To all things there is an end

For all things, there is an end, and last night, it was the ending of City of Heroes.

It was a wild and difficult night.  I sit here, and try to think of how to describe the emotions of the night, but really, I can't.  There just aren't really words for it.  A joy and sadness mixed together.  The joy of one last run with friends, the joy of playing a well loved game... but the inescapable sadness born of the fact that it was truly the last time.

The little things.  Knowing that never again will there be another epic propel-created junkpile.  Knowing that you'll never get to gut another spawn with a blaster's nuke. (At least in the stuff I've played, there really is not single spasm of joyous destruction that quite matches Build Up-Aim-Nuke).

Yet, and as much as I hate it, the last emotion, and the one that built up since then... anger.

In many ways, I get the decision.  I know that despite how much City of Heroes has been improving the last few years (better writing, better gameplay and the like), the income of the game has not been holding up. Even the change to the promised land of free to play only arrested the decline.  I get all that, understand it, and truly, can accept it.

What has upset me though is the way that NCSoft has truly devalued what the things they had.  They did it when they suddenly put everyone on a 90 day notice, including all the staff who had built the game.  These people had done good work, impressive work and yet there they were on the chopping block.  They weren't moved to new products, where they could take their skill, passion and experience.  They were simply let go.  Yes, I'm sure the got a generous severence package, but even at that, it was only a beginning.

I watched the attempts to save the game with a fair bit of cynicism.  I didn't figure it world work, but the wall of utter silence that came from NCSoft was truly disheartening.  At one point, their only real statement was "please don't use this email address."

Last night though was the bit that really pushed me over the top.  We got notices of the impending end (Virtue crashed shortly after the 10 minute warning in fact), but what I didn't hear was "thanks for everything" from NCSoft.

That's the thing, the Devs, CMs and the like? Positron, War Witch and Hit Streak and all the others?  They said thank you to the fans many times in the last three months (and the fans said it to them).  They were truly a part of the CoH community.  They were there to the end, despite not being "official" any more.

Corporate NCSoft though?  They showed no real appreciation for the community, or of the value of the community.  Once their decision was made, they didn't engage the people who didn't want to see the game die.  They didn't try to engage the crowds who were in game for one last memory.

The final blow though?  Literally within 5 minutes of the servers going down... the CoH Community Forms... gone.  The CoH Twitter... gone.  The CoH facebook... gone.  There could not be even a spare moment for people to use those places to enjoy their last memories, to connect and meet.  To try to hold one last little moment.  Everything that was CoH had to be sent to a dark oblivion, forgotten.  Almost as if NCSoft was ashamed of the game. 

All MMOs will come to an end sooner or later.  The communities that have built around them will have to face this day.  I can only hope that when those times come, the companies involved show more respect for those communities, and make it clear that they value those communities.

I'm sure the momentary anger will pass, and in time, the good memories will be dominate.  CoH was truly a good run in so many ways, I cannot list them all. 

Farewell CoH.

How does one say goodbye to a game?

Tonight's the night.

Who knows how many people have passed through City of Heroes over the years of its existance, but tonight marks the point where it all becomes nothing more than a memory.

It's kind of funny in a way.  Once upon a time, most people's communities lasted a lifetime.  They were born in a town and stayed there.  They went to the same Church from birth to death.  Communities were one of the bedrocks of life.

How times have changed.  I'm not sure of the numbers, but I doubt even half thirty-somethings live in the town they graduated High School in (much less the town they were born in...)  We are a culture of constant change, and all of those touchstones are showing that as well (even the family, with the constant morphing brought on by divorce, remarriage, blended families and the like)

Online communities are no different.  I can't even begin to think how many different online communities I have been in.  Early chat rooms, IRC chats, wargame groups and on it went, until I came to CoH.

The thing is, in the MMO space, CoH was actually fairly old.  Oh, it wasn't the oldest (UO and EQ have that spot taken), but it in today's change-a-minute world, it was certainly considered one of the "old men" of the genre.

Think about that for a moment, City of Heroes was about 8.5 years old.  Even more, think about how many tell those hurt by the decision to kill CoH "oh, get over that old game, its day is past" (usually said rather less kindly for that matter).  One of the older communities in the MMO space is being put to death because 8.5 years is "too old".

That is the new way of our world.  Communities come, and communities go.  The bonds built in them don't entirely shatter.  I'm still in contact with a few people from my very first community online.  I'm sure I'll keep in contact with a number of City players in the future too.  Yet, our frame of reference will never be the same.  It will not be consigned to the "good old days".

The odd thing is, I haven't truly been part of the community for a while now.  For a variety of reasons (simple burnout, wounds from the wars of running a supergroup and the like), I've been largely detached from the game.  Yet, it was always there.  I could go in, and start in with the bad puns and jokes.  I knew it was there when the mood hit, when the need hit. 

Because of that, I'm not quite as torn by this as many of my friends are.  I'd already detached, already gone through the grief process to a certain extent already. 

Yet, there are things that it does hurt to realize... they will never happen again.
-The time a couple months ago where some... trigger in the way a mission went led both my character, and a friend's character to start humming ABBA's "Dancing Queen" at nearly the same second...
- The sheer power of running as a high tier Grav/Energy Dom through Freaks
- The groans in global channels as one of my legendary puns goes out.

