Lothic
-
Posts
6294 -
Joined
-
Yeah it was crummy to have to wait for new episodes but it gave me a chance to catch up with the comics. I finished reading the first compendium like a month ago and I'm really looking forward to seeing how they'll manage to "translate" the upcoming story to the TV medium. Some of it is so nasty I just don't see how they'll manage it for a basic cable show. I suspect the "comic purists" out there are going to be more disappointed as the TV story continues to diverge from the comics. Either way it should be interesting.
-
Quote:I think the important point is that they finally did find a way to get rid of Statesman.Originally Posted by Oathbound
So what has changed that makes it okay for them to "bite of their nose to spite their face" now?
If anything he's more integrated into the game, with more content involving him, making it harder to get rid of the guy.
And yet they're doing it anyway.
If the wanted him gone two years ago, they'd have found a way to get rid of him. It would have been no different than now, except it would have been easier.
Just because it took a few years to do it doesn't mean they didn't -always- want to do it.
We all know it sometimes takes them years to get around to doing things (i.e. power customization).
I see nothing different with this as a long term goal they've had ever since Jack left. *shrugs* -
Quote:I can see the point you're making, but I really think it can be different. An animator might (might, mind you) choose to use the physical mannerisms of a person when drawing a character. But as far as a voice actor is concerned their "performance" and/or involvement in the project can be entirely centered on the use of their voice. In motion capture an actor's motion is merged and edited into whatever visual manipulations are being used. It's undeniably the mix of actor and technology Arcanaville was describing.Originally Posted by Oliin
Well it's kind of the same thing (animation) as motion capture. Except instead of the combination of actor and technology you end up with it being the combination of actor and animator instead. It's the performance of the animated character in combination with the actor's voice.
I simply think that a voice actor has a much more reasonable chance to deliver a unique performance that can be completely credited to them than what happens during motion capture. Either way it's clear that some people have a hard time accepting either endeavour when it comes to Oscar nominations. *shrugs* -
Quote:I'd accept your reasoning of "a combination of the actor and technology" when it comes to motion capture performances vis-a-vis Oscar nominations. But many voice acting scenarios (such as providing a voice for animated characters) use only the recorded unmodified voice of an actor applied directly to a movie. The only "technology" involved in those cases are the same kinds of voice recording equipment that exist in standard live action movies. The use of technology could not reasonably be considered a mitigating factor in those cases.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The problem with voice acting (such as within animated pictures) and motion capture is that the overall performance is a combination of the actor and technology, and the technology component is not itself eligible for a performance award. It would be no different than if an actor performed in a movie and then all of his lines were dubbed over by another proficient voice actor. The combined performance is two different performances blended together, but the award is not an ensemble award. If only one of them can receive the award and neither can take credit for the performance of the other, both would be at a disadvantage to singular performances that a single actor can take full credit for.
That's just reality, and its not entirely wrong.
Again I suspect that as far as voice acting goes many people don't consider it as "genuine" or worthy of acting praise as an appearance of the actual actor on a screen in a live action situation. The inability to see a live human emoting the words being spoken puts them at a fundamental disadvantage as far as acting awards go. -
Quote:Mr. Hamilton : What I'm suggesting that this place is the crummiest, shoddiest, worst-run hotel in the whole of Western Europe.Originally Posted by Psynder13
Pretty sure. I would be willing to bet that 90% of the threads Ive read have had atleast one post from you replying about something somebody else in a way that clearly invokes your dislike of said thing lol.
Sometimes I wonder why you even read the topic to begin with lol.
(please dont read this as being argumentative lol im just curious to why you read about things you dont like and then reply about them negatively to people who DO like said things )
Major Gowen [angrily] : No! No, I won't have that. There's a place in Eastbourne.
-
Quote:Welcome back to the game.Originally Posted by InOnePiece
I think you're right. To be honest, I'm not into the "small" numbers of the game (I'm a Wii type of gamer), if you will, so I wouldn't have noticed. In any event, it would be easy for someone who has it 3 slotted to level up and decide to put 3 more slots there, go buy SO's, and only notice ED in action when they actually went to apply the SO's. Then, they could be here in the forums wondering why their 4th, 5th, and 6th SO's aren't as powerful. I'm just suggesting a dismissable reminder before then. If you're not like me, and actually know what you're doing, it's only an inconvenience once.
Right, I get that. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to 4, 5, or 6 slot something if you want, just that there be a reminder pop up when you do it on certain powers, and you can check a box to never see it again - ala the enhancement replacement dialog.
