SSA 5 Discussion (And countdown till its live!)
By
2short2care,
Posted on: 2012-01-16 23:26 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
Technically speaking, the whining is about people defending the writing with the phrase "suspension of disbelief".|
Originally Posted by Silver Gale
While people in this thread have whine about "suspension of disbelief" being used as a shield for bad writing, in the end it's up to personal preference.
|
As to whether the writing was good, bad, or indifferent, I'll just reiterate that I think they did the best they could with the tools at their disposal. The thing went down about the way I expected it to go down; whether or not I would have done it that way myself is something of a moot point.
Quote:
Suspension of disbelief is a very personal thing. If you enjoy the story for what it is, you have successfully suspended your disbelief. If the story demands more disbelief than you're willing to grant it, then the story has failed to work for you.|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
Technically speaking, the whining is about people defending the writing with the phrase "suspension of disbelief".
As to whether the writing was good, bad, or indifferent, I'll just reiterate that I think they did the best they could with the tools at their disposal. The thing went down about the way I expected it to go down; whether or not I would have done it that way myself is something of a moot point. |
Telling someone to "suspend their disbelief" is like telling them to "like romcoms more".
Character index
Quote:
Romulan... Commanders...?
|
Originally Posted by Silver Gale
Telling someone to "suspend their disbelief" is like telling them to "like romcoms more".
|
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound
Quote:
It's interesting that you brought up E&B, Cap, because the E&B route to story-telling would have really been quite the opposite of what we have in the SSA. E&B would have REQUIRED player participation in order to advance the story. The over-arching events might still have been pre-ordained but the specific details would have been influenced by player action and the timing of those events would have depended upon the progress of the players in advancing the plot.|
Originally Posted by Captain-Electric
...stuff that mentions Earth and Beyond..
|
However - that doesn't really work for a self-contained story in which you want to sell the story as a kind of participatory novel and have it be replayable.
The SSA is an experiment along the lines of the original Calvin Scott Task Force experiment. It's too bad that they chose such a significant event as their first foray into this kind of story-telling, but hopefully they'll learn any number of lessons from the experience and the following SSA's will be an improvement over this one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tenzhi
Romulan... Commanders...?
|
R.I.P.
Quote:
True, but there's the illusion that the player characters are involved. No, there is no "what happens if the players stop Lord Recluse from sapping up all the power from all heroes" possibility, the big mechanism being built in the dormant volcano won't go crashing through AP if the players can't win. But we are the ones in there taking on these big challenges, and rewarded when we win.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Uh, that's how the whole game works
 All the major events happen, regardless of what the player does - and they even happen if the palyer doesn't take part in the content at all. |
Oh, I'm sure that SSA7 and hopefully SSA6 will have us having a faux impact. But a big event like this, there should have been something.
And as for the story irrespective of being in a game - even giving every benefit of suspension of disbelief that Statesman wasn't being an idiot, a hero with that level of history and accomplishment deserves more than being taken out with a cheap shot and murdered where he stands. It's been a life of service and sacrifice. HE should have accomplished something in his death as opposed beyond "battery for future evil plot". Say, for example, we'd gotten trapped - and States shoves us out of it.
Adding one more thing - If this was a normal TF, where we'd be able to immediately go from "Statesman got murdered" to picking up the pieces and tracking Wade down, my objections would be less strenuous. Even if these rolled out one a week, well, still be there. But with these separated by one month - the end of the arc is an ending, not a way station in the story.
My arcs are constantly shifting, just search for GadgetDon for the latest.
The world beware! I've started a blog
GadgetMania Under Attack: The Digg Lockout
Quote:
BrandX, this is EXACTLY the exposition and scripting THAT WAS TOTALLY MISSING from SSA#5. Had it been there, it would have radically altered my perception of the piece. |
Originally Posted by BrandX
Hmmm...but would he be thinking clearly when his daughter has been killed?
Would he care? His daughter was killed, he figures out the reason, the killer wants a personal confrontation with him, so he goes along with it to give him just that. This works even if your character figures it out as well. Your Character (YC): Statesman! It's a trap! He wants you to fight him one on one! Statesman (S): I know. YC: I'm coming with you. S: No...you're not. *instantly takes flight at unmatchable speeds* or S: This is my fight. *instantly takes flight at unmatchable speeds* YC: You heroic fool. or YC: You damn fool. or YC: You fool. or YC: Idiot. |
Instead, what we are left with is a slap-dash bunch of results. You have tried to put the best face on a possible theory as to why things went down as they did. Your explanation is actually pretty good. The problem is that the writers gave you pretty much zero documentation of anything, much less your theory.