Oh, many of those things will happen again, in other places, in other games, even with some of the same people... and hopefully those memories will be just as special in their own way.

Yet, it's a matter of knowing that... my pile of CoH memories will be complete in a few short hours. 

To all those who were part of those memories, good or bad, I thank you.

God's Protect!

Into the Sunset a City goes

It's taken me the better part of a day to fully digest the news of City of Heroes impending shutdown. It's honestly odd in a way.  I saw the signs, but simply didn't put 2+2 together.  Even though I spend little time in CoH any more, I have still watched NCSoft's corporate earnings reports with considerable interest, largely to see how CoH has been doing for them.

The simple truth is, not well.  Players have assumed that things are going great guns, but that's not really been the truth.  Earnings on the game have been flat or even declining since about the time Going Rogue came out.  That's right, if I read the numbers right, Freedom (and free to play) did little, other than possibly arresting the decline.

I'd noted the numbers, been troubled by them, but never really realized that the game's life was on the line.  I guess deep down I assumed that at worst, they'd dump the game into maintenance mode and go on.  It seems that is not NCSoft's way though.  The statements I read didn't really make clear if the game itself was profitable (it lists revenues, but not costs).  If it was though, the profit was very marginal.

It has been interesting to watch players reactions in lots of ways though.  It seems that many players forget that CoH and the American market overall are really a very small part of NCSoft.  Last quarter, North America brought in 4% of their total revenue.  We'll have to see how Guild Wars 2 does, but at this point, I'd not be shocked to see NCSoft pull entirely out of the western market if GW2 struggles.

Yet, while I comprehend the business decision, and even think that it may well make sense from a corporate suit point of view, that still leaves the deeper, more profound side of things, at least to players.

In the MMO world, communities are always in a state of flux.  People come in, they leave for new games.  Guilds and groups have members who have been there since launch day, but many of the old timers have moved on and away.  Yet, even with all that shuffling and change, there is still that sense of community.  You return to a game and see familiar names (if perhaps not as many as you would like).

We've come to expect that level of permanance.  This is the "natural disaster" of the online community world though.  It's the earthquake or volcano.  The decision to end a game, and incidentally gut the community.

Oh, the individual connections that people have made will  go on, and certain subgroups of the community will find a way to keep in touch (forming up in a new game, using forums or social media)... but as a whole, the community of CoH has 3 months to live.  Then the doom.

The suits that make these kind of decisions?  To them community isn't really important.  They may see it as an important marketing tool, to increase retention and bring in new players by word of mouth, but when the red and black numbers say it is time to close down, that community isn't even a single thought. (Note, I'm not saying this about the devs and community managers and reps who are in the end a part of the community. I'm talking about the people higher up who made the decision.)

Now, in the end, NCSoft is a business, and their job is the bottom line, and as much as we'd like to, we can't evicerate them for treating this as a business decision.  (Of course, the way they did it, the sudden announcement, the "get out today" treatment of Paragon Studios is callous and reflects badly on them, but that's another issue).

What does that say about online communities though?  We've come to expect a level of permanance, but really, that exists at the whim of the few.  Any MMO game, be it WoW, SL, SW:TOR or whatever has Poe's swinging axe above their head.  For some (like WoW), that axe is a distant threat, but even there, it does exist. 

Truly a sad day for CoH players, and really for anyone who has been in a MMO community for an extended period.  It is a harsh reminder that our communities are impermament and always threatened.

I'm getting too maudlin here I think. It's time to cut this off.  I'll probably share some memories in time, but not right now I think.

The Dark Knight and Theological Anthropology

One of the reasons I like comic books is that they are not afraid to deal with some very difficult and touchy issues.  People might say that comics are "for children" but on the other hand, comics and fantasy novels are a place where authors truly wrestle with the nature of good and evil.

Because of that, comics and comic book movies can at times be remarkably theological.  Superman Returns certainly was.  Dark Knight Rises is also.  The difference though is this.  SR was playing around with issues of the nature of God, where Superman becomes a Christ analogue (Human/Kryptonian nature, as opposed to Human/Divine).  It also questions the nature of salvation, and if we need salvation (Lois' editorial asking if the world needs Superman).

DKR though?  It's firmly rooted in anthropology.  Now, normally, when people say anthropology, they think of the formal academic discipline, and maybe think of Lucy or the Leakey's.  In terms of theology though, it is the theology of the nature of mankind.  Who is man? What is he? What does it mean to be created "in the image of God"?

DKR (and indeed all the Dark Knight Trilogy) dives into the deep end of the pool in regards to "what is the nature of mankind"  Consider the situation in the beginning.  The city is hopelessy corrupt.  The police are venal and generally worthless, the streets are dangerous.  There is a sense that Ras al'Ghul is right in wanting to purge the city from the face of the earth.

That basic corruption, the foulness of the city of Gotham continues into the second movie.  The boat scene is maybe the best example of it, where so many of the fine "upstanding" members of the city are willing to sell others down the river, for the simple chance to survive.

Yet, in the third movie, something begins to happen.  There is a change, subtle at first, but it grows.  Yes, the city is as venal as ever.  It has embraced the glorious lie of the legacy of Harvey Dent.  Deputy Commissioner Foley is a prime example of this.  He abandons the chase of a very nasty bunch of robbers in order to chase after the glory of capturing the Batman.  He's manuevering, scheming, waiting for the day that he can become the commissioner.

