SuperOz

So it's really just down to the models of the items themselves, then? From what you're saying, it sounds like it'd probably be more recent items that'd work well? I'm not wishing to pry, just understand the situation better. Obviously what we see may not be what you see on the other side of the game.

As for adding things, is it that 'house of cards' description I paraphrased from Positron? That the very coding itself is 'delicate'? I understand the basic terms of hit boxes for where things are, and I wonder if this isn't part of the problem, that hit boxes would have to be created and so on.

For everyone else:

Is this an issue that should get up at say the Player Summit? I can appreciate the amount of work that would go into this to make it work, but I do appreciate what was said about a new system being implemented with the option to use the older editor or a newer one. I don't know how much of a return on investment a new system would be, but Zwill's response seems to indicate wrangling the current base editor is like trying to herd cats. You get nowhere, and the cats create havoc.

I'm not advocating people push for a new base editing system, but it seems to be an either or situation here. Trying to make the old system work tends to break it a lot, and making a new system would be time and resource intensive, though I see a lot of merit in using something akin to the existing Mission Architect design where placement of items exists, however rudimentarily.

Apologies to Zwillinger here; I'm not trying to get bases 'on the agenda', rather more discuss what options are on the table that could be explored for everyone's benefit. I genuinely love what base builders can do, and I take hope from recent developments with character rigs, temp powers and the like. I guess what I'm aiming for is to get bases talked about again with some back and forth to see what can be done rather than wondering what could be done.

I personally love bases whilst never having owned one, and I think anything that can be done to reinvigorate them as social spaces and more importantly creative spaces that compliments the customisation ethic of this game could only be a good thing.



S.

Funny you should bring that up, Michelle. I was listening to a very interesting Q&A session with a very well respected games journalist out here by the name of Junglist. (I recommend looking up his 5 Inch Floppy series on Youtube for a good mix of humor and serious journalism) He was asked 'how do you get in the games industry?' and without a word of a lie he answered:

Drink beer.

In other words, find out where the local indy game makers are hanging out and go and meet them and build your contact base. I think a good starting point for you would be find indy MMO makers or the small-timers; there's bound to be game dev meetups in most cities and the point is you'll make good initial contacts and those contacts will introduce you to other contacts and so on. It's not one hundred percent, but word of mouth would go a long way. I'd even PM Zwill or whomever you have a good relationship with about that sort of thing. Everyone started somewhere, and they might be able to get you a foot in the door, even if it's not NCSoft initially. But I'd be more than willing to bet Paragon would speak of you well to others.

To round out that thought, Junglist was in the number one Counter-Strike team in Australia and it so happened the producer of the tv show that gave him his break also did Counter-Strike and thought he had personality. It can be that fortuitous and that random.


Just a thought, anyways.



S.

Aye!



S.

I agree. 'Never really dead' is silly, but it's also an accepted and respected trope of the genre. And as long as people want to wear their underwear on the outside and wear outfits that serve no practical purpose other than to blind those who can see them, it'll continue to be.

I'm never going to treat City of Heroes like Watchmen, because the comparison is ridiculous. If there's gizmos that can time our impending death to the nanosecond to teleport us to a hospital, then I can buy into the concept that you can journey into the afterlife to save a 'dead' teammate or other hero. The shark in this case has been well and truly jumped more than once before this with the Death of Superman particularly, but like any other story, I want it to obey its own rules and precedents. The number of times this story arc has been guilty on many points of ignoring the in-game canon and even its own internal logic (and this is not even referring to the death of Statesman) has been numerous and more thoroughly discussed in other threads than this.

From my perspective, this is another such occasion and I've been trying to say why (presumably badly).



S.

I can honestly agree with you here, Techbot. I thought I was having a good discussion with like-minded folk about the story and discussing the finer points of what the story said. Even when you disagreed with me, you at least acknowledged I had some points and were gracious enough to outline your own so I could respond.

I can't even bring myself to respond to you as much as I think it'd be fun to discuss, really. If you want to talk in private messages, I'd be happy to do that, but I don't like becoming the arbitrary target for someone's....I dunno what...on here.



S.

I'm not sure if that's meant to be an insult or not?


*gentle sigh* No, I've outlined again...and again....why I disagree with it. It's not me being close-minded, it's not me being pig-headed, it's not me being bigoted or anything else, and I really really want to stress that here. If anything, you're choosing to portray me as compulsively arguing without reasoning or even logic behind my opinions.


