White Hot Flash

/singing

"One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong..."


Looking good.

Why does everyone insist on looking at this in the negative (the writers are de-powering the Phalanx to make us look better) rather than look at this in more positive manner:

The problems faced by the Phalanx are bigger than they used to be, therefore they require outside help. Why ask someone at a lower level than themselves to do what they can't, via abilities, when you can ask a hero that has proven themselves powerful enough to take on the world's baddest of the bad?

It seems some folks are stuck on things like the writers using previously weak enemies (Trolls, Skulls, etc) as an indicator that the Phalanx is weak, yet there are in-story reasons why these groups are suddenly more than a match. Are we just ignoring the story to prove our pre-determined point that the Phalanx is lame?

One player's "bug that must be fixed" is another player's "problem with the design or implementation of something."

If you got any two players together and had them write down what they thought should be fixed, you'd never have two lists that had the same things on it, and many things on either list are not considered "bugs" by the Devs, but rather differences in opinion on how a feature/power/thing should function.

I think a more unrealistic expectation is to assume that the Devs even know about all of the "bugs." They might take a look at a list of bug reports, look at their spreadsheets and code, and wonder what the heck the player is talking about, and move on to something that's a known quantity.

I see nothing wrong with how the Issue has been presented thus far. Players blow every Issue out of proportion when it's still in "Here's what we're probably going to do" phase.

The alternative could be what we got with the Bourne Trilogy (before this new one comes out). They took what happened in the first book (mostly, since they changed a major character completely) and strung it out over three movies, using the titles of the other two books as titles of the sequels. Ultimatum and Supremacy had totally different stories than what we got in film. I'm assuming this new movie is taken from the newer material, written by a different author (only read the first one, which would be #4 in the Bourne timeline).

I trust Peter Jackson to get it right.

See, man, I told you that superglue wouldn't stick our hands together. Now let go...

No, you let go...

Dude.

We might not get three 3 hr movies, either.

There is some back story that would be nice to see on screen. I hope it's not just padding, though, but actually adds to the story Mr Jackson is trying to tell.

Maybe he'll add the last third of Return of the King...the part where the Hobbits take back the Shire, as an apology. That part was one of my favorite parts, because it showed the full maturation process ALL the Hobbits undertook, not just Frodo and Sam.

If they don't have the invention system unlocked, they won't be able to use anything but SOs.

Thumbs up from me. The performances I was worried about (Hathaway as Catwoman, and Hardy as Bane) were pulled off satisfactorily. I think the changes that were made to Bane's character make him more interesting.

It clocks in at just under 3 hrs with trailers, so be warned. Nothing to wait for in the end credits.


Edit: HERE BE SPOILERS. BE YE WARNED!!

To try to give a constructive response to the OP:

The posters you seem to be focusing on all have a fairly common problem with the writing in general, from which flows most of their vitriol. Viridian alluded to it in his post when he mentioned trying to accommodate requests into the larger narrative the writing staff is trying to tell.

These posters just don't like the overall story much. They don't like Praetoria at all, or what it represents, they don't like how the Incarnate lore has played out so far, and a lot of them never liked the old lore either, like Statesman's origin, how the Phalanx operates, how the Rogue Isles is written, etc.

There might be a shining example of good writing in a mission or two, or maybe an entire arc, but you'll find that because they don't really like the Lore, there is little a new story can do to please them if it's flowing from the lore that they despise. If AE were utilized more, you'd probably never see these players playing regular content.

The Writers have chosen a path, and for the most part they have to stick with it. This means these posters will probably never be happy with the writing again, even if a majority of the player base loves it. The writing won't ever resonate for them, and they'll find more wrong with it than right. That's life, and not necessarily a bad thing. There will always be players in any game that are gritting their teeth as they play, but the negatives they see don't keep them from playing. That fact speaks to how good the rest of the game is.

Isn't releasing the Hulk into a major metropolis pretty much the same thing as lobbing a nuke? If he's fighting that big a threat, the damage toll would be similar, and yes, he wouldn't kill civilians purposely, but he's not gonna play nice with buildings and cars, which have people inside them.