Yet, something has begun to change.  The change was begun in the first movie, when Batman sets himself up as everyman.  As a symbol of one who stands against the chaos, the corruption, the fallenness of the city.  That symbol begins to grow.  We see more hints of a level of "decency" in the people of Gotham.  The prisoners on the boat in DK.  Then the rise of the Police, and the redemption of Commissioner Foley.  The burning symbol on the bridge marks the turn.  We  had seen hints of it already (Officer Blake especially), but the city rises and shows courage in place of venal cowardice. It shows resilance instead of surrender.  It fights on, and it wins.  The victory was not that of Batman alone.  Without Selina, without Jim Gordon, without Blake, indeed, without Foley? There is no victory.

That is the view of human nature in the movie.

That is a very common view in our world today for that matter.  There is more good than evil, that in the end, good men will win out.  It is comforting, it is in some ways true, but in other ways false though.

Theological anthropology begins with the question "what is man?"  The answer is complex and more than I care to get into in a simple blog post, but a key part of that answer begins in a phrase we use in Church.  At the time we confess our sins, we use the phrase "I am by nature sinful and unclean."  That is what we speak of as Original Sin.  Original Sin is one of those things that people don't fully understand, because it offends them.  Yet, any look at the world reaffirms it in no uncertain terms.  Every person is corrupt, every person is sinful.  It goes far beyond "pobody's nerfect" or some such.  It is the fact that within all of us, there lives evil and corruption.  There lives ego and anger and self-centeredness.  It is truly a part of the human condition.

This truth is why Gotham is what it is.  Is the city venal and corrupt? Of course it is.  If you build a house of rotted bricks, the house will be rotten.  Whatever your base materials are will determine what you build.   This is as true in movies as it is in the "real world".  All cultures are broken, venal, corrupt.  Why? Because they are all made by broken, venal and corrupt humanity.  The exact expressions of that corruption may vary from society to society, but it is always there. (For instance, US society is violent, hyper-individualistic to the point of under-valueing other people, materialistic...)

Yet, there remains a certain decency in people.  In theology, it's what we call civil righteousness.  People can care for one another, want to work for the larger good.  It's the thing that leads firemen to dive into burning buildings, what leads a soldier to dive on a grenade, what leads a parent to work twelve hour days to help a child go to college.    Batman, Jim Gordon, Selina Kyle and the others are all expressions of this. 

Now, if you want to dig into the theology of salvation, you see that there is a distinct and profound difference between righteousness and civil righteousness.  For even the best deeds of civil righteousness are tainted by the corruption within us.  To do the acts of civil righteousness does not save.  Yet, they are indeed important, vital for society.  But now we are heading back to Superman Returns, for we are once again approaching the question of "Does the world really need a superman?" Or, to get away from the analogy, does the world need a savior?  I think my answer to that question is obvious.  For even seeing the good that civil righteousness can do, that road remains a dead end, a hopeless end.  Mankind cannot rise to good.  Good must come to mankind.

Dark Knight Rises

I just got home from Dark Knight Rises, and my first impressions are going to be more or less off the cuff here.  (Spoilers abound. If you don't want, stop reading) In short, "wow".  I was on the edge of my seat pretty much the entire movie.  It is to my mind, by a fair margin, the best of the three Nolan movies.

Now, part of that is that I feel that Ledger's Joker is badly overrated (a discussion for another time).  That said, even though the movie was closing in on three hours, it didn't feel it at all to me.  It had a powerful focus and held to it.

Is it a better movie than the Avengers?  No, but they are very different.  In fact, comparing the movies really does show that those differences.  Avengers is much more "old school" and just plain fun.  A good ol beat em up.  Yeah, the characters have their moments of introspection, but mostly, it's just a fun adventure.  DKR?  It is intense, just like the other 2 Nolan movies.  It's much more likely to leave you emotionally exhausted than Avengers ever will be.

The continuing cast (Bale, Oldman, Freeman and Caine) were their usual strong self.  I think that Hathaway did extremely well in her role as well.  I don't think she brought the sheer sultry to the role that Pfeiffer did, but she was very good, and truly did bring out Selina's conflicted antihero nature.  Gordon-Levitt was outstanding as Officer Blake.  A fantastic job by someone I mostly remember from a sitcom I never really liked.

This movie will never be able to be separated from what happened in Aurora, and it shouldn't be either.  In a deep and profound way, what we are seeing is the conflict that is deep within the movies playing itself out in very real and tragic form.

Why did the monster do what he did?  I'm not about to play internet shrink here, but the fact that he did it where he did, the way he did does lead one down certain trains of thought. 

The three movies do work with certain continuing themes.  One of them is the corruption and hypocrisy of society.  The darkness of Gotham, and what it has unleashed on the world is what Ras wanted to avenge back in the first movie, and this final movie returns to that theme.  In reading Gordon's speech to the world, Bane highlighted that hypocrisy, even as he gave a false and lying freedom.   Those movies of course are sandwiched around chaos unleashed, that is to say, the Joker.  The Joker who tried to show the utter dog eat dog nature of this world, yet was foiled by a bunch of convicts (of all things).