It's not nerdrage, Venture. You just handwaved away anything I said there, and distilled it to some tirade I've gone on because I didn't get my way in the story or some other silly thing. I like good writing, I thought this wasn't good writing and I said why. I don't know why, but you don't like my answers, and you think I'm being all fanboi about it.

I can't and more importantly won't argue this with you or even make any further comment. You of course can reply to this, but you just want to attack whatever you percieve as my standpoint instead of discuss...well...anything. Has anything I've said had any merit to you? I imagine not, because you opened with saying that I was essentially ranting.

I have nothing more to say, because I have nothing nice left to say. At least I know I tried.



S.

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?

And how is A) 'more than enough'? Was it a temp power with one charge? Seriously, if people as passingly knowledgable as I can draw upon the game as we know it to ask simple story questions such as 'what about....?' only to be given the answer 'but hey, this was in the story but we didn't know it before' is a story contrivance to get to the end that was desired, then there's problems with the story.

You may not agree and that's fine, that's the very reason these forums exist, to discuss these things. I don't go looking for stories to pick apart, that's not my thing. But to me, they leapt out at me so blatantly I wanted to say something about it.


Edit: I do have to say that I've been reading the exchanges between yourself and Sam, and I don't see the need for the tone to become personal when talking about a story. I'm happy to discuss a point with you rationally, but the exchanges there are becoming less so with each post. Could I please request that absolutism isn't a requirement for this thread, but an honest exchange of ideas is?

S.

But that wasn't my point, Techbot. My point was that Logan like Marcus is over a hundred years old yet he's clearly coping with it. People can't latch onto a single explanation like 'Cole is over one hundred years old, and he's tired of heroing and so he wants to die' if there are other similar characters not only in Marvel but the very game he comes from who have no such issues.

If you want a closer figure, try Captain America. He skipped decades and had pretty much the same losses Statesman endured yet he copes and sees himself as not only a contemporary but a...dare I say it...statesman for heroes generally.

I really genuinely do not see where the new generation of Incarnates (which by the way wouldn't be a sign of new heroes, but surely that things are about to get a lot worse, right?) coming along equates to 'well, I can die now'. Has his life really been that miserable? Is he just that tired of life, wanting to see potential great-grandchildren, continue to be a mentor and figurehead for heroes?

See, my problem from a writing standpoint is that we inevitably portray anyone who is long-lived as somehow tiring of life or wanting to kill themselves because we contain it from our perspective of being mortal. Films like Highlander, television shows like Doctor Who, and their ilk I think are the truer representation of such beings, because they take an essential step away from being human and one's outlook and perspective must surely change when you know you have two, three, multiple lifetimes in which to do what you want to do, when people are consumed for decades trying to cram in whatever it is they want to do before they die.

And because the cutscene is the very first thing we see that suggests he wants to die, it becomes hard for me as a viewer or player to accept that notion. It's out of the blue, never referenced before and is coming from someone, as I've said before, is now the Avatar of Zeus. Not Marcus Cole the man, but something more. If you want to extend this train of thought, then surely the same thing will happen to our characters as Incarnates? We'll tire of the immortal life when we gain his power levels? We'll want to just die and be with our lost loved ones? I don't find that a very appealing precedent given to us by the premiere Incarnate of our dimension, do you?

It's this whole notion that the power is defining him and making him miserable that I also object to. We had ample opportunity to find this out in the Alpha Slot arc, but we just get him taken over and him not remembering the conversation. There was room to foreshadow, and it wasn't taken. Just because we have the conclusion of what happens to him, it doesn't necessarily mean that what precedes it is internally consistent to come to that conclusion.

If someone, anyone, wants to show me precedent or give me some cause as to why Marcus Cole has been miserable (and for how long) to come to the point (and bear this in mind) that he chooses to die rather than fight at a crucial moment not only for his team, but for the world, I'll happily listen to it. It really truly is just yanking him off the stage in the most clumsy way possible as presented and shoving us onto it, whether we necessarily want it or not, because the writers of the story think that's what we want. To be where Statesman was.

That's a sobering thought to me. It's like a power fantasy come to life. And as I've said before, I know that being under that spotlight as a character with every facet of my personality and overall character being examined is not an experience I'd care to have. I personally think the player being in the spotlight will backfire on us and on the story generally for a variety of reasons, as it's just as well (if not better) served by us standing alongside the signature characters.

Players should never be better than NPC's, but I think anyone can fill in the blanks as to why.




S.

