Samuel_Tow
-
Posts
14730 -
Joined
-
I've always felt we could use more full-screen effects like this. Remember those old negative red-scale liquid tanks in Arachnos bases? Imagine that over the whole screen. Sure, it'd be kind of hard to see, but if it's used for just a short amount of time, like when you get hit with a control effect, then it might be a cool idea.
-
Like I said, we just disagree on the subject.
Every once in a while, a thread pops up asking what powers you'd like to have. Many people have many different ideas, like x-ray vision so you can see through women's clothing, teleportation so you can explore the world in a day and someone even asked for "an extra life" which was quite creative.
Me, though, I've always asked for what is pretty much the very basics - invulnerability. That's not just immunity to damage, it's also immunity to disease, mental illness, ageing and so forth. If I could only have one, that's what it'd be. There's so much stuff to do that it always feels like isn't enough time for it all, yet they say you learn as long as you live. What's better for it, then, than infinite time?
I like my characters to have depth, but "depth" and "humanity" are not the same thing. Even human characters in stories don't have to be exact representations of humans in real life, because I don't exactly have a very high opinion of humans in real life as a general thing. -
Quote:Honestly, there's still room to salvage this. Suppose in a following story someone DOES try to resurrect the Statesman, he shows up as a spirit, but has to do something that forever revokes his ability to live again. That would be a post-portem moment of glory, and it would give us a concrete reason for why he can't come back. Obviously, we can still argue that he didn't do it to be a hero but so he could have an excuse, but that would be a weak, unsubstantiated argument.Originally Posted by konshu
I realize it is tempting to criticize this story, but keep in mind it is not done yet. It's got two segments left to go, and in many stories there is a twist at the end that makes you see things in a different light. -
Quote:I don't know. Vandal Savage seemed to do pretty well for himself in that one JLA episode where he caused the deaths of everyone on Earth. Sure, he he felt terribly guilty for it, but the man spent his time reading books, inventing time machines, building space ships, and he'd have gone off to explore other galaxies if only he didn't feel he deserved to be imprisoned on Earth as punishment for his actions.Originally Posted by Stormbird
Short form: What about when you're the only human left? And (assuming we don't kill ourselves off) what about when the rest of the species evolves past you?
Sure, you can spin it to be bad, but you can't really plan that far ahead. What if my species becomes transcendent by then and develops technologies to reshape the universe itself? Or discovers a gateway to another dimension? -
Quote:Believe me, that's not the case. Some geysers simply shoot short. For vice years now I've had a lot of hatred of that last jump before the FBZ Horta Vine because that shoots you into the face of an almost vertical rock, so if you don't toggle Super Jump on IMMEDIATELY, you slip down and fall off. There are quite a few geysers that shoot you short and there ain't a thing you can do about it but run in with Super Speed and hope you don't overshoot, instead.Originally Posted by Demetrios Vasilikos
To be honest sam I think like me your probably just to rusty to do it these days. I try now and then but the skills are just to rusty, the memory to foggy about which ones its better to hit slow or fast.
If the geysers worked and were reliable, I could live with retoggling my travel powers, but they just don't, and there's no way to tell which geyser will miss in which direction unless you try it. And if you fall, it's back to FBZ to try again.
They're a cool concept, but their trajectory is impossible to control from a development standpoint. If the developers can't be sure where you land, then the players are behind the 8ball from the get-go. -
Quote:We'll simply have to disagree on that part. I simply enjoy eternal or very long life as a motif and make many of my own characters either functionally immortal or many centuries old. I mentioned this before, but it was probably in another thread. What I'm saying is I just don't buy into the "curse of eternal life." The human brain is a very adaptable thing, since we're talking about humans here.Originally Posted by Stormbird
That's great... even for a few hundred years. But past that, I can't imagine it being pleasant. I'd see time really wearing on you, with death moving past being a sometime companion to a permanent one you can't go with. (Given theories of eternal expansion of the universe, it would end up with a very *dark* eternity you can't escape.)