Yet, that's the flip side of the movie.  Even in the darkness of society, the utter corruption, the greed and avarice, the anger and hatred, there remains a glimmer of hope.  A hope born of people who stand against that tide.

That hope begins of course, with Batman himself.  In the first movie though, he has very few real allies.  His inner circle (Alfred, Lucius, Rachel) and then the one honest cop (Jim Gordon).  That circle doesn't really grow much in the second movie, but in the third?  It grows profoundly.

The movie isn't the story of one man who stood against the darkness, but men and women who risked everything to do so.  Batman may have been the pointman for it, and the inspiration, but he was not alone.  Selina, Officer Blake, Deputy Commisioner Foley, the assembled police department.

The same police department that was hopelessly venal and corrupt in the first movie.  When the hour came, they stood, they fought.  They charged into the first outgunned, and they fought. 

The inspiration that came from the symbol of the Batman has clearly grown through the movies, to the point that the forces of Order in Gotham are ready to give and sacrifice all.

The monster in Aurora?  He patterned himself after chaos.  He did his best to create chaos, and in a time and place, he succeeded.  Yet, he stands out because what he did was so monstrous.  He brought horror into the world, but in doing so, his evil is highlighted against the compassion and care of so many others.  Instead of bringing down society, he will in the end show how strong it truly can be.

There is more that I can say, and given some time and awakeness, I may get into the theology of the movie.  If Superman Returns played with the theology of grace, salvation and the nature of God, DKR is firmly rooted in anthropology (the theological version, though I'm sure the more familiar one would also have a great deal to say).

The limits of C-RPG's

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 )

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.

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.

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.

Future Dystopia

Future Dystopia...
There are a few things comic writers return to again and again. Evil twins, people returning from the dead (real or imagined), finding out your brother is an archvillain (or maybe just a minion). One of those things is the "dystopia" story.
We've all read them, even if we don't quite get the term. A "utopia" a wonderful place. A place where all are wise and enlightened, where peace reigns, and the society is filled with justice (all the various forms of justice for that matter). A dystopia is the opposite of that. It's a place where everything has gone wrong.
I'm not going to claim that I know what the "first" one is. I'm sure there are many stories in this "genre" that I'm not familiar with. That said, the first one that's truly burnt into my memory is the legendary "Days of Future Past" storyline in X-Men. This is a story that works, and works well.
We have young Kitty Pryde, barely on the team, still full of wonder and innocence, and then suddenly she's switched with Kate Pryde. Kate Pryde, who has seen the horrors that are to come. A woman who has lost family, friends and freedom. No more innocence there, though still the decency that young Kitty exhibited.
The future? Dark and bleak. What's more, the "trigger" makes sense. Mutants killing a major politician would very easily lead to major repression.
Yet, while I consider the story brilliant standing alone, I think it's been destroyed. The stark clarity of the "future" is too cluttered now. Too many additions. I think "Days of Future Present" was a strong addition to the story, drawing out elements of the dark days, without ruining the story. Yet, the "future timeline" of the X-Men has become horribly cluttered. You've not only got the "Days of" stuff, but then the Bishop XSE, the Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix, and other "future" stories that clutter the picture, and remove focus from them.
Still, that's far from the only future dystopia story out there. It seems most books have gone into this realm. Some do it very well ("Future Imperfect" in the Hulk was on a par with Days of Future Past"). Others? Not so well (I have little use for "Titans of Tomorrow").
A deeper problem though, is what does having this future nightmare hanging over a book do to the book? If the writers take them seriously, then the entire book loses a sense of hope. What are people fighting for, if not a better tomorrow? Yet, here we have "proof" that tomorrow is not only worse, but catastrophically worse. On the other hand, if the writers discount the future story (alternate timeline, dream, or whatever), that erodes the story. It becomes less. Less powerful, less meaningful, less, less, less.
It's this reason that I generally don't like this sort of story. It either ties the hands of the writer, or it becomes an excursus to nowhere in the development of the book. It can be done well, and can shape a book, as Days of Future Past certainly did in the X-Men. Yet, for that, it just creates too many problems.

The Dark Knight and the Man of Steel

A friend mentioned something about the Dark Knight movie that got me thinking. She said why she could appreciate the artistry, she couldn't really enjoy the movie because of the hopelessness of it. I really could see what she meant. She didn't go into all the hopelessness she saw, and I'm not inclined to put words into her mouth, but it did get me thinking. She did say how much it made her think about the building chaos in Mexico (huge uptick in violence the last few years).

There are many ways to compare Superman and Batman. Powers, outlook, even the standard color palatte.

Yet, this does tend to point to one of the more fundamental ones. Batman as a character is born out of the failure to society. Superman is born, yes of another planet, but also of the strength of society.

What I mean is this. The entire mythos of Batman is based on the fact that society has failed. Not only in the act of the murder of Bruce's parents, but also in Batman's self-conception and way of acting. Bruce's goal is to be the one who fills the gaps when the system fails. When the Gotham Police is unable to do the job, because of corruption, ineptitude, or the rules that society has placed them under, Batman takes over. Because of those limitations, the Police (in the person of the Commissioner) is complicit in his work. Society has failed, and it is Bruce's self appointed mission to rectify that failure.

