[Spoiler Warning] The writers are just screwing with us, now.

Who was the second one? I killed Miss Liberty (okay, not a major hero). Manticore killed Sister Psyche. Darrin-friggin-Wade offed Statesman. I've terrorized a lot more than two cities, too. I don't know what you qualify as "major" world cities, but I guess at least Paragon City counts. And there are several large cities in the Rogue Isles. Grandville for certain (that's two) and, both Cap au Diable and St. Martial are pretty impressive cities as well (so that could go as high as four). I also have that longbow badge, so I've killed at least a thousand of those. I haven't trashed a whole fleet, though I suspect that this is largely because the game has never thrown one at me. I havn't built a floating island in space, nor have I merged with a world-devouring god (though I did beat the crap out of a punk who had merged with a world-devouring god, so I count that as a plus in my favour). Oh, and the world has classified me as a "global threat" since I was level 5.

I don't think anyone's worried about Vaderuu's power level.

I've also saved the world on numerous occasions. from Rikti (I'm not sure why), from an invasion of nazi Statesmen (again, not sure how I got roped into that one, sounds like a job for the Freedom Phalanx) and from invading praetorians (for some reason, that seemed like a better idea than robbing both dimension blind while they were tied up fighting primal earth heroes). I've also fought time-travelling nazis in ancient Rome (still not sure why, though I suspect it was to save the world again. It certainly wasn't to steal their giant robots). Finally, some idiot thought it was a great idea to lend me the keys to his time machine. Sadly, I'm apparently not enough of a villain to abuse the heck out of this.

You heroes should get off the couch once in a while and save the dang world yourselves.

I actually agree with you completely. One large criticism I've levelled against recent City of Heroes storytelling is that it's just trying too hard. Whether that's trying to be funny, trying to be grim or trying to be deep, it comes off as someone's genuinely enthusiastic attempt a "big" story without actually having the skill to pull it off. It comes across as TRYING to be something it just doesn't manage to be, and that's what bugs me so much.

People often criticise old Launch stories for being poorly-written and replete with filler missions and... They are. But at the same time, Launch stories really aren't trying to be anything more than a basic framing device to excuse what the game will have us do the majority of our time - kill stuff. As such, they may not be great literature, but they're not trying to be, thus they are never disappointing. Newer stories, however, are VERY pretentious and ambitious, and you really just need a LOT more setup and skill to pull them off, and that's simply not coming together.

Some days, I wonder what the game would be like if our writers just stopped trying to wow and shock us and just wrote whatever stories came to mind. Maybe they won't be as grand, maybe they won't be as funny, maybe they won't be as angsty, but maybe they don't need to be. I firmly believe that you don't really need any of those "in your face" elements to make a good story, and to be honest... It feels like trying to include them hurts more than it helps.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Sam, I hate to break this to you, but that's not the worst part of this situation.

The worst part of this situation is that my character was speaking to Scirocco.

That's right. We couldn't even get the dignity of admitting to doing the greater good to a hero. We admitted it to another ****ing villain!

Honestly that just makes the whole situation even worse in my eyes.

Villains don't have, deserve, or get any dignity

Actually that is why some of us keep saying it that way!

Kuhhhh'niggit!!

What, did you think I was the Electric-Night??
I am the Electric-Kuhniggit!!

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

I blow my nose at you, you silly Electric-Kuhniggit. Your mother was a pikachu and your father smelled of Electrophorus.

Yes, exactly this.

The second your mustache-twirler/world destroyer realizes he's getting railroaded into saving the world, it comes down to you deciding either, "Hey, that's where I keep my stuff." or "How can I leverage this to my advantage?" or "Forget this." and quit out.

The game should probably account for it, but given the sheer scope of options, I don't know if the devs really can/should accommodate players that would just jump ship the second they're stuck saving the world again when they could just as easily choose not to do the arc once it takes a turn "For the greater good."

For me, the issue isn't so much that it happens, but rather A) how often it happens, and B) how it is presented.

I've only done a few starting missions in DA, but I liked how everyone was freaked out about me being there, and how the missions are worded to suggest that I might be able to tap into Mots power if I can just weaken him enough to make him vulnerable. Thank you for providing a vaguely villainous angle to the overall story arc. The missions are (I assume) all the same so far, but the suggested motivation for doing them is different. It's all in the presentation.

Finally, I don't think anyone have a problem with heroes and villains occasionally teaming up to save the world. Or even villains being roped into saving the world "for the greater good" once or twice. The problem, imho, is that this has been the core theme of practically all new content since the RWZ. Sure, we can choose not to do any new content and just run tip missions from now on, but I don't think that's a good message to red-side players.

The problem isn't that a villain has to save the world. The problem is that a villain has to save the world again. It can be a cool story twist, but you shouldn't overdo it. What worries me is that they are working towards the ultimate reason for heroes and villains to team up for this ultimate showdown against the Battalion, and we're already sick and tired of the gimmick. The final epic confrontation against the Battalion deserves more than being a "urgh, again??" moment.

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

Seeking personal gain without regard for morality? What you describe as "neutral" sounds an awful lot like most of my villains. With the exception of a couple demonic characters, none of my villains do evil simply for evil's sake--I thought that kind of one-dimensional portrayal of villany in comics mostly went out of style with the Silver Age. Most of my villains are villainous because they are not motivated by reasons other than morality.

But I can't argue with your main point--content written for both heroes and villains is almost always written for heroes with only a token attempt to give a "villainous" spin for redside. That much is pretty obvious. I really thought Who Will Die did a pretty decent job of letting villains actually be villanous (you get to kill Miss Liberty, and aid Darren Wade against the heroes, at least in the early arcs), but in First Ward they weren't even really trying to give the arcs a logical angle for villains.

I think it would have been better if there was some powerful magical item that was being used by Sorceress Serene and/or the Talons that Heroes would need to destroy as part of defeating her/them, but which Villains/Rogues could have stolen for their own use, rather than having the storyline be suited only to Heroes/Wardens.

Sorry, could you clarify something here, I ran the arc but I wasn't team leader so I didn't see the dialogue boxes.

Is it the *villain* characters who tell Scirocco "For the greater good as usual"?

Because somehow that's become your phrase for "villains having to play co-op content". But it seems to me like "For the greater good" is what *heroes* have to tell themselves, through gritted teeth, as they are forced to work with the villains they were fighting just last week.

Villains don't care about good, greater or lesser. Villains team up with heroes for the sake of long-term self-interest. Because the world being destroyed would be hazardous to your own health, because it's where you keep your stuff, because it's useful to have someone in bright tights distracting the guards while you steal anything that's not nailed down.

Yes, I know there's been a lot of co-op stuff and it would be nicer if there was a "steal all of Wade's stuff while other people are busy fighting him" villain-only arc. But "for the greater good" is not the villain phrase here. Maybe more like "against a greater threat".

Yep.

It's become my phrase for co-op because that's exactly what villains are doing. We're helping save the day. Have been since the first co-op content. Heroes do the greater good on a daily basis. Villains do not.

But we don't get the option to be anything other than heroes. In Heather Townshend's arc AND SSA7 we're forced to work "for the greater good" and to "play hero." Whether you think this isn't the right term or not, villains are being pigeon-holed into doing hero work, and now the writing team is "cheekily" poking fun at this fact.

No. Wrong. The villainside content is literally admitting to doing the "greater good." No amount of speculation or "maybe it's this way" thinking will change that.