You Realize, Of Course...
By
Cathulhu,
Posted on: 2012-01-23 19:26 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I think he was referring more to the symbolism than the act. Sure Sister Psyche and probably a lot more can be attributed to Emmert, but Statesman was, and is, the symbol of the game and there's history there. Going forward he'll still be the symbol, but how he's presented, or branded, has changed.
I don't think there was any malice in offing him. In fact, probably the opposite. Deceased, Statesman can be a symbol without overshadowing everything. His passing, as Millar said, is a way of letting the game grow beyond Statesman and from the way it ultimately sounds, the Freedom Phalanx as a whole.
I have the feeling as the game progresses, the Freedom Phalanx (and Arachnos) will play a role in the game, but the focus will shift from them being the Earth's premire super powers to us (the players) being the Earth's ultimate heroes (and villains).
Wouldn't surprise me with Statesman gone, The Well will lose interest in Recluse, and he'll find himself losing power and influence in the world. After all, aren't heroes and villains often defined by their adversaries? Recluse lost his, and he didn't even take him out.
Wonder if the next SSA is going to be about him scrambling to save himself the loss of interest (and therefore power) from The Well...
"I play characters. I have to have a very strong visual appearance, backstory, name, etc. to get involved with a character, otherwise I simply won't play it very long. I'm not an RPer by any stretch of the imagination, but character concept is very important for me."- Back Alley Brawler
I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
You'd be wrong, and Matt makes that perfectly clear with his declaration that the game has finally "left the nest". Likewise from his Intrepid Informer article where he makes it clear that killing Statesman was a topic that came up more than once over the years. Additionally, I've seen a facebook posting by an ex-dev who flat-out said that Matt had been looking for an excuse for years.|
Originally Posted by Lycantropus
I don't think there was any malice in offing him.
|
Statesman was terminated with prejudice. Whether they did it in a "good" way or not is up to your individual tastes, but make no mistake that the current devs considered Statesman to be baggage that they wanted rid of.
Quote:
Seems weird that he'd ok the STF then, as well as keep Statesman in the Maria Jenkins rewrite.
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
Additionally, I've seen a facebook posting by an ex-dev who flat-out said that Matt had been looking for an excuse for years.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
What's weird about it? They saw Statesman as integral to the game experience and so they tolerated him and used him appropriately. "When Paragon [Studios] was first founded, we discussed the idea of a story of killing off Statesman, but ultimately decided that the timing wasn't right." Intrepid Informer #17.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Seems weird that he'd ok the STF then, as well as keep Statesman in the Maria Jenkins rewrite.
|
There's nothing weird about that. The decision to do it now was not a frivolous one. It was based on the game reaching a milestone [the launch of Freedom] and attempting to reach a broader audience. IMO, it was based on a decision that having a NPC such as Statesman who was inherently more powerful than all of the PC's was bad for business. The timing became "right" and they acted accordingly. First they neutered him, then they eliminated him.
It's perfectly understandable. The fact that they went ahead and used him in content that was appropriate for his use before that is not some negation of the fact that they preferred that he had left along with Jack Emmert.
Quote:
Wouldn't it have been less weird to decide not to make any extra Statesman content so that it'd be easier to remove him once the timing became right?
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
What's weird about it? They saw Statesman as integral to the game experience and so they tolerated him and used him appropriately. "When Paragon [Studios] was first founded, we discussed the idea of a story of killing off Statesman, but ultimately decided that the timing wasn't right."
There's nothing weird about that. |
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
You're suggesting that they could write Freedom Phalanx content and just ignore the leader of the Phalanx as if he didn't exist? Never mind that as the flagship character, he'd be the one that the villains would want most to beat down.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Wouldn't it have been less weird to decide not to make any extra Statesman content so that it'd be easier to remove him once the timing became right?
|
Even now, he's still enough of a flagship character that they plan to leave him on the box. It's a business decision, and the decision to feature him in the game's content instead of sidelining him completely was a business decision. There's no disconnect here unless you want to just ignore business considerations when talking about the game development.
Quote:
Because 'leaving the nest' is inherently malicious, somehow...
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
You'd be wrong, and Matt makes that perfectly clear with his declaration that the game has finally "left the nest".
|
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
Reading that title, I thought you were going to say "This means war."
"I have something to say! It's better to burn out then to fade away!"
Quote:
"The last vestiges of the Old Republic have been swept away."
|
Originally Posted by Tenzhi
Because 'leaving the nest' is inherently malicious, somehow...
|
Quote:
That's not really the same |
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
"The last vestiges of the Old Republic have been swept away."
