It's always been obvious that any form of computer "role playing games" are going to be limited. That has been true all the way back to my early days playing Phantasie I,II and III on my Apple ][+, and it's still true today, for much the same reasons.
There's a few reasons for this, but in many ways, they start at the same point. They limit the ability of a player to "create and play a role."
In a pen-and-paper RPG, your character is largely up to you (with a certain amount of input from other players and the GM). You can choose pretty much everything: personal details, personality, powers, the whole works.
Now, think about a fairly traditional Japanese RPG. Final Fantasy VII is pretty familiar, so it's a good starting point. You got to choose none of those things. You were Cloud Strife. The entire realm of choice that a pnp game gives you was gone. There were few if any meaningful choices for the player to make in the game. The gameplay consisted of the mechanics of the gameplay (killing monsters, getting materia, such and so), and watching the story. It was a good story, and the gameplay was enjoyable, but even so, it really didn't qualify in any meaningful way as "role-playing".
Now, some of the more modern games give you a great deal more choice. Mass Effect makes you Shepherd, and you do get a certain amount of choice. You can choose your appearance, your gender and the like. Perhaps more importantly, you've got a great deal more input into the game, as your choices influence the gameplay, and the attitudes of your companions towards you. However, it's still limited. After all, you're still Shepherd. It's the role you are assigned, not the role that you choose.
Now, all of the above is obvious, and there's likely no real reason for me to even mention any of it. What about MMO's though? Don't they give more? That's where things begin to get interesting. They give much more, and at the same time, much less.
Now, in an MMO, your personality choice is far greater than any of the above games. Depending on the game, you can make an enormous series of choices. The process of creating a character in an MMO is potentially greater than anything short of a pnp game. Take City of Heroes. You have great ability to design a true superhero costume, a massive (and growing) list of powers to choose from, the ability to create a personality from scratch, the works.
Yet, at the same time, MMO's take a great deal away from you that a single player game is able to give you. Most importantly, it takes away the ability to make a difference. In both pnp and Solo RPG's, there is potential to have your characters actions reshape the world around them. The decisions you make have the ability to change things in various ways, some of them quite profound. In MMOs? Not nearly so much so.
One of the most telling aspects of this is something that MMO gamers have more or less learned to shrug and ignore. Since it's a shared world, your efforts effectively disappear in a matter of moments. For instance, there you are, a hero in Atlas Park, and see a little old lady getting mugged by a Hellion. You swoop in, and voila, the woman is saved. Hooray! Look back in 5 minutes, and there's the same Hellion mugging the same lady.
It's not just little things like that though. In SWTOR, I've been slowly pounding my way through the planet of Taris, and have been helping the Empire drive the Republic forces off the planet. I've just gotten the big victory, and our troops are victorious! Hooray! Oh, wait, I poke around in the areas where Republic troops spawn, and there's just as many, they aggro just as fast. (That doesn't even count seeing some other guy running around doing the exact same missions I am).
Because it is a shared world, there is no real permanance to your actions. The only way Taris will truly change is if the Devs decide to have an "event" where the entire planet is changed during a patch. (Which is certainly possible, but not for the immediate future I'm sure). You have to mentally suspend seeing all of those things.
So, in the end, you may advance your personal story, but your actions have no larger repurcussions.
This is all pretty obvious, but I'm as much putting this up to think all of this through (it's not like anyone is reading it anyway).
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
The TOR Elephant in the Corner
After a comment on my post earlier today (yeah, 2 posts in one day... shocking) I decided to push out a few more thoughts on the limits of the story system in TOR.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are limits to the ability of a player to "shape" the story in TOR. It is "on rails" to a large extent. This is most obvious in your class quest. You complete one part of the class quest and it... sends you to the next piece. You can make choices in the quest, and they can affect how your companions relate to you or the like, but the story continues. A Bounty Hunter stays on the Great Hunt (or the equivalents for the other classes).
Now, I can hear you say, your choices can do something else... they can give you... Light/Darkside points. Yep, they can, but so what? That's the elephant in the corner of TOR. What exactly do Light/Darkside points get you? A few different options in gear. In terms of story? Very little (outside of how you relate to companions).
What makes this such a big deal is that it sidesteps the most profound element of character development the game has to offer. A Sith gaining meaningful lightside points? That's important! A Jedi piling up darkside points? You might remember this guy named Anakin Skywalker. The Fall of a Jedi or the "rise" of a Sith (what *is* a Sith who goes lightside anyway? A fallen Jedi is a "Dark Jedi" but what, a Light Sith?) Your entire story should start to change! Every character should relate to you differently, and frankly, you should get different missions. There is no more profound piece of character development in the SW universe, and the game turns it into a matter of what kind of equipment you get to pack. That's a severe failing and lacking.
My level 33 Bounty Hunter currently is sitting around 3000 Light Side points, but is still employed by a very satisfied Empire. Now, of course, the non-Force User classes are going to be considerably different in how LS/DS works for them. However, it's still led me to a great deal of reflection on why a Bounty Hunter makes the choices they do. I may or may not write it, but I've got a fair backstory sketched out.
