Dear Rednames - I'll make you a deal...

It is what you're asking for, you just don't realize it.

It's a question of degree and frequency. If this was the first time it had ever happened, then sure. I'd be way more lenient about saying "Huh, I wonder how that happened?" (However, since the pretty obvious answer is "the Well did it", I don't see it as much of a mystery, though I suppose I should finish the arc just to make sure that there aren't any surprises there.)

It's not the first time, though. It's been going on since the SSA's launched and it seems to be the special feature of the SSA's that they're full of hero fail by the signature heroes and full of praise for the player characters. Contrast this to the final scene of SSA 1.7 where Recluse defies Wadelaru by an act of willpower. Villains rule. Heroes drool; except your hero, of course.

Sure, I exaggerated about Grandma Wavelength, but the point is the same regardless. Listening to her express her disappointment doesn't add anything positive to the experience. She doesn't even have much in the way of grounds to be disappointed - with Statesman gone, none of these Phalanxers are "her" Phalanxers. The only purpose to inserting that comment is to punctuate how ineffectual the Phalanx has become in contrast to a hero like your character. Being torn apart by a bunch of trolls, even super-enhanced level 51 trolls, is just the icing on the fail cake.

I'll remind you about SSA 1.3 where everybody fails, your hero allows a famous heroine to die, and the wrapup dialog from the NPC is, paraphrased without any exaggeration, "That was a horrible thing but we're giving you a medal anyway because we know you tried hard."

SSA 1 was one long litany of failure on the blue side and SSA 2.1 is not shaping up to be any better from what I've seen of it so far. I can hardly wait to see how the rest of the Phalanx gets their posteriors handed to them while I handily clean up after them and have Wavelength congratulate me on being able to handle the things that the Phalanx could not.

Yes, I exaggerate about the extent of the writing but the content of it and my reaction to it is genuine. Obviously, your mileage my vary. However, I think that exaggeration aside, that there's adequate evidence that I am not alone in thinking that this constant stream of hero failure in tandem with the attendant stream of adulation by the mission-givers smacks of nothing more than a gimmick designed to make players feel good that their heroes are so much better than the signature heroes who can't seem to do anything as well as our player heroes can.

Right, because you know exactly what I mean when I say something. Keep trying, Venture. You'll hit the mark someday.

But it's a pretty good emulation of a pigeon. Why would you want it to be a swan, anyway? i suppose they're somewhat appealing to look at, but geese or egrets are more interesting. Hell, the aforementioned pigeons are more interesting and definitely more useful.

That said, i have been disappointed with the Freedom Phalanx's depiction, primarily as they've come across in the SSA1. They really don't come across as experienced heroes who have worked together, prevailed, and held their own even through alien invasions and all the assorted bizarreness that comes with a career in superheroics. They seem to act more like AE babies who arrived from a small town and spent the last decade training to 50 by clicking on bombs. There's genre-blindness, and then there's pants-on-head blindness.

Yea, I'm gonna walk into the middle of this ancient looking circle where a guy who has repeatedly shown himself to be intelligent is waiting out in the open for me. By the way, this is the very same circle that depowered and killed my previous incarnation.

What could go wrong?

Yep. I'm up to the challenges that the entire Freedom Phalanx gets a "no confidence" vote on from Grandma.

Phalanx = Teh Sux0r
Artiste = Teh Aw3s0m3

Who could ask for more, right?

Not really beyond the scope and not really all that impossible, to be honest. Despite surface appearances, villains and heroes are not in that dissimilar a situation, nor are their writing limitations that different. The genre is "about" bad losing because almost every story is told from the perspective of good, thus that's what people ultimately want to happen. This is where the distinction between "good vs. evil" and "face vs. heel" comes to play, because a face doesn't have to be good nor a heel evil. The face is simply someone you cheer and the heel someone you boo, and it's not that difficult to make a story where the audience wants to cheer the villain and boo the hero.

