and it kind of makes sense - he's still sporting his red Cimeroran costume and isn't yet in his Nictus form. This sounds like it's trying to say we're seeing Romulus before he goes for the Path of the Dark.Well, as far as Rommy, we know from his dialogue that he got nothing from the Box, so perhaps in a fit of jealousy and vengeance he made his pact with the Path of the Dark later on...
Actually, what IS the story about that, anyway? According to the Drojan diary, he was an emperor BEFORE he went to look for the Path of the Dark. Could it be that the Box was a part of the story already and I just didn't read it right? Because when I stop to think about it, Romulus being just a jester would suggest he got power BEFORE becoming emperor, and he went to look for the Path of the Dark AFTER he was already an emperor.
Something here doesn't add up. -
Mission 3
*OK, right off the bat, Antonio Nash repeats Venture's argument on mystical things - we don't know if it's magic, but it looks like it and feels like it so it might as well be magic. So he suggests looking for a magic user to deal with it. Boy, won't Nash have egg on his face when Akharist or whoever that is goes that and discovers it's an ancient alien technologic artefact. Oops!
*Oh, OK, so it's Azuria. I did not expect that, but it's a good call. She definitely needs the exposure. Plus, very good idea to both play on the old "magi vault revolving door" meme while still salvaging Azuria's character as a potent, legitimate mystic. Good call. I do have to wonder exactly what I'm going to ask her, though. This arc has the tendency to have me take action without fully realising what that action actually constitutes.
*Oh, no! Something has happened to the safehouse! I totally didn't see that coming from being directed to an instance!Sorry, sorry, I'm joking on this one. I know there's no way to avoid this and... Honestly, I'd rather something happen and let me fight than have another "talk to" mission.
*Random observation: Warehouses interior textures have been fixed! I didn't notice when this happened, and I know it's not unique to SSA2.2, but it's still very satisfying. I'm no longer seeing a random mish-mash of inappropriate texture squares, and it actually makes the tileset look very appealing.
*Why are all the Warrior spawns in that mission patrols? It's not really a bad thing or a good thing, but it makes the mission really chaotic.
*Huh... Why does Odysseus in this arc have a different description than in The Magician's arc? This one's better, by the way. I love that he has a real name - David Hill - with "Odysseus" being just a moniker. It makes the Warriors feel both more legitimate as a believable villain faction and more real as a threat when they're not just cosplayers re-enacting old stories.
*I do have a question, though - are we trying to turn Odysseus sympathetic? Because it seems we've turned a lot of our villains into kittens - Dominatrix, the Clockwork King, Master Midnight... And it feels like we're going the Penny/King route with Odysseus/Azuria. OK, so now that we know who Odysseus is (I've seen his face) can we charge and arrest him? Maybe have his company taken seized? Anything?
*Aw! Azuria didn't get a new unique editor-made model! Come on, now. Antonio Nash did when nobody knows who he is, but Azuria didn't? Disappointing. Still, I'm glad her dialogue isn't that of a skittish hostage. She has an air of confidence, and I like that.
*OK, surprising me greatly, Azuria makes a lot of sense and actually ties the plot together strongly. Now I get why we went to her - because she's a Seer who's good at tracking down lost artefacts, as evidence by her doing so now. This beats Antonio's reasoning of "It's magic so let's look for it with magic!" sixth grader reasoning by a mile. It also makes sense why Odysseus is looking for the thing - he's in the business of amassing powerful artefacts, and Pandora's Box is a very powerful artefact. It also explains why the thing is hard to find, nevertheless giving me a strong lead on its location. This mission accomplished a lot!
*"An expert on Pandora's Box, huh? Well, it's a whole lot better than nothing." says Antonio Nash, prompting me to quote Gideon Wyeth from Advent Rising fame and retort "It IS nothing." Now, granted, I know this lead will turn out something important, but that's going off genre-savvy predictions, not actual grounded logic. It's the same reason I knew there would be enemies in Azuria's mission by virtue of it taking place in an instance. Although I guess having someone familiar with the Box's history might reveal other places it has showed up throughout time that I can pursue via Ourobors, but I highly doubt this will happen.