Now, for all those limitations I just mentioned, just imagine the amount of work involved in developing the core stories so that they react fully to player choices (even if it's only in terms of LS/DS, and not to specific choices).
Ok, so yeah, that's the elephant.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are limits to the ability of a player to "shape" the story in TOR. It is "on rails" to a large extent. This is most obvious in your class quest. You complete one part of the class quest and it... sends you to the next piece. You can make choices in the quest, and they can affect how your companions relate to you or the like, but the story continues. A Bounty Hunter stays on the Great Hunt (or the equivalents for the other classes).
Now, I can hear you say, your choices can do something else... they can give you... Light/Darkside points. Yep, they can, but so what? That's the elephant in the corner of TOR. What exactly do Light/Darkside points get you? A few different options in gear. In terms of story? Very little (outside of how you relate to companions).
What makes this such a big deal is that it sidesteps the most profound element of character development the game has to offer. A Sith gaining meaningful lightside points? That's important! A Jedi piling up darkside points? You might remember this guy named Anakin Skywalker. The Fall of a Jedi or the "rise" of a Sith (what *is* a Sith who goes lightside anyway? A fallen Jedi is a "Dark Jedi" but what, a Light Sith?) Your entire story should start to change! Every character should relate to you differently, and frankly, you should get different missions. There is no more profound piece of character development in the SW universe, and the game turns it into a matter of what kind of equipment you get to pack. That's a severe failing and lacking.
My level 33 Bounty Hunter currently is sitting around 3000 Light Side points, but is still employed by a very satisfied Empire. Now, of course, the non-Force User classes are going to be considerably different in how LS/DS works for them. However, it's still led me to a great deal of reflection on why a Bounty Hunter makes the choices they do. I may or may not write it, but I've got a fair backstory sketched out.
Now, for all those limitations I just mentioned, just imagine the amount of work involved in developing the core stories so that they react fully to player choices (even if it's only in terms of LS/DS, and not to specific choices).
Ok, so yeah, that's the elephant.
Musings on Games
Interesting article on games from games from Raph Koster today: http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-game-mechanic/
Assuming I properly understood all of it, and wish to unpack it, his basic thesis is this.
Content like videos, music or the like are not a core part of gameplay. They provide a measure of feedback which can make the game experience better, but they are not the game itself. A game that relies upon such and does not emphasize the play of the game itself will end up lacking.
Of course, right now, the big thing in gaming is Star Wars: The Old Republic. Does TOR fall into this trap? In some ways yes, but not entirely. The story in the game is certainly one of the primary attractions. There's some exceptional storytelling involved in the game, and the reveals can be awesome. That said, I'm sure the second time through the game, the content won't have the same measure of hold over you. You've seen it, and so it's importance to you begins to fade.
However, there are at least two things off the top of my head which go against simply saying that TOR is a "one and done game".
First of all, is the rest of the gameplay elements. The rest of the game (combat, crafting and the like) is a strong and robust system. Now, this is one of those elements where I can see different people having different opinions, but I don't think that TOR matches Koster's warning about a game that is all feedback and little "black box" gameplay. (Black Box being the way he describes the gameplay/problemsolving aspect of a game) The feedback is big, even huge part of the game ("the 4th pillar"), but that doesn't mean that the "black box" elements are lacking.
Second though, is that TOR (like other Bioware games) have at least to a certain extent integrated the game into the feedback. You don't simply see the same video every playthrough. You can shape what you see by your actions and choices.
That said, that is still somewhat limited. One of the great breakthroughs in a content-oriented gameplay like TOR would be for players to be able to deeply shape the game experience. Where your choices create ever widening changes in everything around you. If, as a Jedi, you manage to convince some young Sith to turn from the Dark Side, you might see a cascading change where you see that former Sith grow. On the other hand, if you are forced to kill him, you become the object of a vendetta by other Sith. Now, a game like TOR can easily handle that level of branching. However, it becomes difficult to impossible to create content like that with more than a limited few branchpoints. If you had 2-3 "world changing" decisions per level... just imagine the amount of writing it would take to cover all possibilities. What games like TOR or ME or DA do, is they cut the "key" branches down to a more managable level, where you have a very limited number of truly huge choices.
(Also, an MMO like TOR won't let you deeply redefine the universe the way a SP game might. For instance, imagine a ME-type choice in a situation like this.
Evil General: "If you do not tell me where your base is, I will launch an orbital bombardment of the planet, killing 99% of all life"
Hostage: *choose*
1. I'll never tell! (*boomboomboom*)
2. It's at 47.1N 55.3E (*base boomed, nothing else*)
That would not be a viable MMO choice, because that would rewrite the entire universe, not only for the player but for every other player. On the other hand, it could work in a Single Player game.
Now, this is a dilemma that's not faced at all by other genres of game. Take Europa Universalis III. If you aren't familiar with it, you start in the year 1399 as the leader of one nation, and from there you go on, with a variety of economic, military and political options to extend your kingdom.
One of the interesting things about that game is that there are literally no victory conditions. Your goals in the game are ultimately self-set. Do you want to lead Europe in colonizing the New World? Have at it. Do you want to become the Holy Roman Emperor? Good luck! Lead Han China to being a viable rival for the European powers before the game ends in 1821? Go for it!