That is a good dialogue. Had it been there, it really would have helped. But it was NOT there. There was nothing, and we are left to guess as to why Statesman did what he did, because he looked like a total idiot doing it. You are really doing the writers a favor by trying to construct a plausible theory that keeps Statesman from BEING the idiot they made him look like, whereas I am just calling it "appallingly poor writing" and leaving it at that. Moral: they should have let you write it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Issen
"A common form of *** Pull or Writer Cop Out, a Deus ex Machina is an outside force that solves a seemingly unsolvable problem in an extremely unlikely (and, usually, anticlimactic) way. If the secret documents are in Russian, one of the spies suddenly reveals that they learned the language."
|
"How do you know you are on the side of good?" a Paragon citizen asked him. "How can we even know what is 'good'?"
"The Most High has spoken, even with His own blood," Melancton replied. "Surely we know."
Quote:
Dang, now I can't remember who said it, but someone said that these arcs were "story-telling by button-pushing." I think you have made the same point in a different way. |
Originally Posted by SuperOz
I've maintained constantly that the illusion of free will has been thrown out with this story. By that I mean I have no problem with a story moving forward so long as I'm made to feel I could have done something to change it. Here, that's not even a factor. These things happen and it's blatantly clear you can do nothing...
You arrive too late to save Miss Liberty. You arrive too late to stop Malaise escaping. You stand by, presumably, as the cutscene with Statesman plays out. |
So how does this differ from a "regular" arc? In a regular arc, you can fail with the objective due to any number of reasons, but exit the mission and re-boot it and try again and succeed. You may be lowering the difficulty or getting some Shivans before you re-enter, but it is possible to succeed after multiple tries. There may be a mission or two out there that the results are "pre-ordained" to advance the plot a certain way, but they are few and far between. But in the SSAs, they are all pre-ordained. You will fail in several particulars, period, regardless of what you do.
Quote:
| And has been said, the suspension of disbelief also is thrown away here. I'm clearly not alone in thinking that the actions of a number of NPC's including Statesman are either out of character or just simply defy basic story logic. If it's so strikingly obvious, then the story isn't working on the most basic levels. |
Once suspension of disbelief is gone, it is gone.
"How do you know you are on the side of good?" a Paragon citizen asked him. "How can we even know what is 'good'?"
"The Most High has spoken, even with His own blood," Melancton replied. "Surely we know."
At the time I thought how it seemed States got caught monologuing instead of the villain... (And he was just a ton over confident, but I guess being invincible will do that to you...)
And the fall of Statesman should put the stamp of shame on all tank sets that don't include a self rez.... 
Edit: for the record I do not see anything to justify/explain why they revealed the death early.
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
Quote:
OMG there's an elephant in this room!!!!!1111!!!!!|
Originally Posted by Venture
Never mind that, notice how time travel conveniently leaves the stage, especially after Wade was considerate enough to spell out everything he's done. "Oh, Cimerora..." *opens Ouroboros portal* "...seen you earlier, dude..."
|
(Venture, you wouldn't even need The Doctor for this one. Bill and Ted could fix this problem. SHHHHHHHHHHHH!
)
"How do you know you are on the side of good?" a Paragon citizen asked him. "How can we even know what is 'good'?"
"The Most High has spoken, even with His own blood," Melancton replied. "Surely we know."
I think one problem I have, even while liking this SSA, is that the heroes spend way to much time licking the Idiot Ball. Miss Liberty and Manticore walking into the obvious trap. Manticore insisting on running off to protect Miss Liberty instead of staying with support. Psyche allowing herself to be vulnerable with Malaise sitting RIGHT there. Aurora not reacting at all when when Malaise goes to make his move. Your CHARACTER for doing the same. ((On a side note, the whole deal could have been avoided if we'd just let Manticore sink an arrow into Malaise. Right thing to do? Probably not, but Malaise still ended up smeared in the end, and we wouldn't have this whole alternate Aurora thing going on.)) And of course, Statesman lovingly cradling the ball as he walks into Wades trap.