Moving onto Mission 4, and taking a break for lunch. -
Quote:Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Yeah, it's possible he's from before that time. But here's what I don't get, if that's the case - what possible interest could he have for me? Is he just here to steal "my" time-travel tech? Because as far as I know, the entire character arc of Aeon -> Old Aeon -> Echo has to do with Time After Time and my villain characters destroying the world in a fight with Lord Recluse.Does the arc reference that this Professor Echo is from after that point in time? Otherwise since he's a time traveler, it's entirely possible it's an earlier Professor Echo than the one we see getting killed. I mean, I may be entirely wrong since I haven't played the arc yet, but knowing he's a time traveler that'd probably be my immediate assumption.
He mentions being amused at it and treats it like a minor nuisance, rather than like a big problem. It suggests that these kinds of paradoxes are seen as normal, which I can't really get.
No need to snark. The solution to this is simple - have Echo introduce himself by name as the very first thing he does when he realises diplomacy IS an option. Job done. -
Mission 2
*Right off the bat... Antonio Nash claims temporal science is "a few steps above his paygrade." Fair enough, he's not a temporal scientist. But then, neither am I and I still caught the problem. Either he knows enough about time travel to know why a paradox is not a problem, or he's too dense to spot it and at least comment on it, neither of which really makes sense for the guy.
*Antonio Nash suggests I have better resources to deal with this than I do. That caught ME by surprise since it took me a minute to realise he was referring to Ouroboros... I think. But wait, how does Nash know about Ouroboros? I thought only those of us selected to receive an Ouro Portal, those chosen to have a part to play in changing the future, were enlightened in Ouro's presence. How did he find out? Is that common knowledge now? And if he knows about Ouro, how is time travel so alien to guy that he won't even comment on it? What am I missing here?
*OK, Pandora's Box's history starts, "as far as you know," in ancient Greece. How do I know this? Because of ancient Greek myth of Pandora? That's just a myth unless I have evidence that it isn't. Yes, I know that some myths are real in City of Heroes - Prometheus is a good example - but that doesn't mean ALL myths are. I just don't get why the narrative treats Pandora's Box as something we know exists and was opened and is real BEFORE we learn about it and find evidence to support this assertion.
*Prometheus' dialogue is weird. He speaks in this faux-aerie, over-complex speech in this arc, which doesn't really reflect his more diction that he had when last I spoke about him in relation to being an Incarnate. I know this arc assumes this is happening BEFORE I became an Incarnate, but couldn't that dialogue have had an extra flag to tell if I'm an Incarnate the same way as Dominatrix can tell I'm from Praetoria? It just feels like I caught Prometheus reading poetry and he didn't see me coming.
*OK, I can't resist asking this any more - what, exactly, did Prometheus "grant" mankind to elevate us? Or are we leaving the explanation off and just going by what I'm supposed to know about the myth? Because as far as I can tell, Ermeeth teaching magic to mankind was a hell of a lot more help than teaching us how to make fire. I know it's a small point to pick on, but this arc uses so many things that, as far as I can tell, are never explained...
*I don't get Zeus' plan here. He swore to always "hold dominion" over mankind, but how does putting his power inside Pandora's Box to be used by mortals accomplish this. Is he dead now? Prometheus still lives, so why did Zeus have to put his power in a box and not, instead, wiled it directly and use THAT to hold dominion? This story is making decisions I don't really understand.
*Explain this line to me: "That... is knowledge that I cannot share. However, there is another in this place that may be more forthcoming." He can't tell me, but he points me to someone who CAN tell me? Why? Doesn't this accomplish the same thing? Is Prometheus afraid of revealing secrets in front of his angelic companions? That might have been good to mention. The only reason I infer this is I spoke with Prometheus outside of this arc and asked him about Christy and Michael, but mentioning them in the actual arc might have been nice as a means of giving context why Promethus wants to tell us but can't and has to play games instead.
*Wow, OK, four paragraphs of complaints and it all turns out to have been padding, thanks to the temporal banana phone. Echo tells me I'm supposed to go to the box in Achea. Instead of doing this, I ask Prometheus, who can't tell me but sends me to Silos, who can't tell me but sends me to Achea. ... THIS ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING! I had access to the Pillar of Ice and Flame before this. I could have simply gone to Achea on my own, so why did I have to go through two dialogues of people essentially explaining how they're telling me nothing only to do what I thought I was going to Ouroboros to do in the first place? Seriously, if I'm going to speak with these people, at least make those conversations have a point. As it stands, they're just padding. And why am I using Lazarus' crystal instead of Silos when Silos instructed me to do it?