I understand what you are saying due to you being a returning player who actually "remembers" what it was like before ED. But since that happened over 6 years ago now the vast majority of players playing today either have gotten very used to living with it or never knew the difference because they weren't even playing at the time. I would simply offer the counter idea that your suggestion the Devs supply us with an "ED reminder" would probably only be useful to someone exactly in your position as a long ago returning player and no one else.
Sorry you encountered this situation, but the Devs are not likely going to go out of their way to warn players of something which would only ever affect an incredibly tiny number of players such as yourself. The game has been functioning very well in the post ED world (regardless of all the doom-mongering during the transition) so there is likely no advantage to having anything new in the game to remind anyone that Enhancements used to work differently in any way. -
Quote:It's kind of like how the SyFy channel always uses the phrase "Original Series" when a particular show in question is a direct remake/clone of a foreign series or even just a rebroadcast of a show from another country.Originally Posted by Frost Warden
You forgot that the someone else will proclaim it an unique character!
-
You should have seen what the Coyote looked like on the Beta server when you could activate the Blackwand power (via keybind) and see the wand handle unceremoniously sticking out of its backend. "Coyote on a stick" anyone?
-
Quote:I'm assuming they chose a Coyote form for this so that it would not be easy to confuse player characters with the wolves that are going to be offered not only as vanity pets but as Beastmaster MM henchmen. *shrugs*Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
One thing I don't really get is, well... Why a coyote!? With all the wolf based costume parts in the game, it seems only sensible to me to do a wolf travel power, to give the werewolf characters in the game that full on final transformation vibe...
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Goblin_Queen
I'll get it but since they didn't slow the idle animations down as requested, give it a boost like Stealth, etc.The irony of course is that when this power was first introduced on the beta server some weeks ago the first criticisms against it were that it was way too slow compared to the other travel powers. People were claiming that it was not fast enough and did not let you jump high enough. Based on that the Devs made a quick fix to speed it up. Unfortunately it seems the quick fix sped everything up about it - not only its movement speed but its idle animations as well. The idle animations were actually reasonable for a coyote -before- the speed fix.Quote:Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
The idle animations are WAY too fast, just like they are for the german shephard pet. Also, the run animation is far too fast as well... All you see is a blur.
I guess it's true what they say that they'll never be able to please everyone when it comes to things like this. *shrugs* -
Quote:Not to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist but I'll bet there's a certain mindset in Hollywood that considers things like voice acting or motion capture acting to be sort of second class compared to "real" acting. I think whether it's an overt prejudice or just an unconscious one there's always going a certain uphill battle for people like Serkis to get legitimately recognized for what he does.Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
Also, Andy Serkis was robbed again! His portrayal of Captain Haddock was the best thing about Spielberg's Tintin movie, and his performance as Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes was the driving force behind its box office success. When is the Academy going to recognize motion capture as legitimate acting?
-
Quote:From time to time I actually try to care about these kinds of nominations/awards.Originally Posted by Zombie Man
Anyway, we now have this:
Academy-nominated Transformers!
Then someone mentions something like this and they lose all significance for me again.
-
Quote:Differences? I think you just proved Lucky666's point that there's really only so many ways you can draw a "woman with long white hair in primarily black clothes with gothic makeup" and have them -not- be somewhat similar in appearance.Originally Posted by Durakken
Do you really want me to point out how many differences there are considering it is largely just a woman with long white hair in primarily black clothes with gothic makeup and no other similarities actually exist.
I'm not really bothering to accuse any of these examples of directly ripping off the generic idea from anyone else. I think it just goes to show that if you wait around long enough someone else will come up with their own version of that kind of character eventually. *shrugs* -
The only comment I have is that it's funny the OP automatically assumed/implied the way Beast Run works is "broken" and that it's something that needs to be "fixed". I wonder if I could claim that Brawl is broken because I can't seem to get it to do 1,000HPs damage to even level critters like I want it to.
-
Well for the sake of organization and simplicity there really has to be be a set limit. Databases tend to be easier to maintain when they are strictly sized.
Having said that it's obvious the current "12 characters per page" layout of the login screen was designed to accommodate being expanded at some point. Seems like the given the current limit of 48 that it would be relatively simple to tack on another 12, 24 or even 48 slots.
I'm not sure I'd ever need that many more myself, but if someone wants to pay for that then more power to them.