So what, Statesman isn't wearing his teleporter? We don't have precedent for saving spirits from the afterlife? Just because this is is his story and the writers want him dead doesn't excuse him from the same story rationales, lore and precedents that they themselves have set.

The problem is that they invented new stuff on the fly that we'd never seen before (up to and including Statesman's thoughts about dying, if we want to go that far) and the above I just listed wasn't even referenced, let alone addressed as to why things didn't work. It goes back to a 'just because' reasoning. He died 'just because'. I'm clearly not alone in asking simple basic story questions of the story, so it's not a conspiracy theory in my head.



S.

I went through this thread and thus far you're the only one who seems to think I'm being unreasonable. Everyone else has either raised counterpoint to me (which I have answered), or have had something to say.

I've laid out my points clearly. I've even provided the reasoning behind those points. If you want to interpret that as me being unreasonable, again...you're the only person in the thread that has posted to say so. And I see no point in turning such a thing into an argument so that you may either continue to call me unreasonable when I outline my points, nor I call you unable to see them. That's rude, certainly not the point of the thread and above all kind of childish.

I will only say this: when it comes to comic books, even when you have the body on the table in front of you, doesn't mean it's a final death. In comics, above probably most mediums, a final and definitive statement on life and death (need I cite Jean Grey here?) is not only a requirement, it's a must.

If you want to disagree with this and say I'm being unreasonable, then we have nothing further to discuss because it would turn into name-calling and that is something I want no part of. I can only apologise to you for any impression I've given that I am unreasonable.



S.

And it really doesn't have much to do with the story here, with all due respect Venture. I think I've outlined (and more than once, to be perfectly blunt) the precedents and points where this isn't applicable. Respectfully, I'm going to leave my answer at that because to say it again would really just be pedantic on my part.



S.

Kurrent,

Currently everything I'm reading that isn't the actual story in the game that ends in Statesman dying are ones that I like.

But hey, I'm just a guy who likes heroes being heroes. What would I know? *laughs*



S.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I believe I can see a horse bolting away from an open gate from here....



S.

No, that's not disingenous AT ALL. Writing is writing, and that's the point I was making. I wasn't coming from a position of flexibility in my situation, I came from a point where I felt at the time I was entirely justified in my reasoning to go 'just because' and was confronted with the reality that when you present that to people, they're not going to accept it, and they are going to challenge it.

That is a question of story logic, it's a question of credibility, it's a question of internal consistency, it's a question of characterisation, it's a question of GOOD WRITING.

Good writing would've circumvented everything here. If you can't write a decent enough answer to 'what if...?' then are you really trying hard enough? All the story at this point needed was some post-mission detailing explaining just why the ritual worked, just why powers wouldn't aid in a resurrection. Instead, we get two things that are outrightly godmoding (and godmoding is consistent in any media):

1) Despite previously established means of bringing characters back from the dead, nothing bar nothing works here for no reason beyond 'because'.

2) Statesman, who to the best of my knowledge has never stated this anywhere else, decides that dying is fine despite the situation going on around him. So at this point we can infer from the dialogue that what...he's had an ongoing death wish for some time and when an opportunity arises to die (right in the middle of something that can threaten not just Earth but the cosmos!), he's going to take it. Are you seriously going to argue to me that this makes for a heroic death?

I really, really want to hear how there is no correlation in the way a tabletop and an online game are written, because they are both the bedrock on which they live and die.



S.

Uh, yeah. I do expect the Devs, if it's important to a story like I dunno.....THIS ONE....to give me more than a 'because' reasoning for why a perfectly valid power doesn't work when it's been shown demonstrably beforehand to work. I don't mind if a power fails, so long as the reason for failing isn't full of fail itself.

Would you really be satisfied being told that your primary melee power for instance, which you were told in the story was the main thing that could beat a villain, doesn't hit...well, because it doesn't? That's what we're being told here. It's painfully contrived to keep Statesman dead in this case.

Using your doctor's analogy above, have you ever heard of a situation where the doctor is told they can't try and revive the victim? It's their obligation to try any and all reasonable means to save a life. But you're also putting a caveat on a murder where anyone could see saving them would be pointless because the death was instantaneous. Statesman did not die instantaneously. There is precedent for rescuing him from a situation where he was 'definitely dead'. Why then do we have a situation that because 'A Wizard Did It', this is somehow an exception proving the rule? It's rationalizing something away that shouldn't need to be, and that continues and will continue to remain my point.



S.