*The mission entry pop-up is confusing. "There must be something here that Silos wants you to see." Yes, there is. This is where Pandora's Box is, that's why I came here. And I didn't come here because Silos sent me, I came here because Echo suggested I should and I was out of leads. Are we assuming that the conversations with Prometheus and Silos had a point and they're why I'm here? Because they could have been dropped out of the story entirely and nothing would have changed. They said nothing of substance.
*Idle musing, but when I actually got into the mission and started killing stuff, it was a lot of fun. Unlike the first mission, this one has a lot of action and few distractions. Glad to see balance has been maintained so well. It makes me happy. I'd appreciate a tad more non-vital NPC chatter, but it's not a big deal.
*The scripting on Imperious confuses me. He shows up with a blue reticle so I can't attack him, only for him to finish monologuing and THEN turn orange so I can attack him. Why? Why prevent me from attacking him mid-monologue? It's not a problem, I just don't get it.
*I finally realise what Prometheus' and Silos' dialogues remind me of - the Romans. The way Romulus speaks is actually pretty spot on for the rest of Cimerora, but it seems like his speech mannerisms have somehow infected Solos and Prometheus, as well. Curious... Also, why is he not Nictus yet? Is this supposed to take place before the ITF? Because both it and this arc have the same level range. OK, I can roll with that.
*Wait wait wait... Romulus AND Imperious were empowered by the box TOGETHER? First of all, wasn't Imperious an Incarnate? Is the box interchangeable with the Well now? Secondly, what about the stories from people in Senator Aquila's arc who tell of how Romulus was just a "jester" (a word repeated no less than three times in that arc) and he grew great power and took the empire from Imperious? I thought Imperious had been super-powered since long before Romulus was. Lastly... Where does this leave the Path of the Dark? I thought "the last Roman emperor," Romulus Augustulus, tried to save his empire by making a pact with the cult of werewolves and was last seen descending into the darkness with them? Wasn't THAT where he got his power first? Because the writers over the years made numerous attempts to paint the War Wolves as ALIENS - Nictus - and now we're going back to them being magical and part of Pandora's Box? I don't recall a mention in that guard's journal about Imperious going into the cave with them. Just a "drojan," who was already a werewolf. What's going on here? Are we rewriting Cimerora's backstory now?
*"And the Box? Where do you think it is now?" asks my character, lacking her opening quote mark. Smooth, Xanta. Romulus just told you how he would disassemble Cimerora brick by brick and murder everybody, and your reaction is "Yeah, whatever, doom and gloom - about that box..." I thought you became a hero to protect the weak from those who would abuse their power, but I guess that can wait. Oi... I really wish there were a reason for why I'm not taking this chance to smack Romulus around and help Cimerora. I get that this can't happen, but I'd like a reason for why I can't. And again, "I have a nation to conquer!" he says, and Xanta basically goes "OK, have fun with that. Bye!" Ugh...
*And another thing: When Ramiel first tries to charter a trip to Cimerora to look for the Well of the Furies, it transpires that the Midnight Club's crystal enabling large numbers of people to go back in time and much about with Cimerora is causing a disturbance in causality. So why is Silos unable to notice this NOW when he sends me to essentially the same time period? You can't just say "Oh, this takes place before the ITF so people haven't been going there yet. That's not how time travel works. People HAVE been going there. Not exactly to that precise moment, perhaps, but within a decade of it and that should cause some kind of disturbance enough to out the Letter Writer's stake in Cimerora. So why doesn't that happen?
*Also, again - this whole trip to Cimerora accomplished nothing. Unless you want to tell me that these missions to go speak with people are accomplishing delivering information to me... But what information is that? Prometheus lets slip that the Box has the power of Zeus, but I'm not sure how that's better than just "a lot of power," Silos lets slip that the Box is vital to his Coming Storm and Romulus basically stomps on Cimeroran lore and the Path of the Dark. Again - what did that accomplish?
*You know... For a man for whom time travel is "above his paycheck," Antonio Nash sure is taking all of this stuff in his stride. "Welcome back, chrononaut." Yeah, nothing unusual about this, no need to be impressed. I guess if he knew about Oruoboros, he shouldn't be impressed. Eh, maybe the man just has tunnel vision about his narrow field of science. I can roll with that. It just seems odd.