I don't recall if you play villainside or not, Sam, but there's one villain morality mission that I think touches on that perfectly. (And at the same time irks me, because some of my villains really wouldn't be that shortsighted.) You see yourself at three points in the future (and I'd argue that the second one, though you're ancient and godlike, shows you to be going rather insane) and the third one seems to realize just how much of a curse eternal life ends up being. -
Quote:Well, of course, but I feel there were better ways to do this. Hell, the whole of the Incarnate path is pretty much one giant way to do just that. All of a sudden the Statesman is revealed to be weaker and fighting an alien conscience, and the challenges we're presented with are such that we can handle them better than he can.Originally Posted by Stormbird
This *does* serve an important purpose that can't be accomplished in any other way. It 100%, completely and totally, moves the player characters out from being second-stringers, always under the shadow of Statesman.
It's the old "Make Superman look bad so you can make Batman look good" from the later Dark Knight books. You don't need to kill/humiliate/devastate a great hero to make another one come off as even greater. We could have simply shone brighter than the Statesman and we'd still have walked out from under his shadow without him having to die. -
Quote:You always need to account for whether players would actually WANT to do this particular kind of evil deed. Remember - City of Villains is a game for the masses, meaning you have to develop villainous content for people who are not inherently evil, malicious or violent will still enjoy.Originally Posted by Vyver
An evil villain doing something evil? Stop the presses!
I'm not saying villains should be less evil. What I AM saying is that villains should concentrate more on the glamour and high life of being evil and the rewards it brings, as opposed to the dirt and grime and the disgusting side of what it means to be one.
Really, I'm getting a little sick - literally sick - of villain story arcs that "reward" me with an act of depravity. I didn't become a villain for the killing and the torture and sliminess. I became one for the money, the fame and the girls, damn it! -
Quote:And you'd be correct. I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't fix what ain't broke, so to speak. Improve on it, of course. Add more stuff, fix more problems, but when you start taking stuff out... I have a problem with it, and I ask for VERY good reasons why it has to be done.Originally Posted by Stormbird
But that picture I've seen get built up from your posts, Sam, is one of someone that basically doesn't like change, period.
That's also why I like a level-based storyline - because it's static, if it's handled with care. Yes, new plots can be added to the static storyline, but if they don't raise contradictions, then the actual storyline doesn't change.
The truth of the matter is I never looked at any story I liked - say, Oban: Star Racers (because I want more people to know about it) - and though I'd watch it again if only the story went a different way. I might steal elements of it and write my own, but THAT story I like as it is.
Actually, one reason I really don't like Comic Books is because they take a story and drag it through so many revisions and expansions and extensions and so on and never really end it that it just breaks down. I'd much rather read a book and stop because it ended than read a book and stop because I can't stand it any more.
Overall, there were many, many ways to have the Statesman step down from being the face of the company, but I guess it's nowhere near as exciting to have him retire as it is for him to die...
"Doom" him to that? I guess we simply have different definitions of eternal life. Personally, that's the kind of life I'd want. Yes, the people I love would die, but they'd have lived a happy life, and I will always be able to meet and love new people. Obviously, you can't replace friends and family, but I like to think that there's room in the heart enough to manage.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Why doom him to that? "Hey, thanks for being a hero, your reward is to just eternally see those you love die, their families die, eventually to watch the Earth get burnt to a cinder unless you leave." -
Quote:Figure of speech, and not a very good use of it. But if we can call the dead, offer to resurrect them and they say "No!" then that's part of their future endeavours. What the dead do after they die, be it remarkable or shameful, should have no impact on what they did in life.Originally Posted by Stormbird
... They're dead, Sam. They would have no future endeavors.
And you'd be entirely correct. I am elementally opposed to killing off signature characters in stories unless it serves some very important purpose that can't be accomplished in any other way. The only purpose the Statesman's death serve here is so they could wipe Jack Emmert out of the face of the game. This wasn't a story the plot of which simply required a character death and offered no alternative. This is a character death officially mandated, with a story written to give that death a reason to exist. That's why it's called "Who will die?"Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Also, what the hell, Sam? Nobody EVER gets to rest/die in your book (except the bad guys?) Because that's what it sounds like to me.
And, no, I don't believe in killing off bad guys, either. A good enough villain is always good enough for more stories if you can manage your roster right. Killing characters is a complete waste of potential unless you give their deaths some kind of meaning, and the Statesman's death had none. He showed up, he died, move on.
I notice you start a lot of your paragraphs with an ellipsis.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
... so why keep arguing for a miracle-resurrection? Especially when the majority of the in-game explanations for rezzes are the "brink of death."