I, myself, have seen a number of these stories, and they usually follow the "Scooby Doo" formula of some insufferable jackass of a little brat foiling the plans of a really cool, calculating villain without really "earning" it. These are the kinds of movies that really make me want to cheer for the bad guy because... Well, he put in the effort, he had the plans, and the good guy just fell over backwards into a solution. That's just... Wrong!

There's nothing wrong with villains winning, you just have to pick the wins you give them very carefully. When I was told that if I failed The Path of the Dark story arc, the Brickstown would be overrun with War Wolves, my reaction was "Oh, that's not so bad, then. I light fighting War Wolves." Obviously, things aren't as simple as that, but this is exactly the kind of victory you can give to a villain and not have the story suffer that much.

When it comes to player villains, I find "satisfaction" to be the greatest reward. Sure, my conceptual villains have their own motivations to do evil, but I as a player play villains in order to get the satisfaction screwing the rules and doing what I want anyway. As such, I'm happiest when the villain game rewards my pride, my pettiness and my greed. I want to put people over, I want to slap the Scrappy, I want to be praised as the top dog, I want to have this stuff that I don't need but I still want because someone else has it.

No, you can't let villains change the status quo by killing a major hero or destroying the world, but nor can you let heroes win by taking out a major villain and ridding the world of crime. And you really don't have to focus on letting villains be the most vile, repugnant monsters that a sick player can imagine any more so than you want to focus on letting heroes be the most horribly campy blowhard of a "I do it because it's right!" super hero parody. That's just not what makes either good.

I don't know, I find SSA2.1 to be considerably better than SSA1. Yes, they're hurting, but that ship has sailed by now. SSA1 dragged the Phalanx through the mud. Where we go from here can't really be anywhere BUT this direction, lest we go back and ret-con all of the previous storyline. The Freedom Phalanx are, at this point, a lost cause and I feel we should look for other heroes to fill the mantle of the established veteran heroes. Perhaps the Vindicators, perhaps BABs and his old team... Perhaps the Civic Squad?

My point is that while what you're complaining about is valid, that ship has sailed. The best we can do now is try to work from there and hopefully give the FF back some of their former dignity, but that'll take at least a full storyline to happen, and you're only on part one of a full storyline. I suggest seeing where they go with this.

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.

Nothing! That is why you "welcome your death" at the hands of your daughter's murderer with a huge smile on your face. And you are so happy to be die like that, it remains on your face once you are dead!

Yeah, that whole business was sort of the All-Star Team of Bad Writing.

See _Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog_ for a concrete example.

The problem is that there's nothing that "we" can do to give them back their dignity. The writing staff is in charge of that and that writing staff insists on stripping them of their dignity. It's not just the SSA's, you know. I haven't mentioned Dilemma Diabolique but it's just more of the same. Phalanx and Vindicators = Weak and useless. Your supergroup = Awesome winners.

It's the difference between writing

"With [Statesman] gone... I do not know if the Phalanx is still up to the challenges ahead"

and writing

"The Phalanx is hurting right now, $Character. It will take time for them to come to terms with their new organization and return to full fighting trim... time that we do not have. We will be relying on you even more as we face the challenges that lie ahead."

You see? It's the difference between "Those guys are old news. Losers. They were only any good at all because Statesman was carrying them all." and "They've taken a blow that might have been mortal to a lesser team and they need time to recover but one day they WILL recover."

I much prefer the latter. The writing staff seems bent on doing the former. If running down the signature heroes is not an official studio policy at this point then it sure is giving the appearance of being an official policy, and that would be a bad policy that requires re-evaluation.

Only that's not the case on pretty much any point. "A power fantasy" is not someone kicking puppies and being a bully against the special kids. A power fantasy is the kind of power where we have great power with which to accomplish great deeds, and the sad reality is that in a fictional setting, there is no sense of objective "greatness." It can only ever come in comparison to somebody else. It can only ever come from context. In order for a game to present us with a sufficiently potent power fantasy, that game needs to have a static, or at the very least stable world by the framework of which we can draw context.

