SilverAgeFan

Agreed. Introduce a solid base of options for free, like weapon and power customization (both character customization components that were introduced later into the game). And then supplement this base with elements included in boosters.

And added to this list I drop in my perennial mention of the need for chemical tanks for the back (with various symbols-flammable, bio hazard and radioactive all leap to mind). Including a model with a clear window into a color tintable fluid in the tank with animated bubbles rising (think the War Hulk cockpits). Fine with this being in a booster pack since it sounds like a premium item.

But stuff like the dynamite and cash satchels already in game should have been made available years ago.

Why are you doing those? To unlock the witch's hat?



























I keed I keed.

There are several pretty obvious themes not included in this pack actually:

• Simian
• Bear
• Aquatic
• Amphibious
• Rodent

Not to mention a wider range of avian types aside from raptors, i.e. black bird, dove and tropical bird bits.

EDIT REGARDING BIRD BITS: Just read the intrepid informer post regarding the pack. Sounds like the bird beaks are details which may mean the hooked raptor beak is not alone. A good raven beak and a good tropical beak would be welcome. Hopefully we also get a few crown feather details (that ALSO can be used with human heads with hair or full masks?!? please oh please oh please!!) OKAY BACK TO THE REST OF MY POST PRIOR TO EDIT.

Don't get me wrong. The pack looks great. I was sold at [beast run]. Not sure how many parts I'll be putting to use on my characters right away, but I'm glad it exists and I'm sure in time I'll find good uses for elements. (Speaking of which--if any devs are reading and they haven't--the new patterns can be thrown into the capes section. That I would definitely use right away!)

Depends how one counts the items.

Do genders when the geometry is unique count? Female vs. Male vs. Huge cat head for example?

Does the cheetah pattern on the head, body, legs and lower legs count as four or just one item?

And how many details are we getting? Bull horns? Nose rings? There are at least two types of ears for the cat head. etc.

Thanks! So that doesn't count towards our 60!

Including those claws? Been a while since I played a claws character. But those look new to me.

Speaking as someone with what now is a 20 year career in the arts--mostly gallery and museumy stuff with numerous side stints in various commercial arts when the fine art couldn't subsidize itself, the BIGGEST problem with any articulated art criticism is that the reasons why we dislike bad art are never universal.

But I don't mean universal in the manner that you might be thinking. One artist or another may be widely reviled. (I think George Lucas has done a wonderful job of working himself into this corner in the past 15 years as well.) And the reasons for their unpopularity may very well be as universally held as all the aspersions flung towards Mr. Leifeld. BUT a good artist--nay--a GREAT artist is one that takes those very same articulated prejudices (you can't make draw people without feet/with pea heads/tons of pouches/bad poses/etc. etc.) and turn them on their ear make great works with all the same constituent elements as the artist you hate. And there in lies one of the great mysteries of art. It's all in the aggregate.

To go back to an analogy used up thread about knowing good food when one tastes it: a lousy chef can take the best ingredients and make a terrible meal. But food doesn't need to taste as bad as it does sometimes. Often, a great chef can take those same ingredients and make an orgasmic taste sensation. (But there was one cooking fail show--early Gordon Ramsey--with a restaurant that had prawns under chocolate sauce as its "signature dish." I can't really see how anyone could redeem that one... Who knows. Maybe Wylie Dufresne could.)

Anyways, point is, it can be useful when critiquing art to clearly and honestly articulate what it is that makes something work or not work. But when it turns into a semantic back and forth over the words, it falls further into the realm of critical theory (ugh. ) and then becomes quite vulnerable to all sorts of games of word logic to prove or disprove one's original position. And THAT is where I tend to abort when it comes to art criticism of any sort.

As many have said, Leifeld is fairly widely reviled as both an artist and a public figure. For many of the reasons already stated. But no, those criteria by which he is deemed a lousy artist do not universally mean that anyone with similar distortions in their work are also equally lousy artists or so lacking in people skills. Basically, most people arrive at those criteria the same way. They internally know they consistently don't enjoy the mans work versus what they expect or hope for from a comic book. They are not pleasantly surprised. Nor does his unique style grow upon them. And upon self reflection, they basically land upon many of the already outlined traits as things that make Leifeld's drawings different from others in his genre. But the true source of why he's soooo bad will remain as large a mystery as the sources of Rembrandt's and Shakespeare's genii.

I was going to post a link to info about Illyana Rasputin as an example of mutants and magic mixing in a "competing publisher's mythos" (?). But alas, as I read through, I see that Marvel retconned away her mutantness. IIRC, in the 1980s when Marvel published some good comics--like the original New Mutants--her proficiency in Magic and I think her dimensional teleportation were connected to her mutantness.

When she was abducted/accidentally teleported to the wrong dimension as a child, she was raised by a demon and eventually returned to her primal earth as a tough-girl master of some of those demons. So while the demon summoning(her sword and armor at least USED to be summoned)/control/battling was related to sorcery, her initial powers that set her on that path were those of a mutant.