I'm not arguing FOR a miracle resurrection solution. I'm arguing that one should never have been brought up in the first place. However, now that it HAS been brought up, we do need to explain why it can't be used on other people. OK, so the Statesman wants to stay dead. Let's roll with that. So why don't we resurrect Cyrus Thompson? He died a violent death. But, OK, his was a sacrifice and he was made a hero. Maybe he's happy, too. So why not resurrect Alexis Cole-Duncan? She did NOT die a happy death. She was kidnapped, tortured and killed. I'm sure she didn't die with a smile on her face.
Are we going to argue that she's in a better place, too? See, the reason I don't like the "better place where all our dead friends are" arguments is that all that means is... We should all just go ahead and die so we can all be together in paradise. Obviously, religions that espouse this forbid suicide - no surprises there - but it really does raise the dilemma: If you could die and go to paradise and live forever in happiness with everyone you live, why would you NOT do it? A hero might argue that he's needed, but if you expand this argument, why not just kill EVERYONE and send EVERYONE to heaven?
Obviously, we're delving into "destroy all humans" insane villain here, but those are the kind of arguments that give rise to it. Personally, I prefer to keep a story clean by regarding death as a "bad" thing and representing it as permanent and irreversible unless an entire storyline is devoted to it in a unique and non-replicable way. It just curbs so many questions before they're even asked.
Personally, I found those arguments to be stupid in a very big way. I argued then as I do now that it's not the powers that make the hero but the person behind them and the ideology in which they are used. A necromancer very much CAN be a hero, it just tasks the player to explain how and why.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
What I find amusing about all this, as an aside, is remembering all the mortally offended arguments about why a necro MM could never be a hero.... -
Quote:That's boiling down my argument to a straw man and ignoring it in its entirety. I don't agree with a real time timeline. I argue for a level-based timeline, which the game had before and has now. Mixing a level-based timeline and a real time timeline in the same game creates hideous problems like Angus McQueen trying to prevent a second Rikti Invasion in the 40s that appears to have happened at least at level 35, and much earlier now that you can go into the Rikti War Zone and observe the invasion for yourself. Or, as many people learn about it, be present for a Rikti raid on a city zone.Originally Posted by Stormbird
And yet you argue against it and seem mortally offended, time and time again.
I argue against an inconsistent timeline, but feel free to interpret this however you wish.
Again, why not come back to life and then retire? He can live out in peace and pursue his own happiness, maybe even meet another person he loves, and then if something comes up that the rest of the heroes can't handle, THEN step in and help.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Regardless, the *point* is that Statesman is not the only one at that level of power. He's NOT the "only one" who can carry along that burden. Even ignoring player characters, there's the rest of the Phalanx, their up-and-coming sidekicks the Vindicators (who really need to be let out of their mentors shadows at some point,) the Midnighters... how many other groups?
Essentially, I'm making the Connor MaLeod argument. Yes, MacLeod did occasionally lament his eternal life and how it means he'll watch everyone he loves grow old and die, but you know what? He did just fine for... What? 400? 600 years? He fell in love, suffered loss, picked back up and fell in love again. At any point he could have let another immortal take his head or, you know, buy a guillotine, but he kept on fighting, because "the prize" couldn't fall into the Krugan's hands.
This is a really bad way to kill the man off even IF we assume he can be replaced.
Hmm... OK, you do have a point about Recluse. Both fights with him (and one with the Statesman) do occur in the 45-50 range, so I suppose if the arc is played out at 50, that could make a bit more sense. It's just that it goes down to 40, and at 40, we're just getting done fighting street crime on the hero side and acting as casino bouncers on the villain side of things.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
We defeat Recluse at 45, when we're not even at full *normal* power. We did that on SOs. Heroside, we do it in Mender Silos's arc. Villainside, VEATs do it on the spur of the moment in their mid-40s or whenever they decide to run that atrocious final mission with that ridiculous speech.
See, if this happened as part of Incarnate content, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it. And when I say "Incarnate content," I mean something of the nature of Dark Astoria. You can't run any missions in there until you have unlocked at least your Alpha slot, and the whole place makes a big deal out of how awesome you are, as well as of how common Incarnates have become. At THAT point, maybe I could buy it, just because that's the point where Incarnates are a dime a dozen.