A story without context is a plane flying with no instruments flying in zero visibility - you can never really tell exactly where you're going or exactly where you are. You need some frame of reference, a static point in the world by which to get your bearings, and that's what the Freedom Phalanx were. They set the benchmark - you must be at least this great to exceed them. It is by their deeds and their status that we measured ourselves, and it is by exceeding them that we finally got to feel strong. This context is gone now. The strong are now weak and the goal posts have been moved. Yes, you can be greater than them now, but that greatness no longer means anything, and that's the problem.

The fact of the matter is what makes a good story is not "facts," it's "feel." The older story, especially when the Well came into the picture, really felt like it let me be great. It kept the old guard at their full power and still let me be greater than them. That meant something. That was an accomplishment. The game no longer feels the same. Beating the Phalanx no longer feels like an accomplishment because they no longer feel like worthy rivals. Beating them, now, has simply lost its meaning.

Consider this in DBZ terms. The Sayins are driven to seek out powerful opponents and defeat them expressly and specifically because they are powerful. When an old opponent proves to be too weak to challenge the heroes, that opponent is ignored for being irrelevant because beating him no longer has meaning. Piccolo was once the premier bad guy, but towards even the Freeza Saga he just can't hang with the others because he's been left behind. Matching his power is no longer seen as the benchmark because virtually everyone who matters is still stronger than he is. He is no longer a worthy opponent, so really... The only thing you can do with him at that point is either kill him off and take him out of the show or turn him good and have him join the group of friends who stand on the sideline being amazed at how strong the REAL heroes have become, and Piccolo receives the second treatment.

What I'm saying is you need the game to set a high standard for us to beat in order for it to be a power fantasy. There's a reason ganking greys doesn't feel all that fulfilling.

No, he didn't. The only reason the Statesman was a "stale" character is because no-one ever did anything with him. Do you know who else is a stale character? Positron, because no-one did anything with HIM, either. Should we kill him, too? Do you know who else is stale? The Hamidon of Primal Earth. When's the last time anything happened with him? Pretty much the only bit of personality he has is the Terra Conspiracy from eight years ago.

The Statesman didn't have to die because his death accomplished nothing. It was clear from SSA1 that the Freedom Phalanx were unrecoverable losers even without his death, what with Manticore getting Alexis AND his wife killed and the FF getting their ***** handed to them on multiple occasions. Just killing him is the lazy way out because it's simpler to do, yet it accomplishes nothing. Writing an actual story for him that would both capitalise on the Statesman's status as an Incarnate yet bring some more humanity and believability in his character was the hard path, and it's a path that was off to a wonderful start with Ramiel's arc. But, no, that's too hard to write, plus we're trying to get rid of Jack Emmert, so let's just kill him. Who cares about artistic integrity?

One of the primary driving forces behind the popularity of comic books as a "thing" is writers' ability to create fantastic characters who wield amazing super powers and yet at the same time make them believable as people would... If not relate to, then at least "get." Clark Kent is a man brought up on traditional American values and who puts truth and justice first, given powers great enough to murder all of his enemies but given a conscience that would not allow him to do this. Without a decent personality, Superman is just an overpowered brick that's not interesting to read about, but it's the interaction between the super powers and the real person behind them that gives the character depth and makes him interesting to explore.

Much could have happened with the Statesman to downplay his position as the game's premier hero, and I'd have shot for psychology before all else. He's a man who has been put in charge of the whole world, but if the Web of Arachnos is to be believed, he never asked for this responsibility, and it's a burden that weighs heavily on him. It's natural for a man who's been fighting crime for 100 years to start doubting himself, doubting if evil can ever really be defeated, if there's any point in fighting a battle that can never be won for all times. Is it better to break the wall and kill the people who threaten the city and put an end to their reign of terror once and for all, or would that defile everything he stands for?