Where Bruce is born of the worst, of a random act of violence, Clark comes from the best. He comes from a happy home, a place where he was nurtured, and was taught to look out for others. As his powers developed, he stepped onto his path as a hero out of responsibility, knowing that his powers meant he could help people on a larger stage. He rarely works against the system, and when he does, it's out of the highest of principals.

They are the yin and the yang in comics. Here, as in so many other things.

I return!!!

Let's see if I can get this thing cranked up a bit more again.

I admit, I've slacked, and to an extent, I've gotten behind in my comics reading.

So, what do we do from here? A long winded post on the nature of pacing? That will likely be coming, but I'd like a bit more time to plot and muse.

Now, instead, it's time for me to return to my favorite old shtick! Yes, Downsides are back!!

Downsides of living in the DC Universe!

5. You spend weeks trekking off to a remote Himalayan Monastery to try to gain perspective to your life, only to be buried in Superheros trying to recover from the latest crisis.

4. Being assigned to write a short summary on all known about the origin of Donna Troy.

3. Being in charge of making up to date maps of California.

2. Taking a tip from your cousin to invest in a high tech firm, only to find out that it just got closed down by the Feds for being a front for some villains no one has ever heard of.

1. Endless debates on alt.fan.wonderbabes "Cassie or Donna"


Ok, ok, not my best set, but I'm trying I tell ya!

Why I love The Incredibles

I'll freely admit it, I'm a bit of a lump (ok, a lot of a lump). That's the story of my life. I don't get out a great deal, various reasons for that. So, one thing I don't do very often is go to movies. I joke around that I'll go to one movie a year, whether I need to or not. Now, sometimes I may end up being a couple of movies, but seriously, I just don't go to many movies.

Yet, when the Incredibles came out, I went to the theater to see it, either three or four times, I forget. Not because I was going with new groups of friends either, I went alone each time. What was it about that movie that resonated with me so strongly at the time?

I'm not a huge person for literary analysis. I read books and go to movies largely out of a "sit back and enjoy the ride" perspective. When I look at what some people can get out of things, I'm always like "whoa... never would have even thought of that." Yet, there are some things that get my attention and get me thinking in those terms. The Incredibles is one of those things.

It's not just my love of Superheroes that made the movie for me, but the far more profound stories of each of those characters. They each have an "arc" of their own, and each arc is interwoven and fascinating.

The opening of the movie, with the "candid" interviews with Mr. I and Elasti-Girl are in so many ways the key to the movie. In many ways, it's easy to argue that in those "shorts" the characters are either lying, or more likely, self-decieved. Mr. I wants a chance to settle down. His rant about the maid is one of the classic moments from the movie. On the other hand, EG, she's blunt and outspoken about rejecting "settling down".

Yet, as the movie progresses, at first blush, it seems that the truth is the opposite for both of them. Mr. I, when finally given a chance to "settle down," finds himself to be frankly miserable. On the other hand, EG? Of all the characters, she seems to take to domesticity the most readily. However, I have questions about that (see below).

In a way, you can divide the "Incredible Family" by the male and female. The males (Mr. I and Dash), are straining at the bit, wishing for the chance to reveal who they are. Mr. I wants to go and be a hero again. Dash? He knows he's special, and he just wants nothing more than a chance to strut his stuff.

The females are more complex (and frankly, more interesting). Violet is the easy one. Her transformation through the movie is at the same time well done, yet overdone. It's too fast, too profound, but that's Hollywood and looking for a happy ending. The thing though, is that through most of the movie, Violet is pretty obviously ashamed of who and what she is. I suspect that if you'd given her Rogue's choice from X-Men 3, she'd have taken it in a heartbeat. "Normal! What does anyone in this family know about normal?"

That's what brings us to Mrs. I. The family early on is disfunctional at all levels, but I begin to wonder if she's not the most disfunctional of them all. When it comes to the kids' powers, she's the most openly repressive. Mr. I can't help but feel (and express) a bit of pride over Dash's escapades (and speed), while Mrs. I seems to want to shove all of it away into some deep, dark family closet, hidden from all. I've got a sneaking suspicion that Violet's emotional problems have been helped along more than a fair bit by her mother. (By the way, have you ever noticed, that Violet speaks "shrink talk" really well? I take it she's seen a therapist...)

With Mrs. I, I'm starting to wonder if her own "life of quiet desperation" is the most dishonest of them all. She calls her husband to brag that she's finally unpacked (after however many years). Is that really forced? Is there a piece of her that doesn't fully accept the life that they have?

So, the males seem to be accepting of their powers, but frustrated and beaten down by their inability to actually use them. The females seem to be far less accepting of who they are.

Now, as you follow each of them though their arcs, it remains just as interesting. I don't think any of them become "perfect" or even especially healthy, but they certainly grow and mature.

Mr. I: As the central character, he grows in a few different ways. Aside from his frustration at being forced into a dead end life, I think you can also argue that he doesn't fully understand being a hero. The most telling scene in that respect isn't how much self-confidence he gains when he's given that "false chance" to become a hero, but something small and subtle. When his boss at the insurance company is telling him off, he sees the poor guy getting mugged. His "heroic instincts" cry out for him to go out, but his boss won't let him. Up to this point, there's no problem. But, did you catch what he said, "he got away." For Mr. I, heroism wasn't about helping the weak. It was about the glory, the fun and the rush. It was about the "game." Once the game was over, and all that was left was a poor victim, Mr. I's interest waned.