Honestly, though, it just really bugs me that they went the route of making the man give up. I've always hated the "he's in a better place" argument as a whole. -
Quote:You know what occurs to me? If the man's death had been presented as a lot more final, then questions of resurrections would never have even arisen. To quote Dr. Breen: "You will be destroyed in every way it is possible to BE destroyed, as well as several ways which as essentially IMpossible!"Originally Posted by SuperOz
Yes he has. Come on now....people have mentioned Ouroboros, previous issues of the comics, other rituals, other powers, a virtual litany of canon things that have been known to work prior to this point when they just don't, and that's not even remotely concerning from a story perspective?
Here's how you do it. You have the Statesman die as per normal, but instead of ending the arc there, you have one more - a delivery mission - that sends you to Numina. Obviously, if you need to resurrect the man, she's the one to go to. Only she says that there's nothing she can do. With the Statesman being an Incarnate, the power that the ritual generated was such that it ripped his essence apart and scattered it across the cosmos. There's nothing left of his soul to resurrect, and it is thus impossible to do so. Commence much grief.
Yeah, it's not a pleasant way to die, but it ties off that loose end. I still say that such a death would have been better if it resulted as a heroic sacrifice, but it would have been very conclusive and very final. Or, hell, come up with some better way than "He's dead and he's happy!"
Maybe that's just me being very areligious, but I honestly don't feel the need to be told that the man is happy as punch in the afterlife and, really, his death wasn't all that bad! In fact, Wade did him a favour because he was tired and lonely, but he never had an excuse to just disappear without people giving him accusing looks, but being dead is the perfect excuse! -
Quote:Right here:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Where did I say he "could be resurrected but didn't want to?" I never said that.
If you're arguing that he CAN'T be resurrected, then I really have no qualms about that. I'd really prefer it if we took away those reassurances that it'll all be OK and just die already, honey, though. They're unnecessary melodrama that just serve to diminish the man's accomplishments up to this far.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
... you mean, aside from the mention made (and I forget the exact wording) when you go to him that he seems to have an expression that shows he died at peace/happy?
Let dead stay dead.
I'm well aware that you'll disagree and probably accuse me of something, but that's how I see it.
If they could have been brought back, they should have been brought back. I see no reason to discount these people's past actions, but refusing to come back would indeed make me respect them less in their future endeavours.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
So, you're all for removing that statue in front of the King's Row tram, the Atlas statue, all the other ones to dead heroes - because, hell, at this rate they could ALL have been resurrected.
This is the problem with bringing people back to life and why broaching the subject at all harms a story more than it helps. There's always the question that if you can bring back one person, why not another, and then you're left having to think up excuses for why it's not possible. Really, a story is better off without broadly applicable resurrection.
Imagine me saying this in the GlaDOS voice: "Your sarcasm is appreciated."Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
We shouldn't call Paragon the "City of Heroes," but the "City full of statues to lazy bums." -
Quote:"You are stupid, ugly and worthless as a human being" is an observation, but also an insult. It's also a value judgement that's not everyone's place to make. In a similar way, "you can't handle the game world evolving" is a value judgement that's not your place to make, specifically since I've said it time and time again that I simply want to see this evolution tied to levels, not to real time.Originally Posted by Stormbird
Show you can handle the game world evolving - which you have yet to do, frankly, in pretty much *any* circumstance - and you can call it an attack instead of an observation.
But, of course, it's easier to attack me directly instead of attacking my arguments, so I understand where you're coming from.
As one man in the past who has no direct influence on events happening now.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
ITF. 35 and higher. Incarnates are definitely introduced.
Higher level characters "showing up" in lower level content are not consistent with the timeline within which this content takes place. You can easily see this with story arcs that reveal, for instance, the true nature of the Circle of Thorns, which you can do, then exemplar down to a lower-level character's stories and you are shown believing that they're just a cult Baron Zoria started in the 1920s.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Praetoria. 1-25, and people from Primal can show up in First Ward at 20. Incarnates are definitely introduced.
Each character's timeline is restricted to what that character does personally and is not influenced by the stories of other player characters levelling up at the same time. That's the only way to explain how Dr. Vahz can be defeated hundreds of times and still release the Vahzilok Plague.