The second thing is that your actions in that game have the profound ability to shape the game world. The world map by the end of the game generally directly reflects what you've done in the game.
That game works the "blackbox-feedback" loop in a very different way. You have the "black box" the game problem/play, and a variety of tools you can use to reach your goals. On the other hand, the "feedback" is largely self directed and defined. You can look at the map and see how much turf you have, or how you dominate the world economy or the like, but the game doesn't tell you if you are "successful". You have to decide that for yourself.
A game like HPS Midway is a bit different still. There is no "story" in the game, per se. (Unless you want to define the "story" as your own view of the game developments). You start the game and you have a fairly definitive goal. You want to defeat the enemy fleet. The "black box" then is the problem of how to use all of your assets to achieve that goal. At the end, the game then comes up with a score (based on how much damage you did, how much the other guy did to you, and a few other factors) to see how successful you were.
In Midway, you generally get two forms of feedback. The first is the immediate feedback "I attached that enemy ship, and got 2 hits, and it's smoking in the water" The second is the "final" feedback of the game victory conditions ("ok, I sunk a carrier and destroyed 57 planes. I had a carrier damaged and lost 32 planes. That's a win."
This is my usual long and rambly self (not that people actually read it), but the article gives some interesting food for thought.
Assuming I properly understood all of it, and wish to unpack it, his basic thesis is this.
Content like videos, music or the like are not a core part of gameplay. They provide a measure of feedback which can make the game experience better, but they are not the game itself. A game that relies upon such and does not emphasize the play of the game itself will end up lacking.
Of course, right now, the big thing in gaming is Star Wars: The Old Republic. Does TOR fall into this trap? In some ways yes, but not entirely. The story in the game is certainly one of the primary attractions. There's some exceptional storytelling involved in the game, and the reveals can be awesome. That said, I'm sure the second time through the game, the content won't have the same measure of hold over you. You've seen it, and so it's importance to you begins to fade.
However, there are at least two things off the top of my head which go against simply saying that TOR is a "one and done game".
First of all, is the rest of the gameplay elements. The rest of the game (combat, crafting and the like) is a strong and robust system. Now, this is one of those elements where I can see different people having different opinions, but I don't think that TOR matches Koster's warning about a game that is all feedback and little "black box" gameplay. (Black Box being the way he describes the gameplay/problemsolving aspect of a game) The feedback is big, even huge part of the game ("the 4th pillar"), but that doesn't mean that the "black box" elements are lacking.
Second though, is that TOR (like other Bioware games) have at least to a certain extent integrated the game into the feedback. You don't simply see the same video every playthrough. You can shape what you see by your actions and choices.
That said, that is still somewhat limited. One of the great breakthroughs in a content-oriented gameplay like TOR would be for players to be able to deeply shape the game experience. Where your choices create ever widening changes in everything around you. If, as a Jedi, you manage to convince some young Sith to turn from the Dark Side, you might see a cascading change where you see that former Sith grow. On the other hand, if you are forced to kill him, you become the object of a vendetta by other Sith. Now, a game like TOR can easily handle that level of branching. However, it becomes difficult to impossible to create content like that with more than a limited few branchpoints. If you had 2-3 "world changing" decisions per level... just imagine the amount of writing it would take to cover all possibilities. What games like TOR or ME or DA do, is they cut the "key" branches down to a more managable level, where you have a very limited number of truly huge choices.
(Also, an MMO like TOR won't let you deeply redefine the universe the way a SP game might. For instance, imagine a ME-type choice in a situation like this.
Evil General: "If you do not tell me where your base is, I will launch an orbital bombardment of the planet, killing 99% of all life"
Hostage: *choose*
1. I'll never tell! (*boomboomboom*)
2. It's at 47.1N 55.3E (*base boomed, nothing else*)
That would not be a viable MMO choice, because that would rewrite the entire universe, not only for the player but for every other player. On the other hand, it could work in a Single Player game.
Now, this is a dilemma that's not faced at all by other genres of game. Take Europa Universalis III. If you aren't familiar with it, you start in the year 1399 as the leader of one nation, and from there you go on, with a variety of economic, military and political options to extend your kingdom.
One of the interesting things about that game is that there are literally no victory conditions. Your goals in the game are ultimately self-set. Do you want to lead Europe in colonizing the New World? Have at it. Do you want to become the Holy Roman Emperor? Good luck! Lead Han China to being a viable rival for the European powers before the game ends in 1821? Go for it!
The second thing is that your actions in that game have the profound ability to shape the game world. The world map by the end of the game generally directly reflects what you've done in the game.
That game works the "blackbox-feedback" loop in a very different way. You have the "black box" the game problem/play, and a variety of tools you can use to reach your goals. On the other hand, the "feedback" is largely self directed and defined. You can look at the map and see how much turf you have, or how you dominate the world economy or the like, but the game doesn't tell you if you are "successful". You have to decide that for yourself.