It's obvious that he grows as he realizes the place of his family, where's he's willing to go into the final fight alone, not for glory or the "rush," but because he'd rather fall alone than risk those he loves. However, does he begin to understand the higher purpose still, that he's there for those who are helpless? The movie is unclear. I'd like to think he does, but you can't really say one way or the other.

Mrs. I: She's probably the most confusing of them all. She clearly is willing to "step back" into the fray, but aside from "don't mess with mommabear's mate or cubs," it's unclear why. I guess, it's because she's the most mysterious to begin with, so her arc is the hardest to see. Yet, the final moment of Violet's epiphany is the moment that Mrs. I says she's proud of Violet. (at the plane crash).

Violet: I love Violet, she's my favorite character in the whole movie. I think that her epiphany is a bit "hollywood" in that it is very fast and very profound, where she goes from a scared, neurotic kid to a self confident young woman who dictates the terms of her date with Tony. Still though, her story is really a story of acceptance. Acceptance of herself, who she is, and what she is. It may be a coincidence, but as the movie goes along, her powers shift. While both her invisibility and force fields are established early on, we generally see her invisibility early. (Hiding from Tony, hiding on the plane, hiding from the guards), but later on, we mostly see her force fields (the first time the four fight as a team, breaking out of the prison, when Syndrome's jet crashes, though she did use her invisibility once in the big fight to get the controller). It's almost as if the invisibility is a sign of her self-loathing, while the force fields come along as she accepts herself. Maybe that's reading too much in.

Dash: Dash is easily the one who matures the least, which shouldn't be surprising. He is a pre-teen boy after all, they can only handle so much maturation. Even in the end, his "goodie" is getting to race and get the accolades of the victor.


As you can tell, I just love this movie, and the characters who make it up. There's a side of me that hopes that Pixar makes another one, because this one is so wonderful. Yet, I always have to wonder, how could they follow it up? The character arcs are so deep and profound, that another movie would be very difficult to make and do it justice.

Civil War!

Yes after not posting for month upon month, making everyone think that I'd given up on this thing, I'm making two posts in one day.

Does this mean that I'm joining the world of regular posters?

Nyaaaaaa.

This thing will continue to be posted on the same old schedule. When I feel like it.

So, after my extreme overindulgance in 52, I've moved on to Civil War, which I got in TP form. (I'm slowly shifting most of my books to TP).

So far, all I've read is the main Civil War TP, and then the YA/Runaways one, and I'm just going to focus on the main story right now.

It wasn't honestly that bad, though a bit fast paced. Maybe once I get all the ancillary books read that thought will go away.

The main interesting thing to me is the moral and ethical dimensions to the primary storyline.

Who is right? Tony Stark or Captain America?

At least in my view, the answer is, at the same time, both and neither.

Ideally, Tony Stark is absolutely right. To steal the classic line, with great power comes great responsibility. Now, that's more than just the way Peter meant it, in terms of having to be able to live with yourself (as important as that is). It also means being accountable to the larger society for your actions. The ability of a hero to make a mess and just fly away has been one of the traditional pieces of "unreality" that's attached to comic books. The X-Men back in their heyday joked "you can always tell where the X-Men have been by the mess they make," and that really is the "old school." Heroes can make an enormous mess of any battlezone, destroye homes, cars, even lives, and the very next issue they're back to business as usual.

The series (quite obviously) has taken that unreality and tried to shape it to a more "realistic" way of doing things. In a very real way, what Tony Stark is asking is not in the least bit unusual or troublesome. If we live in a world where Taxi drivers can be regulated and held accountable, why not professional heros? Now, this field of law could get wondefully complex, but the essential idea isn't bad. By complex, I mean things like this: "A hero saves a small child from a rampaging supervillain, but in the process a 3rd party's car is destroyed. Who has accountability for the replacement of the car?"

So, I'm suddenly all in favor of Tony Stark? Not exactly, and I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all, is that Stark played very much too "hard sell". He should have (from all perspectives) been more patient with the holdouts, let them see how the system was working before he started pushing enforcement of the law.

However, more important is another factor. Everything I just said about accountability and the like is the ideal, and for it to work, one essential assumption must be fulfilled. That assumption is that the authorities themselves must be trustworthy. The government in the MU has not proven itself to live up to that very basic, yet vital truth. There are (or have been) renegade groups around, such as SWORD, Onslaught's group, and any number of problems within SHIELD itself. That doesn't even begin to look at other problems within the Congress and Executive Branch.

Full liscensing and disclosure would open any number of catastrophic cans of worms. Not only would the government have all sorts of nifty opportunities to manipulate individual heros, but the power of the government over all society would be massively increased. In a world of superhumans, a superhuman monopoly would be a system without any meaningful checks and balances. It would be a system that would only be workable so long as the person who is at the top of the entire food chain is both highly ethical, and also determined to make sure that the rest of government does the right thing. As soon as either one of those preconditions slip, the avalanche begins.