*Also, wait... Why is Romulus in ancient Greece? Is that where Cimerora was? Because I was under the impression it was somewhere on the Italian peninsula. And indeed, why are the Romans speaking about Greek myths using Greek names? Zeus, Hades, Pandora... Didn't they have Latin names for those, as well as a significantly different but largely borrowed religion based around Mars as the primary god? OK, now I'm confused again.
Moving on to Mission 3. -
I realise that this seems like a vanity project, but I've still decided to go over SSA2.1 with a fine-tooth comb and list any potential technical errors I find about it. This isn't an attempt to "hate" on the arc as so far, I actually rather like it, but Arcana advised me to make a list of my complaints, so here I am.
Mission 1
*Right off the bat, why is Professor Echo in this arc? In case you need a reminder, when we last saw Professor Echo in the 15-20 Echo down the Aeons arc, he DIED. Professor Echo was speaking to a much older Dr. Aeon who escaped to play a part in Time After Time, while Professor Echo stayed behind and fought to the death. This isn't even one of those ambiguous "defeated" moments. His death was pretty explicit. So why is he still alive?
*Why are Longbow soldiers ignoring Professor Echo? I know the mission suggests they're looking for him, but it's not like the man is hiding. He stands in plain sight yelling loud enough for me to hear him through a double door, yet people 20 feet from him don't know he's there? Why not do a repeat of the Brass arc and have the man show up with Shivans or something else he's cloned or reproduced? Like Storm Elementals called something else? ... Which he apparently has with him at the end.
*Serious dialogue crime here. Professor Echo asks "Has historical time travel as an investigative tool even crossed your mind?" and my only response is "No... Well, not until now, I suppose." Oi... Let's review. By this point, Xanta has travelled to ancient Cimerora to discover the history of MoT, travelled back in time to gather information from the 5th Column in the past, defeated a Rikti commander in order to investigate the consequences in the future and... Oh! Gone to the end of time to give Ramiel that crystal to bring back and unlock her own Incarnate status. But no, time travel never crossed her mind. What is this I don't even... Why not just add an extra option which says "Yes, it has crossed my mind, but what are you talking about, exactly?" and have Echo explain it? It stops our characters from making continuity-breaking statements.
*How does City of Heroes handle time paradoxes? History causes Echo to travel back in time and in the process creates the history which sent him back in the first place. So which came first - the chicken or the egg? I'm not asking for a physics lecuture on relativity theory and manifold mathematics, just an off-hand explanation of how that works, or at the very least an admission that this shouldn't have happened. Time travel is a can of worms if you don't impose some kind of ruleset to it.
*The Shivan spawns on the last floor are bugged. They're doing the OOOLD CoV thing with just spawning two minions side-by-side punching their fists as can be seen in some custom maps from the Rikti War Zone still. It's not a big deal since there are only about three of those spawns, but still.
*Maybe I've just forgotten SSA2.1, but when did we find out that this whole thing is the fault of Pandora's Box and when did we find out what it is? If I'm travelling back to when it was first opened, as so far seems implied, wouldn't I need to know more about it? And if it's known that it was Pandora's Box, then why is Antonio Nash insisting that whatever did this to the Trolls, it wasn't Superadine? If we know it was the Box, then isn't it obvious this wasn't Superadine? Or am I reading something wrong?
*Why does Antonio react to Professor Echo like he knows who that is? The good Professor's only call to fame was disrupting Arachnos operations on the Isles and then dying. I don't recall him being a major player in Paragon City. I'd suggest swapping his reference to "Professor Echo" to "this Professor Echo" or even "this Professor Echo person." And, come to think of it... Echo never introduced himself. In the Isles, it's Brass that first brings up the name as some sort of moniker that the man is known by, but in Paragon City, the name is never mentioned until Nash first blurts it out. Did I just happen to read the name floating over the man's head? Are those actually real in the world of City of Heroes? I thought they were just part of my UI.
*Antonio Nash brings up the problem of confusing time travel, but what confuses him is the concept of predestiny, rather than the concept of a temporal paradox. I know the man is not a physicist, but he's still a scientist - chemist, I believe - working on the physiological effects of Superadine on the human body. He ought to be learned enough to spot a closed circle of events spawning each other with no outside catalyst to start it in the first place.