"The Statesman" is a propaganda ideal built around the man as an icon of an entire generation, so OF COURSE he's unattainable. No ideal can ever truly be achieved. But by exploring the man behind the mask, this impossibly idealised icon can be brought down to Earth, put into perspective and henceforth serve as inspiration for others to reach that level of honour. Ask almost any person the modern world would consider hero, and most of them will be modest enough to tell you they just did the right thing, or just did their jobs, or they didn't see any other choice. The truth of the matter is that the men of myth and legend are, in reality, not nearly as different from all of us as legends might suggest and reaching them isn't so far out of the realm of possibilities.

We could have had the touching, emotional story of a great man showing that, behind the cape and the mask, there really is just a man, and that any who put their heart to it can be just as great. We could have had an inspirational story to move a whole new generation of heroes and serve as a wake-up call to the jaded old guys for whom "heroism" has become a burden. We could have had something meaningful... Or, **** it, let's just kill the guy. Shock deaths are better than well-told stories. Who even reads the text anyway, right?

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.

You haven't thought through the ramifications of what you mean.

But then, one of the first things they teach you in software engineering is that you can't design software (or, I expect, anything else) by asking users what they want. They don't know what they want, only what they think they want.

No, they're not. This is the point. Your villain is not in charge in the Dean/Leonard arcs or in SSA2. You're still doing what NPCs want you to do. They're just phrased as obsequious toads, little Iagos whispering in your ear. In order for the player to "be in charge" he actually has to be the one making the decisions and calling the shots and the game's underlying structure doesn't allow for that.

Grannie needs to lighten up and talk to Statesman's dead wife, who assured him that he was no longer needed to save the world, that other heroes could now do that instead, so go ahead and die already, which he promptly did.

Oh, wait, she meant me, and nobody else but me!

Yer dern tootin'! Look out, Muhammed Ali, it is I that is now The Greatest! (We'll just overlook that business in SSA1 where bushels of folks die all over the joint with me standing around, okay?)

Gosh, I sure do feel Good about the Me that is Me!

Why did States have to die? He hasn't done anything in game other than stand around and hand out TFs when he isn't getting kidnapped. Same with the rest of the FP.

Through normal gameplay you could have no idea that the FP were supposed to be anything more than quest givers with a ? over their heads.

I don't disagree with you at all, and that's how I'd write them if I were writing them. I'm just saying that we can't really go back to how the Phalanx was before, because we can't go back on what's become established as part of canon. The best we can do is work with what we have, and what we have is a Freedom Phalanx that has pretty much hit rock bottom.

Now, if I were in charge, I'd go in the direction you're suggesting. OK, they've taken a major hit, and that's tragic. But they're heroes. They didn't get where they are by taking defeat lying down. I could see them becoming complacent and out of shape and forgetting that it's a dangerous world out there, but a defeat like the Statesman's would have to be the wake-up call to bring the Phalanx back into shape. That's more or less a retread of the story I gave for Lord Recluse in my "Retaking the Rogue Isles" thread, but it's applicable here, as well. If I were writing this, I'd present the shockingly inept performance of the Phalanx during SSA1 as the Phalanx at their worst, divided by conflict and still operating with the belief that everything will take care of itself. SSA2, therefore, should be the Phalanx awake and returning to their former glory. There was actually a pretty good story like this towards the Terra season of the Teen Titans cartoon, and I wouldn't mind seeing that here.

However, it is as you say - our writers seem intent on burying the Freedom Phalanx, and I honestly couldn't tell you what this is supposed to accomplish but rob the game of one more interesting idea.