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Yeah, this is more 'the Old Republic abandoned us awhile ago, so it's about time we symbolically establish that we've moved on - change the flags and maybe use an ozonator to get rid of that Old Republic smell'. A far more benign sentiment.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
That's not really the same
|
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
I'm still betting that Sister Psyche dies or goes nuts and Manticore becomes more of a true vigilante, or an outright villain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
There's no reason to believe that there is any malice intended towards Statesman, and I don't want there to be. He needs to fill that role as a Big Blue Boyscout who always does what's right, and he can do that better as a martyr than in the hands of CoX's hit-and-miss writing team. I don't want the CoX team ruining his character by trying to retroactively paint him as a jerk, even if his creator and real world alter-ego totally was. Statesman saves the world pro-bono, efforts to paint him as a bad guy in spite of that are actually going to come off as contradictory to established lore, and attempting to retcon it as Statesman being Nemesis' best buddy working a convoluted plot would be...Well, a really stupid retcon.
That being said, I'm hoping that pretty much the entire Freedom Phalanx bites it. Basically, every member who is not the personal in-game avatar of a staff member should die, be depowered, trapped in another dimension, whatever. The ones who are personal in-game avatars of a staff member might also go the same way if the staff member in question doesn't mind getting a new one, but I certainly wouldn't advocate taking beloved avatars away from devs just because.
Point of all this being, Statesman is just one man. He's surrounded by other supers, nearly as competent. The destruction of the entire Freedom Phalanx would be a devastating blow to the defense of Paragon City, which would leave a gap into which the players could step in, as the last, best hope for Paragon in its darkest hour.
Quote:
I think the fact that killing him came up multiple times, only to be rejected multiple times, just goes to show that it wasn't malicious.|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
You'd be wrong, and Matt makes that perfectly clear with his declaration that the game has finally "left the nest". Likewise from his Intrepid Informer article where he makes it clear that killing Statesman was a topic that came up more than once over the years. Additionally, I've seen a facebook posting by an ex-dev who flat-out said that Matt had been looking for an excuse for years.
Statesman was terminated with prejudice. Whether they did it in a "good" way or not is up to your individual tastes, but make no mistake that the current devs considered Statesman to be baggage that they wanted rid of. |
Had it been out of spite they wouldn't have waited this long.
@Oathbound & @Oathbound Too
Quote:
It just means that they knew better than to bite off their nose to spite their face.
|
Originally Posted by Oathbound
I think the fact that killing him came up multiple times, only to be rejected multiple times, just goes to show that it wasn't malicious.
Had it been out of spite they wouldn't have waited this long. |
When Lycantropus said
Quote:
You responed with|
Originally Posted by Lycantropus
I don't think there was any malice in offing him.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
You'd be wrong, and Matt makes that perfectly clear with his declaration that the game has finally "left the nest".
|
"desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy."
"evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others."
and so far no evidence of malice has been presented.
The term "left the nest" means growing and moving on, as in "My kids have left the nest." No malice would be attributed to that statement. Likewise the other statements and actions, as you acknowledge, show a business attitude with no malice involved.
Fictional characters are killed off all the time with no malice involved and one needs look no further then the genre the game is based on to see that this is the case.
I have not played the last two arcs as I have been in a galaxy far far away, but it occurred to me that they(Wade?) may be out to kill anyone directly tied to the Well of the Furies like Statesman was and so is Lord Recluse.
Quote:
Well, let's examine that a moment - If Paragon Studios has finally "left the nest" then it means they are finally divested of the last stigma of Cryptic. They are "adult" now, and fully running their own show their own way.|
Originally Posted by Cathulhu
The term "left the nest" means growing and moving on, as in "My kids have left the nest." No malice would be attributed to that statement. Likewise the other statements and actions, as you acknowledge, show a business attitude with no malice involved.
|
This is a statement that Statesman, the character, was holding them back in some fashion. Now, if you can come up with some decent rationale for why that should be the case, I'd love to hear it,but so far the only implied rationale is "he was part of the Cryptic legacy and we don't want to be associated with that legacy".
This is only confirmed when you know from Matt himself that they had discussions about offing him at launch of Paragon Studios. The only apparent reason is that he represented Jack Emmert and, by extension, his legacy.
The fact that they chose to keep him around just shows they had good business acumen. It doesn't make the negative feelings towards the character any less negative. If a super-villain decides to kill a hero, but he lets the hero live until the "time is right", perhaps even aiding the hero in his endeavors occasionally, we don't question the malice of the villain when he finally destroys the hero in the end. If anything, we admire his patience.
Fine, quibble about malicious if you want to. I didn't choose that word; I just went with the context of "active dislike for the character". You can't really be malicious to a fictional character that you own, after all.
However, you CAN be emotional in your motivations towards a fictional character. Statesman represented a legacy of a period in time that they no longer wanted to be associated with. That's why they discussed killing him. That's why independent sources talk about the desire to kill him. That's why they ultimately revisited the subject and finally DID kill him.
The fact that they held off doing it for so long doesn't make it any less "malicious". It just means that they had the business acumen to put off their emotional satisfaction until such time as they could get the most business mileage from carrying out the murder of their flagship character. A really classic case of comic book villainy, if you ask me.
I've no doubt that when they put the final nail in Statesman's coffin that there was a toast made in his honor and to the success of his murder by the staff of Paragon Studios. The decision to WAIT was a business decision. The decision to ACT was an emotional one. You can decide for yourself whether that makes it "malicious" or not.