A game like HPS Midway is a bit different still. There is no "story" in the game, per se. (Unless you want to define the "story" as your own view of the game developments). You start the game and you have a fairly definitive goal. You want to defeat the enemy fleet. The "black box" then is the problem of how to use all of your assets to achieve that goal. At the end, the game then comes up with a score (based on how much damage you did, how much the other guy did to you, and a few other factors) to see how successful you were.
In Midway, you generally get two forms of feedback. The first is the immediate feedback "I attached that enemy ship, and got 2 hits, and it's smoking in the water" The second is the "final" feedback of the game victory conditions ("ok, I sunk a carrier and destroyed 57 planes. I had a carrier damaged and lost 32 planes. That's a win."
This is my usual long and rambly self (not that people actually read it), but the article gives some interesting food for thought.
Monday, November 28, 2011
What good is immersion?
A number of years ago, while I was a Supergroup (Guild) leader City of Heroes, I started poking our membership on a few questions, while trying to get a better feel for where people are coming from. Now, the SG in question was a Role-Play group, but it had a bit of an odd history. It had started as a fairly small, very focused group, with a great deal of emphasis on roleplay. However, as it grew, for various reasons, it changed. It's not that it was no longer an RP group, but the "style" of RP changed. So, to kind of poke at people and see where they thought the group should be, I laid out 5 categories of RP players.
1) Run n Gun. A Run n Gun-RPer is more focused on gameplay than RP. IC chatter is a nice "flavoring" to add to the mission, or maybe while waiting for the last laggard to get to the mission door. However, any time not spent actively in mission is time wasted, and "stand around" RP is to be avoided most times. Frequent use of OOC chatter is ordinary and not a problem.
2) RP-Lite. Like the Run n Gun-RPer, the Lite-RPer is focused on gameplay over RP. The RP provides a bit of flavor to the experience. The Lite player is more willing to spend RP time outside of mission, but only to a limited extent. Some IC bonds between characters may form, but it'll be more along the line of saying "old chum" or the like, than anything else. Frequent OOC chatter is ordinary.
3) RP-Medium. This is the person who sees RP and Game Play roughly in balance. They're willing to engage in considerable RP outside of missions, including working on ongoing storylines, events and the like. IC Friendships and Romantic Relationships are fairly common. OOC chat is acceptable, but if it "breaks" the flow of an RP, it's frowned upon.
4) RP-Heavy. The Heavy RPer is the person for whom RP>Game Play. They're perfectly happy playing a Level 50, because while the game horizons may be complete, the personal horizons of the character are neverending. These players will almost always form close IC Relationships (both "friends" and "romantic"). OOC chatter is minimized, and frowned upon, as breaking immersion.
5) RP-Immersive. For this person, the game is almost immaterial. It's all about the RP. These people often go to lengths to avoid finding out any personal information about the players behind the characters they're playing off of, because that breaks their immersion. OOC chat is highly frowned upon.
I was reminded of all of this the last few days as I got a chance to putter around in the Beta for SW:TOR. The above scale was written to gauge how those who would self-identify as RPers at one level or another look at things, but listening to the general chatter in TOR, there were some interesting comments from those who would not be considered RPers at all.
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, TOR is set up a great deal like Mass Effect or Dragon Age in some ways. It's heavily plot driven, with a large number of animated dialogue scenes with actual voice acting. Gone are the days where your contact would present you with a wall of text with a simple "accept mission" button at the bottom. You actually get to interact with your contact, choose responses to shape your conversation (and through that, shape your character and game experience). From an immersion point of view, it's fantastic. It brings you into the story in ways that a Wall of Text never could.
On the other hand, I saw a fair amount of griping about it in the general chat (as I mentioned before). Why? Because for many, it "gets in the way of the game." While my above list describes different approaches to Roleplay, there are other types of players out there as well. You can subdivide them in various ways (power levelers, raiders, such and so), but as a general description, they are people for whom gameplay trumps all. Story and immersion are secondary, and perhaps even unimportant. What they want is the simple act of playing the game systems (combat, crafting, whatever) and any time that the game "forces" them to interact with the plot is time wasted.
This is hardly a new consideration in MMO's. I have one friend in City of Heroes who has the constant frustration of not being able to follow the plot of Task Forces, because much of the time, she's the only person who wants to really read the storytext, and the others are unwilling to "waste" their time doing so.
What TOR does though, is it takes the dispute to a whole new level. Because the game forces you into those dialogue scenes, it forces the Gameplay crowd to interact more heavily with the story than they would like.
Now, I'll openly admit, I'm a very story oriented player. I like the abilty to shape my experience within the game, to interact with the story in ways that are more profound than "go kill 10 Rodians" or whatever. (Though that is in the game too). I do worry about TOR's ability to remain interesting in the long term with this system. I'm afraid that it may be more of a Massively Online Single Player Game, than a multiplayer game, but only time will tell on that issue. (This is wierd from me, who spends more time soloing than not).
What good is immersion? Is the attempt to create a more immersive game a good thing? To me, the answer is a clear yes. It's also clear that there are many who already dislike those elements, because they get "in the way" of the game. What does this mean for TOR in the long run? Only time will tell.