In effect, what "unregistered" superhumans become is a "check and balance" upon the abuses of the government. However, that system only works so long as there are heros who are willing to "police their own", and take that role seriously. Of course, in the Marvel Universe, the best candidate for that job is the one they killed in all of this, Captain America. Now, by "police their own", I'm not saying vigilante justice, but that they'd make sure that any hero who went "over the line" ended up in court, even if they had to hunt them down and capture them.

If there are no heros who are willing to take that sort of leadership role in an unregulated hero society, you'd end up with the situation the DCU had in the opening of Kingdom Come.

So, who was right? Tony Stark or Captain America? Both and neither. That said, for either system not to be a trainwreck, you need the right person running it. Put in those terms, Registration with Tony Stark, or No registration with Steve Rogers?

No brainer.

I want Steve.

How to go absolutely insane in one night.

All righty, yes, I live. I had a wonderful computer crash last night, which left me unable to use the thing until I got it into the shop, so I had to find another way to pass my time.

So, I grubbed around in all of my comics boxes, pulled together the 52 issues of 52 that I'd had sitting around (which I'd neglected for a considerable period) and did a kamikaze run of all the issues.

I'm getting too old for this. I was up way too long.

Anyway, I have to say that by and large, I think that 52 was one of the better "large events" I've ever read. That said, it could very easily be "damning with faint praise" since I'm not a big fan of events as a rule, but honestly, it wasn't all that bad. I certainly won't call it the most compelling thing I've read, but I've read far, far worse.

I'm going to have to go back and read it in detail to look into some of my personal concerns though. As an overall story, I'm still a touch unclear on how stories were meant to interconnect into the larger issues. Now, it may simply be that they were setting the stage for Countdown, but I'd really like to see things tied together.


So, to look at the major "stories" as we go. Here's the way I "break them down".

Steel/Everyman
Black Adam/Doc Magus
Question/Montoya/Batwoman
Booster
Ralph Dibney
Starfire/Animal Man/Strange/Lobo
(watch me forget something important, I've got a headache from staying up too long last night)


Anyway to consider each of those in turn.

Steel/Everyman. In many ways, the strongest of the substories to my mind, and one that very much goes back to the introduction of John Henry Irons lo so many years ago. I still remember that whole idea that Irons shared Superman's "soul". Now, that was just a goofy little thing that a wacky neighbor said, but it does get to something very simple. There are two characters who deserve to wear the big red "S". Superman is one of them, and the other is John Henry Irons. Conner was just starting to grow into that role when he died, so we'll give him an incomplete.

We see the best of JHI in this story. We see a man who is just leaking nobility from his pores. Yeah, he made a bit of a mess with 'Tasha, but even then, you can see that he truly did want the best, he just wasn't sure how to deal with an ambitious, smart and headstrong teen. I'm not sure anyone could deal with her at that point. His fight with Luthor is the best fight scene in 52 bar none. JHI is to my mind, one of the best characters in the DCU, and can serve as the rock upon which you can build a great team. If he's not the leader of the JLA at some point before all is said and done, someone in the DC offices needs to have his ears boxed.

The entire everyman concept is interesting, and is mining from much the same turf that we've seen before in places like Kingdom Come. I do wonder what further long-term developments we may see out of this one.

Black Adam/Doc Magus: If Steel is the strongest of the Substories, this one isn't far behind. One of the best parts of it is the interconnectedness between the two stories that comes together when we find out what they were creating on the island. Isis is an interesting character, interesting enough that I'm a bit sorry they killed her off. Maybe she'll end up being some sort of a "ghost" for Adam.

Adam is a character I have mixed feelings for. Mostly because they can't seem to get him to settle down. At times, he's achingly noble, even if his code of nobility is barbaric, other times, he's an insane beserker. Still, they've made him one of the most interesting villains that the DCU has, though they may be moving him past Capt Marvel (which is a bad thing). To my mind, this story forms the "public" part of the story of 52, the thing that will influence the people of the DCU most obviously.

Booster Gold: All right, I admit it, I've traditionally hated Booster with the heat of a thousand suns. He barely rates above Venom, Lobo and the Punisher in my book. That said, his personal arc was interesting in this book, and certainly provides a reasonable "boost" for the character in the future. I think it was a mistake to give him Skeets back (at least so quickly). He truly learned responsibility in this story, and to so easily give him back his best friend? That said, Booster's going to be in a difficult spot. He's lost his true best friend (Ted), has probably permanantly disillusioned his other friends (like Bea), and is left without much beyond Rip Hunter, who doesn't strike me as a "best friend" type.

Of course, if Adam's story is the "Public" half of 52, this is the "hidden half" the storyline that changes everything. It's opened up a very specific multiverse. Interesting to see one of the legendary decisions of comics (to close down the DC Multiverse) and reverse it, even if they do try to put some deliberate limits on it.

Ralph Dibney: I have to admit it, they got me good on this one. Though I should have expected it from the moment that Ralph "broke up" the resurrection ceremony, I truly didn't think that Ralph was nearly as "on his game" as he proved to be. I love "ha!" moments, and when he went stretchable and revealed he hadn't gone into booze bottle but the gingold bottle,that was just plain sweet.

That said, I was a bit disappointed with his death. I suppose that binding Neron for a time (I can't see comics writers letting that be permament) is a good thing, but really, it seems a waste for a good character.