But alas, then the '90s happened and the sleaze machine that marvel became turned her from a tiny waif one might identify with (all the original new mutants were quite easy for many teens to identify with), she was transformed into a melon boobed bikini clad pornstar looking sorceress and all her mutant origins were retconned away over two decades of pretty consistent abysmal writing.

Anyways, point still stands, with a few narrative gymnastics, one CAN come up with reasons why one's mutant/tech/science origin character is cavorting with demons.

In a similar twist (though not specifically demon related), I have a villain that looks like a perverse cross between Dr. Strange and Myxlplyx. His kinetics powers are all based around "luck." But he's neither magic nor natural in origin. Rather, he's a former grad student who while doing a residency at the Talos Accelerator (yes, a personal twist in my own local lore--I've placed a particle accelerator UNDER Talos Island. And several of my characters do or have worked there)--anyways, during his residency he helped discover a new sub-atomic particle that is the source of what humans know as "luck." Scientifically inaccurate nonsense? Absolutely. Out of place in a classic comic book universe? Not in the least.

As a die hard spidey fan from way way back I feel obliged to correct this characterization of the... um character. (Yes, I own copies of ASM #42 and #50, featuring the first appearances of Mary Jane Watson and King Pin respectively. Not to mention far far too many books beyond that.)

The first three films barely touched on it, but for decades, one of Spiderman's MANY powers beyond his agility and wall walking was his signature "spider sense," a sort of vague precognition that would warn Peter Parker of imminent physical danger.

I realize this is a geeky nitpick entirely tangential to your points. This additional power makes Parker in no way a god, BUT as a decades long fan of the long running mythos I am saddened that this aspect of the character was for the most part written out of the mainstream films (aside from a few moments in the first film where it is hinted at via some time changes and audio cues played when we are sort of inside Parker's head just before an action sequence begins). Plus it gave the artists this great excuse to draw these wonderfully graphic halo of black wavy lines around Spidey's head.

Okay--back to the subject at hand.

</geekmoment>

You got me. That is beastly...




Though not quite what I was thinking.

yeah. I'm quite eager for a red cap like "burrow underground and erupt from below in a new costume" type emote in particular for my Moleman. Can't think of any others that immediately say "beastly" to me.

Maybe a cloud of fur or feathers and some hissing or squawking noises? Dunno

Unless you are after a few of the secondary stat boosts that pool together in some of the very rares. Support characters with a wide range of buffs, debuffs, etc. will find those quite useful. For example one of the top tier musculature enhancements would be great for a dark/electric defender, getting a boost to BOTH to hit debuff and endurance effects.

Honestly, I'm only marginally "into" the canon explanations of any in game mechanic. They tend to feel corny and hackneyed. Power proliferation and AE being amongst the worst offenders and mechanics like leveling, med porters and influence amongst the better. Either way, I tend to ignore those structural elements and make concepts that feel as "comic book-y" as possible.

My simpl answer to your question is "Nope. Everyone that gets close enough to become an incarnate will."

The longer answer: I'm not too into the storyline about being touched by gods. It far from fits most of my characters. BUT this is yet another system, similar to inventions, that allows me to make some pretty severe concepts, some of which are not as forgiving to play. The more playable each severe concept becomes, the more fun they become. I had over half a dozen non-stamina (non fitness at all actually) characters prior to inherent fitness. I wouldn't have given up their extra power choices for stamina, but I do welcome the change now that everyone gets fitness. Similarly, I welcome with open arms and eager mouse clicks the range of customization that the incarnate system permits.

Ahh thanks, D_R.

Nice catch on the tiger and cheetah pattern renames. We've already seen what the new cheetah pattern looks like--quite nice IMO. In many ways, an improvement over the old one unless you want to go all 80's neon bad animal print. I'm now excited to see the new tiger pattern.

And I also first saw it as Dr Mechano has it there, on the sightless mask in black and white. Funny.

As an unrelated aside, really wish we had a version of the sightless mask with much less emphasis on the wrinkles around the nose and mouth. Some of those full mask patterns are really exciting and graphic when black is selected to mask out any of those texture details. Wish I had an option to make as graphic of heads for some characters while using more vibrant colors.

Sexy Jay is still here. See the transcripts from his holiday monologue teasing what may be in store in 2011. He supposedly has had a hand (not sure how big) in at least some elements of the beast pack. He was credited with the first wolf/fox tail slipped into the mutant pack.

BaBs, though he did many great things for CoX with being a strong behind-the scenes advocate and heavy lifter for the current power customization system, had nothing to do with the Ninja Run animation. That was a newer hire, whom if I have my facts straight, still does not have a red name on the boards.

Edit to clarify: what I'm getting at is the same animator who midwifed Ninja Run may also be entirely behind Beast Run.