I've yet to see evidence for this. She knows about Incarnates, but I don't recall her being said to be one in official writing. If you want to infer that she is, you're free to do so, but I don't buy it.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
RWZ. 35 and up. While not called one "yet," Lady Grey is an Incarnate.
And thus fairly useless and largely uncontrollable. Plus, he's not revealed to be an Incarante until Mender Ramiel's arc.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Level 45, RWZ, LGTF. Hero 1 - Incarnate, Riktified.
Asleep, and thus inert, and a villain to boot. She won't be of much help.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Level 1-5, Mercy Island (old arcs.) Sstheno. Older (currently sleeping) Incarnate than Statesman - reintroduced at 40-45.
Yes, a card-carrying villain who represents a great threat and whose very presence the Statesman has served to offset for years.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
And, of course, the very hero you want to argue about (and his nemesis, Recluse) - level *1* and up.
I'm not sure why you read what I said as saying Incarnates, as a concept, don't exist in the in-game world before level 50. What I mean is that there aren't enough acting Incarnates to replace the Statesman before level 50 and, really, before they earn their level shifts and abilities. Remember - we're taking the slow path, so even though we are titled Incarnate, that still doesn't mean we're leaps and bounds more powerful than the established ones. After all, it takes 24 people to beat up on a single Marauder despite the guy not being an Incarnate, himself.
If the Statesman is to be phased out and replaced, that has to happen much, much later in the plot, at least around the time we're banding about three level shifts so even if he shows up as a level 54 Archvillain like he does in the Recluse SF, we'll still be fairly equal to him. -
Quote:OK, how about this - come back to life, and then retire. We promise we won't bug you about saving the world unless there's no other choice, but that way, you're still here to pitch in if things really do get rough. Take a vacation, go to Rio, be with your family, help people out in small ways, put on a pair of Groucho Marx glasses and live a life of anonymity.Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
And he's never been a figurehead. Marcus has. For years and years and years he's been 'doing the right thing'.
And now we're here. The new Incarnates. The next generation of Heroes, with power enough to fight the Coming Storm. Ultimately, we don't need him...and he knows that. He even says it. We step up to the plate, and he can finally do something a bit less self-less and rest.
No. He's happier in the afterlife, and his happiness is all that matters. -
Quote:Do you realise you're arguing for two mutually exclusive points? Either he can be resurrected but he doesn't want to, or he can't be resurrected and his wish is irrelevant, but both of those can't be true at the same time.Originally Posted by Stormbird
Good thing Statesman (a) isn't doing that, and (b) doesn't really have a choice in the matter.
If you want to argue that he can't be resurrected, then dying with a smile on his face makes no difference and that final cutscene just serves to make him appear weak and irresponsible. In fact, the whole thing would have gone a LOT better without the illousions in his head.
If you argue that he CAN be resurrected but he doesn't want to, and use the cutscene and the souvenir as evidence, then this makes the man appear selfish and unconcerned, preferring peace for himself and death and destruction for others over more work for himself. He's not broken down, he's not ill, he's just... Bored with his life of fighting crime, when you get down to it.
As far as I'm concerned, the simplest solution would have been to NOT put in a story about resurrecting the dead immediately after you release a story about a major signature character dying so that that character wanting to stay dead wouldn't come up, or at least come up so immediately. Because there's no way to spin his staying dead if he can be resurrected as anything BUT dodging responsibility. -
Quote:Yes, I do. If he can be selfish and decide to leave me to my fate, I choose to be selfish and hold him to task for it. Because any person Darrin kills with the Statesman's power dies as a direct result of the Statesman's mistake and subsequent refusal to fix it. Yes, we can fix his mess, but that doesn't make it any less his own fault.Originally Posted by Stormbird
And you say that character is selfish.
Consider that his death was entirely pointless. He achieved nothing through it, it accomplished nothing, and all it resulted in is giving a very bad man a lot of power. If the Statesman had chosen to sacrifice his life, maybe I'd be more lenient, but the way it happened, his death serves only as an excuse.
Pity you have to continue to resort to personal attacks to get your point across. And again - that arc takes place at level 40. At level 40, there are no Incarnates. The world may evolve, but it evolves with level progression, and Incarnates are all level 50 and beyond. At the time of his death, the Statesman is still the strongest hero in the world.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Guess what. The game world evolves. Pity your view of it can't. But, with your declaration there, you've pretty well declared there's no point discussing this further with you.