And this of course isn't on top of your hero always arriving just a bit to late. Thats not really a case of idiot ball, just us being written to be tardy.
Edit: Yes, I know the player is always going to be more genre savy. But you've got to figure, these guys are heroes who've dealt with some of the worst villains and plots that the world can throw at them. They should be at LEAST a little more aware, shouldn't they?
"I have something to say! It's better to burn out then to fade away!"
By the way, something I22 suggests that this could all be some kind of plot.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Honestly, this is the thing that I really do not understand. |
Originally Posted by Chyll
Edit: for the record I do not see anything to justify/explain why they revealed the death early.
|
First, you make an episodic story and instead of an epic title like "Fall of the Freedom Phalanx" you call it "Who will die?". Instead of roping people in, you give away the main hook of the story and make it your selling point. It's as if you're saying flat out that titillation is a higher priority than story-telling or the solving of a mystery.
Second, you spoil the answer to the question gratuitously asked in the title ON PURPOSE and dispense with any sense of mystery or discovery and certainly any potential shock from learning that the victim is, in fact, the head of the Hero Pantheon. You justify this by saying "It's the way he dies that matters, not the fact of his death." and then you have him walk into a trap and die like a newb, with no exposition before or after to explain WHY he did that.
What kind of marketing is that?
Tell me again why I should buy the full story once all seven episodes are available? There aren't even any in-game bonuses to justify the purchase beyond one bonus mission complete reward.
I hope that the next SSA has a real marketing person put in charge of managing the project and that a real writer is put in charge of developing the back story and producing some out-of-game prose to support the in-game scripted action. I consider this a vain hope, frankly, because I believe that the dev staff are actually happy with doing things the way they have done them, but I hold out hope nonetheless.
Quote:
Yeah, to be honest something feels off with the whole deal. But I was just going to chalk that up to my rampant paranoia.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
By the way, something I22 suggests that this could all be some kind of plot.
|
"I have something to say! It's better to burn out then to fade away!"
Quote:
^^This.^^ |
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
Honestly, this is the thing that I really do not understand.
First, you make an episodic story and instead of an epic title like "Fall of the Freedom Phalanx" you call it "Who will die?". Instead of roping people in, you give away the main hook of the story and make it your selling point. It's as if you're saying flat out that titillation is a higher priority than story-telling or the solving of a mystery. Second, you spoil the answer to the question gratuitously asked in the title ON PURPOSE and dispense with any sense of mystery or discovery and certainly any potential shock from learning that the victim is, in fact, the head of the Hero Pantheon. You justify this by saying "It's the way he dies that matters, not the fact of his death." and then you have him walk into a trap and die like a newb, with no exposition before or after to explain WHY he did that. |
Wham-bam and Statesman is dead in record time. No epic fight, no struggle... no reason, really, except that they said he would die, so die he did.
Let me quote you again:
You justify this by saying "It's the way he dies that matters, not the fact of his death," and then you have him walk into a trap and die like a newb, with no exposition before or after to explain WHY he did that.
This is the crux of it right there. I was not happy to see Statesman go. Heck, I was not happy to see Breakneck go. But compare the way those two stories were told and the player reaction to each.
If he was marked to die by the Devs, Statesman deserved a far, far better exit than what he got.
"How do you know you are on the side of good?" a Paragon citizen asked him. "How can we even know what is 'good'?"
"The Most High has spoken, even with His own blood," Melancton replied. "Surely we know."
Quote:
----------------------SPOILER-------------------|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
By the way, something I22 suggests that this could all be some kind of plot.
|
Are you refering to the scene where the Dream Doctor accuses Mender Silos of altering the past so a certain dagger only imprisons a certain being instead of killing him?
----------------------End SPOILER-------------------
True, we *could* go back to the past and alter Sister Airlia's ritual so it only imprisons Rommie and Imperious, but by that same logic we could have simply Ouro'ed SSA #3 and prevented Wade from getting Miss Liberty's blood (I suggest knocking her out before she leaves to Warburg and swapping her with a Nemesis Automaton).