It does make it admirably villainous.
I would have to agree with SlickRiptide here heh. *shrugs*
Leader of The LEGION/Fallen LEGION on the Liberty server!
SSBB FC: 2062-8881-3944
MKW FC: 4167-4891-5991
Quote:
The number of people who have a negative association with the name Statesman appears to out number those with a positive one. Thousands of people quit the game because of Statesman so it would appear that the name Statesman may well have been holding them back. |
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
Well, let's examine that a moment - If Paragon Studios has finally "left the nest" then it means they are finally divested of the last stigma of Cryptic. They are "adult" now, and fully running their own show their own way.
This is a statement that Statesman, the character, was holding them back in some fashion. Now, if you can come up with some decent rationale for why that should be the case, I'd love to hear it,but so far the only implied rationale is "he was part of the Cryptic legacy and we don't want to be associated with that legacy". This is only confirmed when you know from Matt himself that they had discussions about offing him at launch of Paragon Studios. The only apparent reason is that he represented Jack Emmert and, by extension, his legacy. |
Thousands of people quit playing CoH because Statesman nerfed their character when he instituted ED, and who knows how many more quit because of his other nerfs and statements. It is significant enough that 4 years after ED and 2 years after he left CoH he was still being asked by the major online game mags about it.
You can try to claim that this was all done by Jack Emmert, but notice that the name is so closely associated with Jack that even you had to say “Statesman, the character.” It is so closely tied that you also say that the “the only apparent reason was that <Statesman> represented Jack Emmert and, by extension, his legacy.” You acknowledge this connection.
For more evidence of both that negativity and the association with the name just check out this thread where practically everyone calls him Statesman and he garners a LOT of hate and criticism over ED. Keep in mind that many posts that were even more hate filled were removed.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...265#post137265
But of course one must weigh this against the thousands of angry posts against the “Death of Statesman” and all the hundreds of players threatening to quit.
OK so I can’t find anyone who has threatened to quit and we have less than a thousand posts with the title Statesman many of them supporting this decision and one even started by Statesman fans bemoaning the fact of “all the 'yay, Statesman's dying, he's (insert your derogatory thought or comment here)' posts on the forums.”
When thousands if not tens of thousands have a negative association with a company Icon, and only a few hundred seem to care about its removal then I would say that is a good business reason to get rid of it. No malice is necessary, nor have you shown a single quote from the Devs showing such malice. If you do have a quote or real evidence of such please present it as I would find it quite interesting.
Quote:
So what has changed that makes it okay for them to "bite of their nose to spite their face" now?|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
It just means that they knew better than to bite off their nose to spite their face.
|
If anything he's more integrated into the game, with more content involving him, making it harder to get rid of the guy.
And yet they're doing it anyway.
If the wanted him gone two years ago, they'd have found a way to get rid of him. It would have been no different than now, except it would have been easier.
@Oathbound & @Oathbound Too
Quote:
What's wrong with that rationale? Sometimes you have to get out from under the shadow of a legacy and create your own. Sometimes shedding a symbol of the legacy you're trying to get out from under helps. And sometimes that legacy continues to haunt you despite your best efforts. But it's only a Dick move if you're Nightwing.
|
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
This is a statement that Statesman, the character, was holding them back in some fashion. Now, if you can come up with some decent rationale for why that should be the case, I'd love to hear it,but so far the only implied rationale is "he was part of the Cryptic legacy and we don't want to be associated with that legacy".
|
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
What's also baffling is that they killed Statesman, but the alternate Marcus Coles introduced don't look to be going anywhere.
So Statesman is a relic of some bygone age, best left behind and forgotten, but evil Statesman? They're just fine and dandy, and will be plaguing our characters for months if not years to come.
Is there a hidden message (maybe even hidden to themselves) that they remember Jack more as a tyrant than as a statesman?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thunder Knight
What's also baffling is that they killed Statesman, but the alternate Marcus Coles introduced don't look to be going anywhere.
So Statesman is a relic of some bygone age, best left behind and forgotten, but evil Statesman? They're just fine and dandy, and will be plaguing our characters for months if not years to come. Is there a hidden message (maybe even hidden to themselves) that they remember Jack more as a tyrant than as a statesman? |
How you figure? We kicked Reichsman's butt to Kingdom come in Kahn/Barracuda TFs and we're about to deliver Emperor Cole some unholy vengeance straight up his left nostril.
That will effectively put both to bed nicely.
Thelonious Monk
...that the next person on Darrin Wade's hit list, Sister Psyche, is ALSO a Jack Emmert creation.
Then consider this quote:
"Killing off (Statesman) meant a lot of things to a lot of people, but for me it was the ultimate declaration that City of Heroes has grown up and left the nest from which it was born."-Matt "Positron" Miller
http://na.cityofheroes.com/en/news/n...r_issue_17.php
Discuss.
"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."