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.

superpower: blame dodge

Which doesn't actually pertain to the debate. I know what I want. I want more arcs like Dean, Leonard and Ross (sounds like a law firm) wherein my villain, using information from a stupid patsy that he could break at any moment should he choose to, pulls the rug out from under a bunch of big-name NPCs/NPC groups and gets some serious swanks in the process. Did I end up losing everything at the end of the Leonard arc? Yes. But I also got to punch Protean in the face AND the bank account. That whole arc came down to a very unintentional Xanatos Gambit. Keep your army? You win. Lose your army? Punch Protean and steal his money; you win. Protean tries to steal your cloning facility? It blew up; he loses, you win.

THAT is what I want. I want my villain to come out the victor and put some other smug jerk in the corner.

Or in the case of Vincent Ross, I help out a ticked off ex-Legacy Chain and end up trashing half the Scrapyarders in Sharkhead with the power he let me get my hands on.

I simply want arcs with a heavier emphasis on victorious, non-idiotic villainy. That's not a sandbox game style. It's just another job for the writing team. I can't even fathom how you came to the conclusion that it COULD be sandboxing.

No game is designed like that. Even "Sandbox" games have tasks that get assigned to you, rigid story structures that they demand you follow, and bizarre, infuriating mechanics that leave players rolling their eyes and looking for something else.Take the ever-classic Grand Theft Auto series, for example. Want to follow the main story through to completion? Nope. It won't progress past a certain point until a certain sidequest contact has been brought up to speed... Or maybe you don't want to deal with the main quest... Too bad, because if you want to complete these sidequest arcs, you're going to need to complete some more of the main quest... Now get a hold of our latest, unwieldy-control mechanism minigame and get it perfectly right, paddle jockey, or you're going to be stuck on this quest for a long, LONG time.Don't want to do any of that? Well, have fun shooting the Hell out of this little chunk of the overall map we placed you in. You can't unlock the rest of the city until you play our dancing minigame and ace it.Enjoy, damn it! We put in the time to design this crap because our marketing department said this is what kids want to play!----------As you can tell, I'm not a fan of the series. But then, I'm not a fan of the illusory concept of "sandboxing." Sandbox implies some sort of ruleless, structureless system, where the story or events are influenced by your actions.The fact of the matter is that games can't do that. There is only one environment like that, and that's Real Life (rated "M" for "Mature"), and if that's enough for anybody, then they're not here.

Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies were both sandbox games. How well they implemented the concept is...open to criticism.

I can certainly imagine a sandbox format supers game. It's just not going to be this one.

Venture moves on to a costume redesign for a prominent Vindicator?

There was no true objective in UO or SWG either.

It would mean a very different game design, and one that was almost certainly centered on PvP, but it could be done.

Yes, but Positron used to be a great scientist AND a great super hero, that's the difference. This reminds me of Thor asking Tony Stark what he is without the suit, and the answer is something along the lines of "genius billionaire superstar playboy," which while absolutely true and devilishly smart to say, still doesn't make up for the fact that having to fall back on that means that the one other thing you were - a super hero - kind of failed spectacularly. And it did for the Phalanx. They lost two members and a got an innocent killed, they were completely ineffectual and easily defeated in every encounter and they got humiliated in front of the entire world. I believe you even have the option to point that out during the conference at the end of SSA1.7.

Having to fall back on what these people are aside from being super heroes is not a defence for them having failed as super heroes. It just means they didn't quit their day jobs. It is, at best, a consolation price. It's like the Avatar losing all her bending at the end of the Legend of Korra and idiot comic relief guy remarking "Yeah, but at least you mastered your airbending!" Yes, but she still failed miserably at everything she did. The Freedom Phalanx failed miserably at everything they did. Manticore got no less than two people killed, and a third by proxy, all because he sucked at being a super hero AND sucked at being a friend.

The Freedom Phalanx are not yet complete losers, but they have been put over so weakly that they're in danger of becoming that. They can fail and need to be bailed out only so many times before we start expecting it of them. How long will it be before someone gathers up the courage to tell Positron that he's a great scientist, so maybe he should stick to doing science and leave the hero business to the professionals, before he hurts himself or gets anyone killed. Because we have empirical evidence that that can happen and has happened.

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.