-
Quote:I've played literally hundreds of "villainous" characters in dozens of different games for decades now. Every one of them have had various goals ranging from "destroying the world" to "shoplifting tic-tacs".Originally Posted by Haetron
The only reason your played villain is "Losing" is because you've set unrealistic goals for them. City of Villains has multiple situations where, you, as the villain, commit your villainy and face no permanent consequence at all for doing so. That's allowing the player to win. And you're allowed to do so pretty much as often as you wish, provided you can beat the npc statblock that's provided as an obstacle.
All I'm saying is that this game, as a static MMO, is far from a perfect representation of a "superhero/supervillain" game because it hampers, by inadequate design, a certain range of villainous RP I would otherwise like to explore. That doesn't make my desire to explore such a line of RP "incorrect" in the least.
Perhaps someday the idea of playing a multi-player game like this will not preclude a very obvious realm of activity and I'll no longer have to always "lose" while attempting it. -
Quote:Cool things usually take more effort than simple cliches.Originally Posted by Zaloopa
I know there would be a whole mountain of problems with a system like this unfortunately, but it's still a cool idea.
Perhaps we'll get a game willing to delve into these depths someday. -
Quote:I prefer to see a future where multiplayer games are not confined to the limitations you wish to keep them shackled to. *shrugs*Originally Posted by Haetron
That's because, in and of itself, it would be. But sure, I'll address the second part.
It has nothing to do with the game system and everything to do with the Dev Intent for the game. The game is meant to be a multiplayer experience. The "system" for letting your villain "Destroy the world" would probably be fairly easy to put into place, but then what?
Do other players that might not want the world to be destroyed get a chance to stop you?
Nope, because PVP is consensual, and if you never consent to PVP, you're tossing out the wishes of other players and characters while you pursue your goal.
And if you're on a team with people, what happens if the people on your team don't agree with you pushing the button?
There's two possible answers. One: Non-consensual PVP, and the winner gets to do what they want. Two: Don't ever let the player push the button.
This isn't just an MMO thing, because it eventually happens in -all- multiplayer RP games, Pen and Paper or otherwise. And all of these games usually prohibit the use of said "monstrous" villains as player characters, because it puts the players into a competitive position and can potentially destroy the game environment.
The hero's can also gripe about this to a degree. IE, Why can't my hero ever just put a bullet in Countess Crey's head and expose the company to the world at large?
Because then other players lose that faction to play with/against and it's a permanent alteration to the sandbox not to be made lightly. It's why players in any ONGOING multiplayer RP game, MMO or otherwise, cannot make permanent change. The moment you start doing so, is the moment you start taking steps on a path to an inevitable end of the game.
Making characters where you want to enable permanent, worldshaping, change in a multiplayer RP game without a set ending is folly, and to rage when you're not allowed to do so is doubly so.
All games have rules, and in this case, you can't blame the mechanics, because it's not a mechanical decision/limitation. It's one placed by the GMs (Or in this case, the Devs) to enable the continued existence of the game for all players.
Now, if it was a console game or a game for like, 3-4 players with a finite end? Yes, what you want is possible. It's still tricky however, to pull off, without ending up being a negative play experience for at least some parts of the group, if the players in the group wind up on opposing sides. -
Quote:And until you can give me the answer to WHY that must be so always and forever regardless of the mechanics used to design a game I guess I'll have to keep asking the question. Table top games don't suffer from that limitation - are we to assume that computer MMOs always will?Originally Posted by Golden Girl
They can - but not a world wide scale
-
Quote:There's a difference between "good conquering evil" in generic literature and a HUMAN PLAYER playing a villain. What motivation does a person have to continue playing a character who's doomed by unalterable fate to lose? I'll admit playing a doomed character is appealing sometimes, but not all the time.Originally Posted by Shred_Monkey
You do realize that the badguys lose, right? I mean, the world never really gets taken over by evil, or destroyed by an evil plot.
It's just the way of the universe. There's always a quick witted ex-cop that walks across glass in his bare feet to save the chick. Frodo and Samwise manage to walk across middle earth barefoot past thousands of badguys to make it to Mt Doom and the ring gets destroyed. And after 5.9 movies of Anakin sliding toward evil and becoming Darth Vader, in the last 10 minutes of the final chapter he restores "balance" to the force, sacrifices himself to kill 1 badguy, and skippy-do-da he gets to hang out in the afterlife with his old buddies (i think he has his shoes on). There's always a happy ending. Get used to it.