1) Run n Gun. A Run n Gun-RPer is more focused on gameplay than RP. IC chatter is a nice "flavoring" to add to the mission, or maybe while waiting for the last laggard to get to the mission door. However, any time not spent actively in mission is time wasted, and "stand around" RP is to be avoided most times. Frequent use of OOC chatter is ordinary and not a problem.
2) RP-Lite. Like the Run n Gun-RPer, the Lite-RPer is focused on gameplay over RP. The RP provides a bit of flavor to the experience. The Lite player is more willing to spend RP time outside of mission, but only to a limited extent. Some IC bonds between characters may form, but it'll be more along the line of saying "old chum" or the like, than anything else. Frequent OOC chatter is ordinary.
3) RP-Medium. This is the person who sees RP and Game Play roughly in balance. They're willing to engage in considerable RP outside of missions, including working on ongoing storylines, events and the like. IC Friendships and Romantic Relationships are fairly common. OOC chat is acceptable, but if it "breaks" the flow of an RP, it's frowned upon.
4) RP-Heavy. The Heavy RPer is the person for whom RP>Game Play. They're perfectly happy playing a Level 50, because while the game horizons may be complete, the personal horizons of the character are neverending. These players will almost always form close IC Relationships (both "friends" and "romantic"). OOC chatter is minimized, and frowned upon, as breaking immersion.
5) RP-Immersive. For this person, the game is almost immaterial. It's all about the RP. These people often go to lengths to avoid finding out any personal information about the players behind the characters they're playing off of, because that breaks their immersion. OOC chat is highly frowned upon.
I was reminded of all of this the last few days as I got a chance to putter around in the Beta for SW:TOR. The above scale was written to gauge how those who would self-identify as RPers at one level or another look at things, but listening to the general chatter in TOR, there were some interesting comments from those who would not be considered RPers at all.
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, TOR is set up a great deal like Mass Effect or Dragon Age in some ways. It's heavily plot driven, with a large number of animated dialogue scenes with actual voice acting. Gone are the days where your contact would present you with a wall of text with a simple "accept mission" button at the bottom. You actually get to interact with your contact, choose responses to shape your conversation (and through that, shape your character and game experience). From an immersion point of view, it's fantastic. It brings you into the story in ways that a Wall of Text never could.
On the other hand, I saw a fair amount of griping about it in the general chat (as I mentioned before). Why? Because for many, it "gets in the way of the game." While my above list describes different approaches to Roleplay, there are other types of players out there as well. You can subdivide them in various ways (power levelers, raiders, such and so), but as a general description, they are people for whom gameplay trumps all. Story and immersion are secondary, and perhaps even unimportant. What they want is the simple act of playing the game systems (combat, crafting, whatever) and any time that the game "forces" them to interact with the plot is time wasted.
This is hardly a new consideration in MMO's. I have one friend in City of Heroes who has the constant frustration of not being able to follow the plot of Task Forces, because much of the time, she's the only person who wants to really read the storytext, and the others are unwilling to "waste" their time doing so.
What TOR does though, is it takes the dispute to a whole new level. Because the game forces you into those dialogue scenes, it forces the Gameplay crowd to interact more heavily with the story than they would like.
Now, I'll openly admit, I'm a very story oriented player. I like the abilty to shape my experience within the game, to interact with the story in ways that are more profound than "go kill 10 Rodians" or whatever. (Though that is in the game too). I do worry about TOR's ability to remain interesting in the long term with this system. I'm afraid that it may be more of a Massively Online Single Player Game, than a multiplayer game, but only time will tell on that issue. (This is wierd from me, who spends more time soloing than not).
What good is immersion? Is the attempt to create a more immersive game a good thing? To me, the answer is a clear yes. It's also clear that there are many who already dislike those elements, because they get "in the way" of the game. What does this mean for TOR in the long run? Only time will tell.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
DC loves your anger. It feeds them
A number of years ago, Eric Bischoff (you know, there's actually alot of common ground between comics and pro wrestling when you think about it.) wrote a book called Controversy Creates Cash. Essentially, his thought that was by being controversial, in your face, you kept people interested and made money. You know, it worked. While his empire in WCW eventually imploded (for a variety of reasons), the entire Monday Night Wars saga proved Bischoff's phrase.
That's the attitude that's behind what's wrong with comics today, all of it. We know that DC looked at Marvel's success with "One More Day" and learned the lesson that "controversy creates cash". People got angry, protested Marvel, blogged in great anger. Yet, sales went... up. I'm not sure if it was all those angry bloggers showing themselves to be hypocrites (I'll never read another Marvel book! Ooooh, all right, I will), or if it was simply new readers who got drawn into things. That's what DC is aiming for, and it may well work. I know initial sales have been strong.
The issues with the depiction of women? It's all part of the same tapestry. More severe than any complaints about exiling the JSA to Earth-2 or the like, but a part of the same process. Slutfire has gotten more attention in a few panels than any version of Starfire has in how long? It's created buzz.. it's created news. It's created attention. The question is... will it create sales? My sad suspicion is, yes. I'm sure there will be a fair number of people who will not purchase the book. However, I also feel that more will buy the book.