Also, if you consider continually telling me I'm wrong in the rudest manner you can think of to be a "discussion," then yes, it really is pointless. I'm not going to warm up to your charming approach of character assassination, if that's what you were expecting. -
Quote:Except, of course, I ran this story arc at level 40 long before the concept of Incarnates is introduced into the game and long before the story arcs that deal with Recluse and Statesman.Originally Posted by Stormbird
except, of course, all those Incarnates running around. Which was, metagame-speaking, rather the point of the Incarnate SYSTEM - to match and surpass the signature characters. (Which, in-game speaking, he *knows* is going to happen, because he refuses to give in to the Well. Or expand his powers through it.)
As for your real life example, yes, a company president can retire, but it would be a dick move to do it at the height of an economic crisis in the middle of a major deal that he was brokering. -
Quote:Never. If the story is constructed so as to make him functionally immortal AND by far the world's strongest hero, then he doesn't get to die and doom the world. At least, never if he wants to avoid coming off selfish. He chose the path of hero on his own. No-one forced him. It's a walk he has to walk.Originally Posted by Stormbird
OK. At what point does he get to die, then, Sam?
Now, you can argue that he can rest if he's no longer needed, but the fact of the matter is he's still needed, and badly. This is not an Incarnate storyline last I checked, and at no point has it been suggested that the world is now filled with so many heroes stronger than him that his contribution isn't all that important.
But OK, let's be fair to the man. Let's say he's tired and worn out and just wants to live his life in peace, or at least disappear for a couple hundred years. I can see that, maybe. But do that at a time when there isn't a cosmic threat looming over the world! And if such a time never comes... Well, that's what you signed up for. -
Quote:Welcoming final rest when there is a choice not to, and a choice which would save lives IS the ruin of a great and true hero.Originally Posted by Stormbird
No, actually, it doesn't. Unless you're using an odd thesaurus that has "ruination" as a synonym for "welcomed final rest."
We're never told flat out. The implication is inferred. We're told the man had a smile on his face, but the smile on a corpse does not mean the dead person wants to stay dead. Unless the statesman calls us from the afterlife and says he wants to stay dead in his own words, that's still an inference.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
You may not *like* it, but being told *flat out by the author(s)* is not "inferring" anything.
It's covered via "someone else's problem." That's not the action of a true hero, it's the excuse for a "hero" to weasel out of his responsibility. Essentially, he wants to stay dead because he doesn't feel like fighting any more. I'm sure all those people wade kills when he brings Rularuu to the here and now will be very understanding of the Statesman for not really feeling like lifting a finger to help them.Quote:Originally Posted by Stormbird
Play it and watch the cut scene again. This is already covered. -
Quote:Yes, and that's incredibly selfish. Maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't, but it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly selfish.Originally Posted by Stormbird
... you obviously didn't pay attention to the cutscene, did you. Y'know, the one where he was telling his dead wife that he had to stop Wade, had to this-that-the other, until she got him to realize that no, he didn't, there were others that could take that self-imposed burden from him and that he could finally rest.
See, when Son Goku died for the second time, that's exactly what he did. He called his grieving friends and family and told them not to worry, explaining he was happy where he was. However, this is different in three ways.
1. Son Goku's death WAS a heroic sacrifice, teleporting a self-destructing Cell to where he couldn't blow up the Earth and dying with him. His death had meaning.
2. There was no way to revive him at the time, since he could only be revived once and he'd already been revived once before when, again, he sacrificed his life to kill Raditz, who wanted to kill all humans on Earth.
3. Goku was reassuring his friends and family so that THEY wouldn't be heartbroken over his death. He wasn't insisting to stay dead because he felt like it, he realised he HAD to stay dead and didn't want others to suffer because of it.
If the Statesman had at least two of the three covered, then maybe I could feel more sympathy for the man, but the truth is he has none of those. His death was completely pointless and humiliating, apparently, he CAN be revived but he just doesn't want to, and he's doing this for himself at the expense of the people who love him. Yeah, I have no sympathy his "eternal peace." -
Quote:Yes, I do realise that, but the backhanded insult it still appreciated.Originally Posted by Stormbird
... you *do* realize Statesman is a fictional character, right? Just checking.