Moving on to Mission 2... -
Quote:On the flip side, it seems like Dominatrix going face was legit and they might be running with that. As long as we're trying to use the Praetorians we didn't kill to feed the character death quota, and more than anything as long as we're turning Megan face, Marauder doesn't seem that far off the bat. I mean, talk about someone who enjoys hurting othersIs he still like that today? Has all the suffering he has seen as well as age caught up with him? It is possible. But it worked out well giving Wade and Malaise the benefit of the doubt.
-
Quote:That's how my thinking was going, yes, but a bit less of a "Plan B" and more of a "OK, this isn't going right. Let's stop and figure out what I'm doing wrong." I like villains with plans within plans, but the problem is that after a point, those start becoming hard to take seriously. It is, therefore, a bit easier to swallow a villain coming up with a new and glorious plan if we actually accept that he came up with it as his previous one was falling apart. This reduces the feeling that a writer is simply backfilling plans that the villain is supposed to have been working on for years as he thinks of them. I've always tried my darnest to hide the man behind the curtain, so having the bad state of Arachnos happen first, then act as a wake-up call to spur Recluse into really working his brain again seems believable.What I really like is the idea that Lord Recluse would have a plan in place for just such a scenario, to allow himself and his organization breathing space even when (to the rest of the world) it seems Arachnos is imploding. I find it ludicrous to think that Lord Recluse can have his grandest schemes foiled by the very villain he needs to achieve his ultimate end, observe his own organization mired in backstabbing and opportunistic betrayals and never once think, "maybe I should have a plan B".
Quote:It stands to reason that if he is opening portals at random to alternate dimensions, he is going to eventually find one overun by, say, The Battalion. Or a bigger threat.
It also stands to reason that of the infinite parallel dimensions, there is another one where someone like Recluse is looking to colonize alternate dimensions.
Regardless, though, you're right that it's a risk. But it's also the kind of risk that a villain really has to take in order to shoot for greatness. Being a villain isn't all deus ex machina and villain sue. It's hard work and dedication, it involves danger and failure and it's something you earn. That's what makes good villains great and interesting villains worth reading about. If anything, making Recluse's job harder ought to make his eventual success all the more impressive. -
Quote:Every aspect of a story is just a way to make the audience think something is happening that isn't actually happening, because the story is ultimately not real. It's all a question of how it's done. You don't have to change the status quo in order to put over a villain strongly. The Nemesis (of today) never changed the status quo of the game yet he's been put over as one of the most serious villains of the game.In order for the villains to be a threat they have to win. What parts of Paragon City do you want to give up? Which heroes should they kill? Xanatos gambits are bull s***. It's just a way for the writers to make you think the villain is winning even when they're still losing just like always.
Also, I'm pretty sure "********" is one word. -
-
Thank you
This was really the only way I could think of for Recluse to expand his power base without raising the "too much explanation necessary" questions of international politics. I've just found that when a plot point starts raising too many questions with too lengthy explanations, it's probably best to pull out and trade plots. Alternate dimensions have the benefit of letting the man expand without having to contest with real-world interference. That doesn't mean alternate dimensions can't be interfered with, but when such a plot does arise, it's because we chose to tell it, rather than because we ran into a plot dead end and conflict was the only way out of the situation.
The funny thing is that the Nemesis has been doing this since the game came out, but it's simply never been explored to any great length. At almost no point is it ever asked where our villains are getting the funds needed to keep such Byzantine, sprawling evil organisations going. For something like the Devouring Earth, that's a stupid question - they have no use for money and all the resources they need are commonly-available dirt, rocks and vegetation. That's why their spread is so dangerous - it can't be stopped by depriving them of resources. But for something like, say, the Council, it should come up exactly how they can fund what must be hundreds if not thousands of bases under the city, employ maybe tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of men, supply them all, feed them all, train them all, manage them all and so forth. "Front companies" get mentioned occasionally, but those never do any real business and so earn no income.