I submit that a human player playing a villain ought to be able to "win" at least once in a while, otherwise what's the point? -
Quote:I'm not trying to suggest that every supervillain's one and only goal should be to destroy the world. Villains, like heroes, come in all shapes and sizes. I'm simply suggesting that the perfect "superhero vs. supervillain" game would actually allow the POSSIBLITY for a supervillain to destroy the world in some form or fashion instead of being forced to serve The Greater Good every... single... time.Originally Posted by Dante
I think players who want to be more villainous are being poorly represented in this thread. Not every villain wants to rule the world or destroy it. Wanting more villainous content does not mean every arc has to have the possibility of devestating vast tracts of land or ruling a pile of rubble. Sometimes it's as simple as the way other villains address you or getting away with a big pile of cash.
I'm dreaming of a game that would let any villain do anything - all anyone here can come up with is semi-lame excuses along the lines of "The Devs couldn't make a game work like that so you shouldn't want to play that way". Way to be stuck in the past guys.
-
Quote:I submit that your use of the word "incorrect" in this context is, well, incorrect.Originally Posted by Egos_Shadow
You can roleplay whatever you want, but the point where you start expecting the game mechanics to support totally arbitrary characterization is the point where you become incorrect. You're not going to be allowed to press the button. If you feel that's out of character for you, don't play any arc where the button is within arm's reach. Thus is happiness maintained.
But expecting other people to respect your desire to destroy the world - with the expectation of actually getting to do it! - is incorrect, in the same way that showing up to a card game and demanding to burn the deck is invalid. You can't burn the deck. The rest of us are still playing with it. Complaining about this fact is incorrect.
Just because the current game system is inadequate to the task at hand does not make the desire to enjoy a system that -could- handle such a task "incorrect" in the least. Get over yourself with these illogical absolutisms.
-
Quote:You're still trying to justify that an entire line of villainous roleplay is "wrong" simply because the Devs didn't have enough time or money to allow for it. It's completely disingenuous to believe you've proven something simply because the "Devs couldn't get around to it" anyway. I never claimed that being able to allow for villain roleplay like that had to be easy for the Devs to provide in the first place.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
It'd bog the game development down way too much - they'd have to create content for a world where Recluse won, and a world where Tyrant and the loyalists won, and write 3 separate meta-storylines for the 3 versions where each of the 3 starting factions came out on top.
For example, the Dark Astoria revamp was being planned before they even started work on the Trials, and the Atlas Park revamp took over a year to do - now just imagine them having to do all that twice more to show a world where red side and yellow side won.
It also causes massive story problems in writing content for a world where evil has won - it works in Praetoria, because the storyline shows that there's hope to found in another world, and that the exisiting order won't last forever, and that you'll be able to return at a later point in the story to set your world free.
But imagine what that'd be like if Tyrant's empire was all that there was on both worlds, after he won the dimensional war - it'd be a totally hopeless environment.
The meta-story needs basic truths about what has and hasn't happened in the CoHverse, otherwise it'd totally fall apart.
That's why, for example, the death of Statesman isn't an optional choice, unlike the Cleopatra-Washington face off.
I know you have a totally hero-oriented outlook regardless so you're already predisposed to be against this kind of thing anyway. But claiming that this is wrong BECAUSE the Devs couldn't implement is weak even for you. -
Quote:Somehow you keep trying to say that the inherent limitations of having to stick to a static model for a MMO is the only excuse necessary to justify hampering an entire concept of roleplay. Games don't make arbitrary "rules" to limit player freedom on purpose. The only reason we can't play "world destroying" villains in this game is because the game system is inadequate to allow for it, not because the Devs would ever make an arbitrary "rule" against it.Originally Posted by Haetron
Every game has rules. Breaking those rules is effectively "playing wrong".
In CoV, the setting is what provides the rules. Basically, every player villain starts out fairly small time, and ultimately, gets a small taste of possible epic villainy, but can never follow through, because doing so would break the game experience. Nothing in CoV supports the idea of the player ever being an immortal god king that could destroy the universe then escape safely to their home dimension. (Yes, Im taking into account Praetorians, and even they never have the power to pull this off.)
It's like complaining in a baseball game that you can't just hit the ball wherever and the other team has to go make a play on it regardless of where it lands. (IE, a foul ball) Lines and rules exist in all games for a reason. Choosing to ignore those things then complain the game doesn't turn out the way you expect is just folly, and effectively, yes, playing the game wrong.
You've clearly confused some sort of apples and oranges here.
-
Quote:But wait... I thought the Devs hated the redside...Originally Posted by Ogi
Just give villains a permanent buff that gives them Statesman's powers after enslaving Wade as a living table. Heck, let them off a few more A-list heroes with no risk, that might stop the whining for awhile.
They get buffs and other extra rewards for everything they do already. Why not continue the bribery?