Question/Montoya/Batwoman: There's no way to speak of this but with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the view of Renee Montoya (who really is the focus of this arc) as a broken woman? It is outstanding. Perhaps a bit cliche (dive into a bottle? Check. Jump into the beds of strangers? Check.), but overall, it works. I have to admit, I am intrigued with the idea that she's going to end up being the new Question. It will take a skilled writer to pull it off, but that book would have potential.

I have much more mixed feelings about Batwoman, but all of that really comes down to one thing. "Why?" Why is she the Batwoman? It's obvious that she'd already started putting on the Batsuit before 52 started, or, at a bare minimum had made the preparations to do it (getting the equipment, the fighting training and so forth). Yet, we are never once given a glimpse into her head to see what lead her to that decision. Obviously, if they wanted to make a Batwoman series, that's the first thing they'll need to deal with. Until that point in time, the character is so incomplete that I wouldn't even want to say if she's a good character or not. In fact, you can fairly argue that at this time she's more stereotype and character concept than character.

I'm saddened to see that they decided to kill off the Question. With his usage in JLU, I really think they could have made him an interesting ongoing character, with that "Rohrshachesque" quality they gave him in the animated series.


By and large, I liked all of those substories.

Now, to the one I didn't like?

Adam Strange/Starfire/Animal Man/Lobo. Now, this story gets off to a bad start with character selection. You have a character I loathe with a white hot passion (Lobo), a character I generally dislike (Starfire), and two that just don't interest me much (Animal Man and Adam Strange). Well, this story didn't change my mind about any of them in any meaningful form.

My bigger gripe with it though, is what place did it really play in the story? Did it add anything? Not really, at least not to me, unless there's something in those yellow guys who saved Animal Man that's going to be important down the line. Overall, yuck, yuck and yuck.


A few other thoughts and nagging questions.

The Tibetian Monestary: Come on guys? You had just about everyone traipse through there except for Detective Chimp! Is it the only place in the entire DCU where you can get your head together? Yeesh.

Wonder Girl: Sorry, Cassie's subrole just doesn't work. Yeah, losing Conner hurt her, and hurt her badly, but she's too smart and headstrong to fall into that sort of nonsense. Sheer idiocy.

Mr Mind: I'm a bit confused on this one. I hate when writers try to set up inside time loops. Rip and Booster arranged for Sivania to capture Mr. Mind, which gave him the opportunity to become the super-worm, which forced Rip and Booster to do what they did and arrange for Dr. Sivania to capture him.... my head hurts.

Oh, by the way.

Please give me my old school Marvel Family back. Now. Billy is Capt Marvel, Mary is Mary Marvel, Freddie is CMJ, and the Wizard is on the Rock. This is just plain painful.

thank you for your support.

One of the Great Ones falls

Wow. The news today. Wow. I'm assuming that he's truly gone, though I know that in the world of Comics, nothing is forever, and there's a decent chance he'll pop up.

I've not been following Civil War (going to get it in trade), so my judgement is a tad limited but.

Why Him?
Why Now?
Why that way?


From some of the comments the Marvel types are saying, they see it as an allegory of the current situation in the world.

Captain America is an incredible character. Maybe today, many would think that the world needs to get rid of things like Cap, since he's so much from another time. Yet, I think he is, and isn't.

He stands for America, but I've always thought in a good way. We all know that this nation has problems (though we may well disagree with what those exact problems are). He's not about what America is to my mind, but, what America could be. He's about those things that are actually worthwhile. He's about honor and integrity, about making the world a better place. As much as Clark Kent in the DCU, Cap is the Moral Center of the Marvel world. This isn't to say he was perfect, but he had honor and integrity, and always stood for what is right.

I find it a bit sad that they are getting rid of him now, when so many members of the Greatest Generation are passing away.

What are they getting at though? Is killing him that way some sort of a statement that "Liberty is dead?" He fought against registration, and lost, and then was killed. If so, that's the wrong message to give. If someone feels that Liberty is dead, then they should have pictured him fighting, even if it is a lost cause.

To die on courthouse steps? That's not a bang, it's a whimper. A pathetic, foolish whimper.

I'll be honest, like most comics geeks, I've thought from time to time about writing them. Back around 1994 or so, I had an idea for a big All-Marvel crossover, based around the Mutant Issue (I called it World War X.. yeah, yeah). Anyway, at one point, I thought of the idea of having the Government turn on Wideawake, the Sentinals. However, the info of that got to Nick Fury, who called Cap... the two old WW2 Warhorses, and their response was "Never Again." I saw Cap leading a mixed force of the Fantastic Four and every Avenger they could get their mitts on to demolish the factory. If you wanted to kill Cap, that's the kind of moment to do it. Fighting the good fight, showing what he truly stands for. Not the victim of an assassin's bullet on the courthouse steps.

I imagine that we'll see a New Captain America soon. It's been done before. I can see it with Cap more than some of the others like Batman or Spiderman. Bats is eternally Bruce Wayne, and Spidey is always Peter Parker. Yes, Steve Rogers is gone. I hope though that they don't decide to put some post modern, ironic character in that slot, who would mock all that has gone before. Man or woman, black or white, it makes no difference. The Spirit of Captain America demands a person who will hold the shield with honor. I only hope that the people in New York understand this.