I know that that's kind of an unfair question to ask of an archvillain, since City of Tax Evasion wouldn't be nearly as exciting and a lot of the time you can say they just steal the money. But when it comes to Arachnos, that's a very visible, very large organisation at the head of an entire independent nation. That's an organisation which has MASSIVE upkeep costs even just running on idle, and to me, alternate dimensions are the easiest explanation for this. Yes, they're just one step removed from "a wizard did it" since there's no theoretical limit to the amount an organisation can sprawl across the multiverse and so no real context of how powerful it is, but that CAN be mitigated with a relatively low opportunity cost of secondary explanation. Indeed, part of the "problem" of having a world with context where certain plot points demand certain reactions from certain factions is also a benefit - it gives you a world that's easier to understand or predict. But I still feel the cost of uncertainty in letting Recluse loose on the Multiverse to spar with Nemesis for control of dead-world colonies is worth it
Again, Lord Recluse deserves to be the premier villain in City of Heroes, and he deserves to be a threat greater than any of the others. Perhaps not immediately, I expect the Battalion to catch everyone off guard. But I still want to see Recluse be the biggest threat when all is said and done, and eventually become a threat bigger than them, too. While the heroes fight to save the world, Recluse is racking his brain to find some way to benefit from it all. That's how I'd write him into any "for the greater good" conflict. After all, why not let the fools throw themselves at the danger and buy him enough time to find some way of not just defeating it, but stealing its power, as well? In fact, why not let the Nemesis figure that out and then just beat him to the punch? THAT is the kind of villain I want Recluse to be. -
Quote:No, I don't believe that group intelligence exists as a "thing." I can believe it in the sense of crowd flow research, but that's not a separate sentient intelligence, that's just a group of individuals behaving in a fairly predictable manner dictated by circumstances and instinct. Yes, you can interpret that as intelligence if you want to argue around the specifics, but what you can't do is present that as a character. At best you can create a construct operating under abstract rules, and this is exactly what I want to avoid.Why would it be an illusion? The notions of conceptual personifications separate, do you even believe that group intelligences can exist that are distinct from, but not separate from, individual intelligences?
Quote:Put it another way: sand castles are not grains of sand. No grain of sand has a part of a sand castle within it. So when you knock the sand castle over, where does it go? Is the sand castle just an illusion perpetrated by sand grains?
To say that a group has intelligence comparable to that of an actual person is, to me, not terribly different from saying that a sand castle must have a princess living in it because it resembles in our heads the concept of a real castle, despite the similarity only being in the concepts we wrap around the constructs, not in the constructs themselves.
---
I'm sure you can argue how human beings themselves are comprised of many cells that seem to form a singular consciousness, so why couldn't many people in a group do the same, but the brain cells inside a human head are system built to work as a system, where the "cognition" of any single element of it is limited to the function it serves in that system. The problem with trying to tie many people together into an "overmind" is that what makes us intelligent in the first place is also the same thing which makes us incompatible in sharing a common intelligence, which is that we have a drive to think for ourselves. In order to create a true intelligence made up of the the brains of many people, you'd have to both change how people's brains operate and still produce something that doesn't resemble a person. And that's the problem.
By doing what you're suggesting, you're creating a construct with intelligence of a completely different type that doesn't necessarily correspond to what people would normally expect of an intelligence. And while that might have scientific merit, or even make for interesting predictionist fiction, it's still something I prefer to avoid whenever possible. That, to me, is what makes James Cameron movies so successful - he takes a wild sci-fi concept, but puts it through the filter of things we're familiar with, so instead of having the movie pause to explain its amazingly high-concept ideas to us, all we need is an off-hand mention of a "thing" to instantly get it.
Aliens is a great example of this. You have recognisbale guns, you have fairly recognisable armour, you have largely conventional architecture, you have people who behave like actual people would, you have a planet that has a breathable atmosphere so you don't have to worry about leaks and punctures (meaning people can get shot and walls exploded) and essentially everything's built such that pretty much anyone who's seen a movie in the 80s will "get" it without almost any need for explanation. It's why that movie was able to be cut down so brutally James Cameron's original cut and still retain a plot that most anyone can follow.
---
I'll end by saying this - with your idea, you're treading into territory that relies on people accepting something that not everyone will willingly believe. It may be true, I'm not omnipotent and I'm certainly not a behaviour psychologist, but it's nevertheless hard to accept because it goes contrary to instinct. To me, it's like trying to insert hard concepts from Special Relativity and String Theory that paint a universe that's so different from what we perceive it to be that it's essentially unrecognisable - you're shooting yourself in the foot by having to explain everything at least well enough for people to take you word for it, and any time you spend explaining things us pure upkeep. If I have a choice, I'll always go for the concept that I don't have to explain. Even at the expense of factual truth, if it comes to that.