The only answer that will make the people in DC sit up and pay attention is to not buy those books. Enraged blog posts? Those are good to their mind. They create more buzz, more attention, and in the end, more money. Only when they look up and see their bottom line shrinking will they consider this to be a bad thing.
(also, if you think that only comics are going this way, here's a thought provoking article I saw yesterday: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/opinion/stepp-bunny-tv/index.html )
That's the attitude that's behind what's wrong with comics today, all of it. We know that DC looked at Marvel's success with "One More Day" and learned the lesson that "controversy creates cash". People got angry, protested Marvel, blogged in great anger. Yet, sales went... up. I'm not sure if it was all those angry bloggers showing themselves to be hypocrites (I'll never read another Marvel book! Ooooh, all right, I will), or if it was simply new readers who got drawn into things. That's what DC is aiming for, and it may well work. I know initial sales have been strong.
The issues with the depiction of women? It's all part of the same tapestry. More severe than any complaints about exiling the JSA to Earth-2 or the like, but a part of the same process. Slutfire has gotten more attention in a few panels than any version of Starfire has in how long? It's created buzz.. it's created news. It's created attention. The question is... will it create sales? My sad suspicion is, yes. I'm sure there will be a fair number of people who will not purchase the book. However, I also feel that more will buy the book.
The only answer that will make the people in DC sit up and pay attention is to not buy those books. Enraged blog posts? Those are good to their mind. They create more buzz, more attention, and in the end, more money. Only when they look up and see their bottom line shrinking will they consider this to be a bad thing.
(also, if you think that only comics are going this way, here's a thought provoking article I saw yesterday: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/opinion/stepp-bunny-tv/index.html )
Friday, August 28, 2009
Clark Kent: Real human
After reading “Thy Kingdom Come” in JSA, I got to thinking about an interesting contrast between E-22 Superman in this story, and Superman as presented in the movie a couple of years ago.
As I stated back when the movie came out, one of the ongoing themes in Superman Returns is the progressive degradation of Clark’s humanity. He is less and less Clark Kent, more and more Kal-El. The moment that’s meant to show “who he truly is,” is when you see him hovering high in space, ready to descend upon blighted humanity at every need. A demigod among men. The role of the Kents is minimized, the “dead hand” of Jor-El is maximized, even to the point of Superman going to his newly found son and echoing the words of Jor-El to him while he sleeps.
Now, on the other hand, in Thy Kingdom Comes (and also in the original of course), one of the ongoing themes is the way in which Clark “died” the same day that Lois did. The scene where “our” Lois goes to talk to E-22 Superman is one that’s heartbreaking on a few levels. The flashback, adding a few details that weren’t found in KC (the last words of E-22 Lois), and her final words “don’t lose… Clark”.
Then, at the very end, after he decides to return to his own Universe, we’re reminded of the scene from the original, where Diana gives him a pair of glasses, to help him “see” better. Obviously, it’s not the physical “sight” but the more important ways of seeing. The philosophical and spiritual implications of embracing his humanity. That he may have the powers of a demigod, but that his essential humanity is his core. Without that, he loses who he is.
I truly think that gets to the core of Superman better than anything else. Clark Kent is not a “mask” that he hides behind. In many ways, “Bruce Wayne” carefree billionaire playboy is an essentially unreal person. There is no Bruce Wayne, there is only Batman. Bruce Wayne, as much as Matches Malone is just a “face” that he puts on at times to further his mission. However, with Superman, Clark is part of the very core which makes Superman who he is.
It’s odd in a way, that Batman is the one who keeps collecting kids to “raise”. Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Cassie Cain. Each of them has been stung by their proximity to Batman. Being a human “father-figure” is not a role that Batman wears comfortably, or frankly, especially well. On the other hand, I could easily see Clark stepping into the role of raising an orphan, and doing a far better job of it. That’s because Clark has a better connection to his own humanity. Clark is a real person, where Bruce is not.
As I stated back when the movie came out, one of the ongoing themes in Superman Returns is the progressive degradation of Clark’s humanity. He is less and less Clark Kent, more and more Kal-El. The moment that’s meant to show “who he truly is,” is when you see him hovering high in space, ready to descend upon blighted humanity at every need. A demigod among men. The role of the Kents is minimized, the “dead hand” of Jor-El is maximized, even to the point of Superman going to his newly found son and echoing the words of Jor-El to him while he sleeps.
Now, on the other hand, in Thy Kingdom Comes (and also in the original of course), one of the ongoing themes is the way in which Clark “died” the same day that Lois did. The scene where “our” Lois goes to talk to E-22 Superman is one that’s heartbreaking on a few levels. The flashback, adding a few details that weren’t found in KC (the last words of E-22 Lois), and her final words “don’t lose… Clark”.
Then, at the very end, after he decides to return to his own Universe, we’re reminded of the scene from the original, where Diana gives him a pair of glasses, to help him “see” better. Obviously, it’s not the physical “sight” but the more important ways of seeing. The philosophical and spiritual implications of embracing his humanity. That he may have the powers of a demigod, but that his essential humanity is his core. Without that, he loses who he is.