What I'm saying is that this makes for a crap story and represents a ruination of the character. Yes we can infer that the Statesman wants to stay that, even though the method of delivering this information to us is suspect at best. So? There is still more he needs to do, and for him to give up the ghost - literally - and just want to stay dead and let his loved ones get killed because he's "tired" is the height of character ruination.
As I said before in other threads - this is what separates the true heroes from the basic supers. True heroes fight on even when it's unpleasant, even when it's difficult and even when it hurts. When he knows full well that his loved ones, his family, his friends and THE WHOLE WORLD is in danger because of HIS lapse of judgement, I have no sympathy for the man wanting to rest his bones. Maybe he's earned it, maybe he hasn't, but NOW is not the time to rest, because if I have to pick between his leisure and the world, I pick the world. That's what a true hero is supposed to pick, not have the choice made for him.
If his death were irreversible, then fine. Let the man rest, there's nothing more he could do. But if there IS more he could do and he still chooses to let people die because, screw it, let someone else take care of it, that's no longer fine.
No, this isn't real life. Exactly BECAUSE this isn't real life is why I can expect a true hero to remain true in all circumstances. -
Quote:If I die with a smile on my face, please bring me back.Originally Posted by Stormbird
Frankly, I find the "Bring him back!" to be pretty selfish. Either that or the "heroes" demanding it are so insecure in their own abilities they shouldn't be out of super-diapers.
-
I want to start by saying that I've always been a defender of the Shadow Shard and the geysers as a method of traversal. Even back in the day before we had jet packs, even back in the day before we had the cop-out teleporters, I've always felt that it was a good idea that people just needed to give a chance to and maybe just get used to.
But even I can't defend those things any more. I don't know if game physics have been tweaked or everyone having Hurdle and Swift is throwing trajectories off or if I never ran into all the broken ones, but I have to say that it's becoming apparent to me that the geysers simply do not work. I like the Shadow Shard, but I haven't been there in a while. Going there now, I lost count of the times I got flung into a cliff face to plummet into the abyss or just shot far short of my target and thrown into nothingness. Sometimes these can be fixed if I actually DO have Super Jump or Super Speed or both active when I jump, as the extra distance these give me tends to make up for geysers that throw short, but at other times these make me overshoot, and there's no way to tell which geyser will work and which won't short of hurling yourself and seeing if you'll stick the landing.
It's just becoming clear that the geysers are fundamentally flawed as a concept, and coming from me, that really is saying something. When they worked, I could stomach their drawbacks, such as having to constantly retoggle travel powers, but now that they toss me to my doom regardless of what I do, the added indignity of toggle juggling is just too much. Really, the greatest problem with them is that they're almost entirely unconcrolled. Yes, you have some degree of fine-tuning, but if the geyser shoots you short, you're SOL. If the geyser shoots you into a wall, you're SOL. If the geyser shoots you off to the side, you're SOL. "Control" simply isn't.
Now, granted, it's the Shadow Shard. Who among the development staff even remembers this place exists, right? But the way the story is shaping up, it looks like the Shard will play a major role in coming events, and if it does, the geysers NEED to be fixed, or the market for keyboards will bloom as so many people snap theirs over their knee. I hate to say it, but I really think it might be best to just replace the geysers with mini-Horta-vines that teleport you from island to island. I mean, yeah, those long jumps between islands are really, really spectacular, and I'd like to keep them, but unless the development team have some way to ensure a static trajectory which never misses, this just won't work. Teleporters, Portal light bridges or excursion beams or SOMETHING needs to happen otherwise the Shadow Shard will never see any people in it.
And, yes, I'm aware of the jetpack vendor. That's not the point. Yes, the jetpack is convenient, but I still believe that the zone needs to support some kind of native travel ability, otherwise it becomes a giant time sink. The four Shadow Shard zones are HUGE, and having people constantly fly across them back and forth may well be the most boring thing I can imagine short of fighting Reichsman for Dr. Khan. -
Quote:And it doesn't occur to you how baseless of a conclusion that is? That a corpse with what looks like a smile was happy to be dead? It's a heavy-handed "you just know" it storytelling technique that people use when they have no other means of conveying a fact they want to treat as a certainty.Originally Posted by Stormbird
... you mean, aside from the mention made (and I forget the exact wording) when you go to him that he seems to have an expression that shows he died at peace/happy?