Heh, save the cheerleader, save the world
* Edit - Sorry, Eva
Dude, spoilers.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Quote:
Indeed. Given the manner of his death and how he apparently blundered blindly into a trap, one must question the permanence of this death. Also given that this is a comic book based game and in comics only Captain Mar-Vell stays dead, I would consider the door left open for a return of Statesman. |
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
By the way, something I22 suggests that this could all be some kind of plot.
|
After all, there is Ouroborus and the Menders to consider. Surely they know/knew of what was to come....does Statesman's death help avert the Coming Storm......or hasten it?
Time will tell.
Quote:
I know it makes no sense, but it seems to be what people want.
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
Second, you spoil the answer to the question gratuitously asked in the title ON PURPOSE and dispense with any sense of mystery or discovery and certainly any potential shock from learning that the victim is, in fact, the head of the Hero Pantheon. You justify this by saying "It's the way he dies that matters, not the fact of his death." and then you have him walk into a trap and die like a newb, with no exposition before or after to explain WHY he did that.
What kind of marketing is that? |
Now comes a question: is Statesman better off dead? I ask this from the perspective of his character. He was eternally young a.k.a immortal. Regardless of how his wife and daughter perished, he was going to outlive them along with Ms. Liberty. He was fated to outlive the entire human race itself. Only Lord Recluse would have survived with him.
Remember the Justice League episode HEREAFTER, when Superman was blasted about 30,000 years into the future? The only human left was the immortal Vandal Savage and the Earth belonged to the evolved cockroaches. Savage was already crazy from wrecking the Earth, but also he was crazier from being alone all those years with no way to die and no other humans for any companionship of any kind. Kind of makes one think twice about wanting eternal youth doesn't it?
Quote:
Well, uh...clearly it doesn't. |
Originally Posted by Silver Gale
An improbable plot device is not a deus ex machina. Using the wrong tense of a verb is a grammar error, not a spelling error. Both are wrong, but they are not the same error.
A Deus Ex Machina is an ending where *all* the characters and actions so far are rendered meaningless, not just some or even most of them. If the ending of WWD5 would have been the same even if Wade, Statesman *and* the player character had all decided to just stay home, then it would be a Deus Ex Machina. Every story will have moments where something "just has to happen". The main characters in a romantic comedy have to run into each other somehow. The villain has to be a credible threat, and needs to have access to something that could well defeat the heroes. Comics and games are additionally hampered because they have to build stories on top of what came before. If you were writing a book that was entirely about a clever, ruthless small-time crook going after a seemingly invulnerable hero, you could take your time building the little clues into every mention of the hero's powers, so that when the crook springs the trap the readers would go "aha... so when they said this and this, that *also* could mean *this*! and that makes it possible to do this! *Clever*." But in game Statesman was never written with an eye towards having him eventually killed off by Wade, so the writers have to fudge a little. They do try to play it fair by introducting some of the elements - Wade's interest in Cimerora, his owning of a power-draining obelisk, his taking of Alex Cole's blood before killing her - in consecutive parts of the arc. But ultimately, as in many comic books that decide to kill off the main character, whatever kills Statesman *has* to come out of nowhere, because no previous writer had laid any groundwork for it. So, yes. There are plot devices in this plot that come out of nowhere. Not the same as a deus ex machina, but something writers should avoid if possible. While people in this thread have whine about "suspension of disbelief" being used as a shield for bad writing, in the end it's up to personal preference. If you enjoy seeing the leads of a romcom interact, you'll forgive the improbable accident that pushed them together in the first place. If you dislike them both, then you'll just see the clichees and the misunderstandings that only happen so the movie can run the alotted time. Either the story grabs you enough to forgive the "coincidences" it needs to work, or it doesn't. |
It's not even a matter of personal preference. Melancton used a perfect example of the tv series '24' where the number of improbable coincedences, appearances, events and so on overloaded any reasonable suspension of disbelief.But the argument you're putting forth is saying 'well, if you like these people, you're ignore basic common sense'. Which isn't to say that romance utilises a lot of common sense (lord knows I've taken that chunk of my brain out and left it on a shelf before now), but when I am using it and I don't even have to try to see something isn't kosher is a pretty strong BS indicator to me.
To stay with your romcom analogy, the only one I've ever really enjoyed was 'The Breakup', where even though the premise was a romcom, the couple stayed broken up in the end. That's as much about not insulting the viewer's intelligence as it is about feeling good and having hope in love and romance to me.
If at some point the story is resorting to concepts and situations that you know are patently never going to happen in real life, yet they apply them to real life situations, then you know you're only indulging a fantasy. Many people would argue the entire Twilight saga revolves around that entire notion.