I truly think that gets to the core of Superman better than anything else. Clark Kent is not a “mask” that he hides behind. In many ways, “Bruce Wayne” carefree billionaire playboy is an essentially unreal person. There is no Bruce Wayne, there is only Batman. Bruce Wayne, as much as Matches Malone is just a “face” that he puts on at times to further his mission. However, with Superman, Clark is part of the very core which makes Superman who he is.
It’s odd in a way, that Batman is the one who keeps collecting kids to “raise”. Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Cassie Cain. Each of them has been stung by their proximity to Batman. Being a human “father-figure” is not a role that Batman wears comfortably, or frankly, especially well. On the other hand, I could easily see Clark stepping into the role of raising an orphan, and doing a far better job of it. That’s because Clark has a better connection to his own humanity. Clark is a real person, where Bruce is not.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thy Kingdom Come
Well, after a long absence from reading comics (largely caused by frustration from One Year Later), I’ve spent the last couple of weeks reading through my back inventory of unread books, and it’s been a very mixed bag. There’s been good and bad. I could sit here and pick at my issues with recent events in the Teen Titans, or why I dislike the first LS featuring Renee Montoya as the new Question. Perhaps I will in a few days.
First off though, I find myself turning to the Good. I’ve read some good stuff in the last days, but easily the best has been the “Thy Kingdom Come” storyline in Justice Society. There are some oddities there to be sure, but overall, it was compelling, thought provoking, and just plain well done.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read Kingdom Come (in either TPB form or the outstanding novel). That’s always been a story I’ve greatly enjoyed, and not mostly for the Ross artwork. Honestly, I like the novel better. You spend less time trying to sort out who the next-gen heroes are, and more time thinking about the plot. For obvious reasons, I’ve always liked the pastor character (even though we come from very different branches of the Church…heh). Indeed, he’s one of the things that’s gotten me to think about what it must be like for “everyman” in a superhero world.
When I heard that they were going to revisit that story, and indeed bring it into the “mainstream” continuity, I was a bit skeptical. It’s an outstanding story, worthy of a post unto itself. However, it’s one of those stories that I figured should stay self contained.
Having said that, I must give credit where it is due. The way they brought it into the DCU works… both by designating it as Earth-22, and perhaps most of all, by bringing the JSA into the mix. More than any other team, the JSA is the conscience of the DCU. Not Superman, not Batman, but the three “old men.” Jay Garrick, Alan Scott and Ted Grant. Supes, Bats and WW may be the “Trinity” but Jay, Allen and Scott have their own role in the bedrock of the DCU.
As Kingdom Come played with the issues of power and responsibility, the JSA is the perfect vehicle to work Gog and Magog into things. This is especially true when you consider the stated intent of the new Society to make better heroes.
Yet, when the time comes for the JSA to fracture in the story, notice that the “old school” JSAers are the ones who stand against Gog first. They can sense that too much is being offered, that they were “Hansel and Gretel at the Witches house”. The only “old” JSAer who goes with Gog is Hawkman, who has always been a bit of a loose cannon. (Still, on reflection, that choice surprises me. Yeah, he’d certainly relate to the way Gog turned those soldiers into trees, and Carter wouldn’t shed a tear, but he’s too cynical to really buy into Gog’s offer I think). Otherwise, it’s the “new” members who fall. Damage, Commander Steel, the soon to be Magog (forget the name he takes early on).
Gog preys upon their pain, but at the same time, remember that Damage and Steel aren’t the only people in the Society to have felt pain. When you think about those who listened to the Siren’s Call, it says more about them, than the Siren itself.
At first, it took me a bit to get used to the interleaving of the Ross artwork for Earth-22 scenes with the more “normal” style for the rest of the story. Yet, that created an outstanding ending to the story, with everything coming full circle.
Is it a perfect story? Not at all. I have lots of quibbles and nits, but even so, it’s a story that reminds me while I like comics. Maybe in days to come, I’ll get to a bit more.
First off though, I find myself turning to the Good. I’ve read some good stuff in the last days, but easily the best has been the “Thy Kingdom Come” storyline in Justice Society. There are some oddities there to be sure, but overall, it was compelling, thought provoking, and just plain well done.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read Kingdom Come (in either TPB form or the outstanding novel). That’s always been a story I’ve greatly enjoyed, and not mostly for the Ross artwork. Honestly, I like the novel better. You spend less time trying to sort out who the next-gen heroes are, and more time thinking about the plot. For obvious reasons, I’ve always liked the pastor character (even though we come from very different branches of the Church…heh). Indeed, he’s one of the things that’s gotten me to think about what it must be like for “everyman” in a superhero world.
When I heard that they were going to revisit that story, and indeed bring it into the “mainstream” continuity, I was a bit skeptical. It’s an outstanding story, worthy of a post unto itself. However, it’s one of those stories that I figured should stay self contained.
Having said that, I must give credit where it is due. The way they brought it into the DCU works… both by designating it as Earth-22, and perhaps most of all, by bringing the JSA into the mix. More than any other team, the JSA is the conscience of the DCU. Not Superman, not Batman, but the three “old men.” Jay Garrick, Alan Scott and Ted Grant. Supes, Bats and WW may be the “Trinity” but Jay, Allen and Scott have their own role in the bedrock of the DCU.
As Kingdom Come played with the issues of power and responsibility, the JSA is the perfect vehicle to work Gog and Magog into things. This is especially true when you consider the stated intent of the new Society to make better heroes.
Yet, when the time comes for the JSA to fracture in the story, notice that the “old school” JSAers are the ones who stand against Gog first. They can sense that too much is being offered, that they were “Hansel and Gretel at the Witches house”. The only “old” JSAer who goes with Gog is Hawkman, who has always been a bit of a loose cannon. (Still, on reflection, that choice surprises me. Yeah, he’d certainly relate to the way Gog turned those soldiers into trees, and Carter wouldn’t shed a tear, but he’s too cynical to really buy into Gog’s offer I think). Otherwise, it’s the “new” members who fall. Damage, Commander Steel, the soon to be Magog (forget the name he takes early on).
Gog preys upon their pain, but at the same time, remember that Damage and Steel aren’t the only people in the Society to have felt pain. When you think about those who listened to the Siren’s Call, it says more about them, than the Siren itself.
At first, it took me a bit to get used to the interleaving of the Ross artwork for Earth-22 scenes with the more “normal” style for the rest of the story. Yet, that created an outstanding ending to the story, with everything coming full circle.
Is it a perfect story? Not at all. I have lots of quibbles and nits, but even so, it’s a story that reminds me while I like comics. Maybe in days to come, I’ll get to a bit more.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Fantasy in a rut...
I've enjoyed "High Fantasy" for a long time now, but there are ways in which it strikes me as being in something of a rut.
With not nearly enough exceptions to my taste, Fantasy novels are "voyages of discovery" type novels. Now, any character should develop and grow over the course of a book, but what I mean is this.
How many of the protaganists in Fantasy Novels start out as young, discovering they have a power (or destiny or something) and set out on an epic voyage of discovery, finding their "inner hero"
For instance, currently I'm reading The High Lord, which is the third book in the Black Magician Trilogy by Trudy Cananvan. Now, to this point, it's been a most enjoyable series. The heroine is appealing, the mystery is good and the like.
Yet, on another level, it just doesn't seem to be anything new. Sonea is a young girl who lives in the worst part of the city. The Magic Guild has a monopoly on magic in that culture. However, as a rule they've never tested anyone other than the children of the nobility. Generally, you need to have someone "awaken" your powers in you, but Sonea's powers awaken on their own. So, suddenly, this slum girl is in the Guild, and learning her powers, and the usual threat to the city/nation/world.
How many books have that kind of general plot? Seriously. Young person discovers they have powers, and goes from there.
Offhand
The Belgariad/Mallorean
Most of the books in the Recluse series
Pug in Feist's series
Drake's Crown of the Isles
Wheel of Time
How many more do I need to list?
Now, I've enjoyed most of them (not a big Jordan fan).
Still, though, the sameness is getting... old.
Maybe that's why I think that the Elenium/Tamuli from Feist is better. There, you have Sparhawk... who is a veteran knight. Maybe even a hair past his prime. His nature as a hero is already established. Now, he's about to learn a great deal about himself (Anakha), but still, it is a very refreshing change for a character to start a series as an established hero, and then "get to work", instead of starting off as callow/smartaleck/wise beyond his years type youth.
With not nearly enough exceptions to my taste, Fantasy novels are "voyages of discovery" type novels. Now, any character should develop and grow over the course of a book, but what I mean is this.
How many of the protaganists in Fantasy Novels start out as young, discovering they have a power (or destiny or something) and set out on an epic voyage of discovery, finding their "inner hero"
For instance, currently I'm reading The High Lord, which is the third book in the Black Magician Trilogy by Trudy Cananvan. Now, to this point, it's been a most enjoyable series. The heroine is appealing, the mystery is good and the like.
Yet, on another level, it just doesn't seem to be anything new. Sonea is a young girl who lives in the worst part of the city. The Magic Guild has a monopoly on magic in that culture. However, as a rule they've never tested anyone other than the children of the nobility. Generally, you need to have someone "awaken" your powers in you, but Sonea's powers awaken on their own. So, suddenly, this slum girl is in the Guild, and learning her powers, and the usual threat to the city/nation/world.
How many books have that kind of general plot? Seriously. Young person discovers they have powers, and goes from there.
Offhand
The Belgariad/Mallorean
Most of the books in the Recluse series
Pug in Feist's series
Drake's Crown of the Isles
Wheel of Time
How many more do I need to list?
Now, I've enjoyed most of them (not a big Jordan fan).
Still, though, the sameness is getting... old.
Maybe that's why I think that the Elenium/Tamuli from Feist is better. There, you have Sparhawk... who is a veteran knight. Maybe even a hair past his prime. His nature as a hero is already established. Now, he's about to learn a great deal about himself (Anakha), but still, it is a very refreshing change for a character to start a series as an established hero, and then "get to work", instead of starting off as callow/smartaleck/wise beyond his years type youth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