On both the levels as a player and a writer myself, whilst also trying to react as my character would, I felt profoundly distanced and alienated from the events for those very reasons. Events took place, characters appeared that either previously hadn't, or seemingly came into possession of abilities and knowledge that wasn't there before. Even as I type that sentence, I catch myself frowning and going 'hang on....did I miss something just then?'
It's never a matter of forgiving the 'coincedences' as you put it; I mean, you're using the word 'coincedences' and forgiving a story that really doesn't hang together. I argued before for internal consistency and logic in the world in which a story happens; I don't challenge Tolkien or Frank Herbert's worlds because if I ask simple questions about the settings, the answers are there and they're entirely reasonable for where they are. Tolkien's magic works because.....Frank Herbert's Dune works because....the writers have made the effort to convince you of the validity of their story.
That's not personal preference or forgiving the inconsistencies; it's being told a good story, and if you have to 'fudge it' as you say, then that's saying a heck of a lot more about the story quality than it is the person reading it.
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nericus
Indeed. Given the manner of his death and how he apparently blundered blindly into a trap, one must question the permanence of this death. Also given that this is a comic book based game and in comics only Captain Mar-Vell stays dead, I would consider the door left open for a return of Statesman.
After all, there is Ouroborus and the Menders to consider. Surely they know/knew of what was to come....does Statesman's death help avert the Coming Storm......or hasten it? Time will tell. |
If you ask Positron in his letter about why they killed off Statesman, you can say it seems pretty darn permanent. But then you could also argue the rise of a new uber-hero that just happens to wear armor and go by the same name....just saying.
I think the door will be left open well and truly; noone stays on a game forever and if Positron moved to a new game position or left Paragon for a new project, that door I think would be justifiably opened.
S.
Part of Sister Flame's Clickey-Clack Posse
Quote:
um... so I just flat don't understand this comment at all... there is a need to explain/discuss why Twilight is fantasy?|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
If at some point the story is resorting to concepts and situations that you know are patently never going to happen in real life, yet they apply them to real life situations, then you know you're only indulging a fantasy. Many people would argue the entire Twilight saga revolves around that entire notion.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
It's never a matter of forgiving the 'coincedences' as you put it; I mean, you're using the word 'coincedences' and forgiving a story that really doesn't hang together. I argued before for internal consistency and logic in the world in which a story happens; I don't challenge Tolkien or Frank Herbert's worlds because if I ask simple questions about the settings, the answers are there and they're entirely reasonable for where they are. Tolkien's magic works because.....Frank Herbert's Dune works because....the writers have made the effort to convince you of the validity of their story.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuperOz
That's not personal preference or forgiving the inconsistencies; it's being told a good story, and if you have to 'fudge it' as you say, then that's saying a heck of a lot more about the story quality than it is the person reading it.
|
On the whole, I think I am in "Silver Gale's camp". (If there is one... or I'm in my camp, calling it Silver Gale's Camp.... Maybe Sivler Gela's Camp to avoid copyright infringement....)
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
One of your most iconic figures in the game dies, you'd think it would have been better written.
Stage 1: Statesman arrives to confront Wade. You show up as well but Statesman asks you to let him arrest Wade himself. You tell Statesman it's a trap. Wade summons a whole bunch of Rulaaru and you and Statesman work together to fight them off.
Stage 2: Wade traps Statesman. While he struggles you have to deal with Rudalak. When you finish Rudalak, Statesman's death scene happens.
Stage 3: Wade attacks you but retreats after a few hits with the excuse that he is still adjusting to his new powers. You have to inspect Statesman's body to end the mission. With his final breaths he asks you to continue the fight for him.
Something like this would have been a better scene. What we got was just lazy. Worst yet it was spoiled on the forums.
There's another issue I'd like to address. The increasing morbidity that keeps showing up in these arcs. So far we've had Miss Liberty-Statesman's daughter murdered. Then we've had Sister Psyche put in a coma. We've had Malaise die. Then we've had Statesman himself die. All of this in the span of a couple of months. Worst yet... your character/hero couldn't prevent any of this from happening.
Just did the missions. On the one hand, it felt like the player character didn't need to be involved again; but on the other, I enjoyed the story ignoring my involvement in it.
Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound