Path of the Terrorist ('Antivillain'?)

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Path of the Terrorist ('Antivillain'?)

In the sense of the Path system (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans/posts/630570) are there any plans for a villainous Path where the player is a bona fide terrorist, ie committing acts of indiscriminate violence against public and public servant targets in order to further a cause and coerce action from the authorities (or superheroes)?
I feel this would be distinct enough to warrant a path of its own, if the methods and means are explicitly like those of a real-life terrorist who maximises destruction of property of a symbolic nature and collateral of a human variety in order to intimidate, and who views themselves not as a real villain but as a necessary evil or romanticized revolutionary/karmic Robin Hood who sees their actions, however inhuman, as being justified in comparison to those of their targets (or whomever their targets answer to, support or vote for).

Most console gamers here are likely familiar with the controversy surrounding the 'No Russian' chapter of CoD: Modern Warfare 2, where the player takes the role of a mole within a terrorist cell and at one point must passively observe an indiscriminate machine gun attack on civilians at an airport: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/No_Russian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2#.22No_Russian.22

Personally, I wouldn't be offended by a Path with subject matter like this, I'd view the game plot objectively as just a game or piece of interactive fiction and would support inclusion of it by City of Titans as both interesting for the story (and RP for those who do) possibilities, and for adding variety and depth to the CoT universe. But I know some may disagree.

So, has anything like this been considered or planned, and how would others feel about it?

"TRUST ME."

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
The themes you speak of are

The themes you speak of are very mature and probably not suitable for a 4 color style comic book game. I personally would assume that issues like this, as well as issues like poverty, crime, drugs and other society ills will be used in more simplistic styles than the blurred lines you see in more realistic media.

Honestly I don't think this has a place in CoT at all. There are too many drawbacks for too little gain with its inclusion. Public opinion, game rating, immature players, possible mishandled mechanics ect all could make this a serious issue for the game itself. And all we really get in return is a controversial (for controversial sake) story, a dubious path choice and some RP.

A story that involves some of the themes you discussed (like a villain who thinks himself the hero or a terrorist plot to foil) can be included with little trouble but to draw attention to (and possibly glorify) a playable terrorist as sanctioned by the game is grossly dangerous.

The reason why stories like 'No Russian' work in those other games is because you are not in the drivers seat really....its in the game to provoke an emotional response and make the player choose his actions accordingly. The game is story driven and the story is one that is dark and thought provoking......this does not work well in an MMO that does not have a dark theme....all that happens when this type of story is introduced into games with a lighter tone is they stand out and become a jarring experience that is seldom enjoyable.

There is nothing wrong with games dealing with dark and mature themes (Until Dawn, Last of Us, CoD, Heavy Rain to name a few) but it would be very out of place and detrimental to a game like CoT.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
If there are going to be

If there are going to be "terrorists" or "terrorism" in CoT - I'd expect it to be more of the "Cobra" variety.

Lord Nightmare
Lord Nightmare's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 15:44
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

If there are going to be "terrorists" or "terrorism" in CoT - I'd expect it to be more of the "Cobra" variety.

A bunch of soldiers lead by a man who is actually the member of a world conquering cult, screams insults at both ally and enemy, has extremely over-the-top plans, and wears blue all the time?

I think we have that covered.

Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...

Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

If there are going to be "terrorists" or "terrorism" in CoT - I'd expect it to be more of the "Cobra" variety..

I agree, but its important to explain why.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 35 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Not to mention that the

Not to mention that the moment any ratings board reads, "You can play a terrorist and blow up civilians" the game would be rated "M" (ages 17+), at the least, whereas MWM is aiming for a "T" (ages 13+) rating.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Gorgon
Gorgon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/15/2014 - 11:46
"Loooook! These guys want

"Loooook! These guys want your kids pretending to be terrorists!!!"

Dungeons and Dragons has long since converted the thief class to "rogue", oh how lovingly bad boy Han Solo is! Oh those pirates with a heart o' gold!

__________________

The very existence of the taunting tank irritates, for it requires idiotic AI that obeys the taunt.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Gorgon wrote:
Gorgon wrote:

"Loooook! These guys want your kids pretending to be terrorists!!!"

Yeah I hate to live under the domination of political correctness but as Interdictor implied the closest thing to a "terrorist" we should see in CoT should be of a relatively cartoony, vaguely campy variety and (god forbid) should have nothing to do with any religion be it fake or otherwise.

I wish we could live in a world where our fictional MMO computer games would allow players to do literally anything they wanted to do even as "villainous characters" but I doubt that'll ever happen in an openly public arena like this. Basically people like Gluke are free to create their own computer games where the characters can do whatever they want - just don't count on being able to make games like that "public" any time soon without repercussions.

Gorgon wrote:

Dungeons and Dragons has long since converted the thief class to "rogue", oh how lovingly bad boy Han Solo is! Oh those pirates with a heart o' gold!

I'm old enough to have lived through the times when the original versions of AD&D were persecuted as the "Devil's game". I remember having a teacher in the late 70's who let us have an after-school club to play AD&D that only lasted a few months because some tight-assed parent heard about it and complained to have it shutdown.

Based on experiences like this I have no love for those same kinds of idiots that can censor what I like to do for entertainment today. Still, when it comes to the hot-button issue of "terrorism" in this post-911 world it's probably just easier not to push the limits too far in that direction. There are plenty of different ways to depict "villainy" other than to allow CoT to become a "virtual terrorism simulator".

P.S. To this day the only version of the original Star Wars movie I have ever paid retail money for has been the "Han shoots first" version. Political correctness (and Lucas' revisionism) be damned. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Gorgon wrote:
Gorgon wrote:

Dungeons and Dragons has long since converted the thief class to "rogue"

Not really - looking at 5th ed., yeah the base class is called "Rogue", but the Archetypes range from a dashing Swashbuckler, to a sneaky Thief, to deadly Assassin. The change to "Rogue" in ... 3rd edition? ... was more an acknowledgement of the broad nature of the class.

Quote:

oh how lovingly bad boy Han Solo is!

Han shot first!

Lightning Flower
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 09/03/2015 - 01:50
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

Quote:
oh how lovingly bad boy Han Solo is!
Han shot first!

And Greedo shot never.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Lightning Flower wrote:
Lightning Flower wrote:

Interdictor wrote:
Quote:
oh how lovingly bad boy Han Solo is!

Han shot first!

And Greedo shot never.

Even if you accept Lucas' fevered delusion that he "always meant for Greedo to shoot first" the fact that they showed him missing Solo by 4 or 5 feet when he was only sitting about 3 feet away would have made Greedo the most pathetic bounty hunter in the galaxy. At that range even Helen Keller probably would have come closer to hitting Solo than Greedo did.

How could a man like Lucas who was clever enough to have come up with the original Star Wars idea slide into such silly insanity in his later years? We can only hope other people like J.K. Rowling won't follow poor old George's lead in that kind of revisionistic shenanigans.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
The same kinda crazy that led

The same kinda crazy that led him to donate most of the Disney sale money.....that's most of 4 billion...

I think I can overlook Jar Jar and the Han shot first fiasco.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

The same kinda crazy that led him to donate most of the Disney sale money.....that's most of 4 billion...
I think I can overlook Jar Jar and the Han shot first fiasco.

No one ever said Lucas wasn't a nice guy and clearly he's done a heck of a lot to benefit all sorts of people and things he's gotten involved with.

All I'm alluding to is that people like Leonardo da Vinci didn't keep tinkering with their masterpieces for decades after they had technically finished them the 'first' time. If Leo had handled the Mona Lisa like Lucas handled his movies the she might have ended up with a moustache and a top hat. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

All I'm alluding to is that people like Leonardo da Vinci didn't keep tinkering with their masterpieces for decades after they had technically finished them the 'first' time. If Leo had handled the Mona Lisa like Lucas handled his movies the she might have ended up with a moustache and a top hat. ;).

I think a better analogy would be classic authors and their books rather than painters and paintings.

Conan Doyle, Poe and Twain all revised and changed their stories after they were first published. There are 3 versions of Dracula from Stoker.. one with an extra chapter one with less chapters and the one we know today.

Other filmmakers have changed their films after release in the past...Hitchcock, Chaplin, and even more recently (yet still before Lucas went crazy I think) Ridley Scott. Even Spielberg changed scenes in ET and Last Crusade (then changed them back).

What I am alluding to is its not unheard of for storytellers to change the story you may already know. The original still exists so you can pick which one you want....except in the case of Lucas.... who would not release the original versions after he tinkered. That's his true madness....not Jar Jar, not Han and Greedo and not a ridiculous cgi Jabba....its trying to erase what came before.

I do agree that Lucas is crazy though....I think the medical term is 'eat a bowl of paint chips' nuts or the more elegant 'Bugnutz' crazy.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Yeah I hate to live under the domination of political correctness but as Interdictor implied the closest thing to a "terrorist" we should see in CoT should be of a relatively cartoony, vaguely campy variety and (god forbid) should have nothing to do with any religion be it fake or otherwise.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Thanks for the replies, I'll

Thanks for the replies, I'll reply to all this in full when I got more time, but in the meanwhile briefly:

Lothic wrote:

Gorgon wrote:
"Loooook! These guys want your kids pretending to be terrorists!!!"

Yeah I hate to live under the domination of political correctness but as Interdictor implied the closest thing to a "terrorist" we should see in CoT should be of a relatively cartoony, vaguely campy variety and (god forbid) should have nothing to do with any religion be it fake or otherwise.

How cartoony is cartoony? If we take it to mean the "cartoon violence" seen, say, in the Nolan Bat-films or most action movies, then we could have terrorists indeed. I, for example, would want to be able to do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFxaCa-hr8o
...and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6vgGVqok4
And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fZL9T8D7h4
All indisputable acts of terrorism, yet reasonably cartoonish in nature to be in action movies, rather than political dramas. Someone please tell me this game can be teen-oriented without being completely toothless?

Lothic wrote:

I wish we could live in a world where our fictional MMO computer games would allow players to do literally anything they wanted to do even as "villainous characters" but I doubt that'll ever happen in an openly public arena like this. Basically people like Gluke are free to create their own computer games where the characters can do whatever they want - just don't count on being able to make games like that "public" any time soon without repercussions.

This makes me wonder how far we can push the envelope in Mission Creator UGC... I'm gonna try. Wish me luck.

"TRUST ME."

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

How cartoony is cartoony? If we take it to mean the "cartoon violence" seen, say, in the Nolan Bat-films or most action movies, then we could have terrorists indeed. I, for example, would want to be able to do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFxaCa-hr8o
...and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6vgGVqok4
And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fZL9T8D7h4
All indisputable acts of terrorism, yet reasonably cartoonish in nature to be in action movies, rather than political dramas. Someone please tell me this game can be teen-oriented without being completely toothless?.

These examples are all VERY different than your original post and none of which requires the terrorist path you proposed.

In general I doubt that many stories will involve deliberate direct injury towards innocent civilians who cannot fight back.... that alone would likely boost the rating above teen.

But the idea of attacking a police station full of armed cops or raiding a tech lab filled with a bunch of trained guards sounds like a regular mission to me (the Terminator and GIJOE clips). One we saw a ton of in CoH...so I don't see those being hard to duplicate. The GIJOE one is pretty much perfect as is because even what is being stolen is a comic book style weapon and involves crazy powered foes.

As for the Batman one....destroying a stadium full of innocents....that's a bit more unlikely to happen in the game....but not out of the realm of possibility. What would make some of these difficult is how destructible the environment is and that type of thing is not usually in MMO's for obvious reasons.

The truth is...its the tone of the stories that will decide if the action is teen or higher. There is a big difference in tone when you have a villain suicide bomb a coffee shop of innocents vs one who physically attacks a military base full of mech suits. That's true of any violence you find in games. Huge difference between your strong guy who punches a helpless foe into orbit and one who fights a giant robot.

As many have said...the terrorists in the game are unlikely to be 'true' terrorists. A real terrorist targets innocents to further a political or religious agenda. The purpose of a terrorist attack is not to win an engagement but to weaken the targets resolve with fear to get them to give up.... By its very nature a true terrorist would seldom come into contact with the heroes. Using this style of villain as a player character makes the game simply a murder sim as, by your own definition, the targets are not combatants but civilians who will not have the tools to provide any sort of opposition to the player character. This is why your original suggestion of a terrorist path that :

Quote:

is a bona fide terrorist, ie committing acts of indiscriminate violence against public and public servant targets in order to further a cause and coerce action from the authorities .

will probably not even be considered as on top of all the rating, public opinion and moral issues... it would just not be a game the devs are making.

On the other hand, comic book terrorists have crazy schemes to get money to fund the next crazy scheme. They threaten and sometimes hurt innocents but the real focus is the conflict between these villains and the heroes....meaning while the comic terrorists may WANT to commit these atrocities they are just never able to because the heroes are ALWAYS there to oppose them. This makes the need for 'real-life' terrorist tactics as a mechanic (or path choice) much less important. Knowing how to firebomb a church or strap dynamite to your body and run towards a crowd just wont be useful in a combat oriented game.

If you want your character to have the same motivations and ideals as a terrorist (not sure why you would personally) you can use that as internal storyline and knowing how to make bombs or hijack planes becomes backstory and not something the game has to endorse with a path or actual powers.

Quote:

This makes me wonder how far we can push the envelope in Mission Creator UGC... I'm gonna try. Wish me luck..

I am sure you can set a much more mature tone in the mission creator than the devs will in the overall game... but even there I think there might be guidelines as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

I would like to say that I don't think (or at least hope) you consider a game where you are encouraged to commit wanton murder by attacking helpless people who are unable to fight back as fun. I think you more or less misspoke in your original post when you said you wanted a path that mimics 'real-life terrorist'. Perhaps you could re-explain what you really mean because I think we are all (I know I am) hung up on the concept of real terrorist with real terrorist actions as a playable character.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 35 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

How cartoony is cartoony? If we take it to mean the "cartoon violence" seen, say, in the Nolan Bat-films or most action movies, then we could have terrorists indeed. I, for example, would want to be able to do this:

All indisputable acts of terrorism, yet reasonably cartoonish in nature to be in action movies, rather than political dramas. Someone please tell me this game can be teen-oriented without being completely toothless?

"Cartoony" means non-realistic, non-extreme violence. So long as what's shown on screen does not exceed what we saw in CoH, it should pass muster. It's definitely not a matter of style. Even the unquestionably humorous and cartoony Borderlands games are rated "M" (or "18" for PEGI). Or take the new XCOM games, if one prefers a comparison to something other than a FPS: "16" for The Bureau and "18" for Enemy Within, or "M" for both from the ESRB, in each case largely due to the level of violence. (As a point of interest, Going Rogue was rated "16".)

Two of your examples could work, and they could work for one important reason: they don't (directly) involve civilians. Anything that does not involve civilians, other than as what amounts to scenery, can probably be qualified as "crime" rather than specifically "terrorism". Beating up a bunch of guards and defeating some would-be superheroes to take a major landmark hostage (it's a MMO, so destroying is probably not an option)? Sure. Setting off a car bomb at the mall or picking off all the dark-skinned NPCs on the street? Uh, no.

As for attacking a police station (to free another supervillain), we had that in CoH. So, yeah. There's that. (And it essentially came as a side-mission to breaking into a bank, at that.)

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Are Terrorists too "mature"a

Are Terrorists too "mature"a subject for a 4 color game?

Well first of all ask a some of the comic book terrorists we've seen.
Aim, Hydra, The Watchdogs, Flag Smasher, there are others but these are off the top of my head.
I have no doubt that this game will also feature would be conquerors and tyrants, like Lord Recluse
Superheroes always fight terrorism.

Next let's compare terrorism to some other evils that might be in the game.
Will there be drugs?
Will there be murderous monsters out to devour human flesh or souls?

But the real question is not should these things be in the game,
there can't be any doubt that such things will be there
The real question is whether or not players should be able to do these kinds of things
It does create a lot of potential problems
But if they can't then why let them play villains at all?

I've said all along that it's a terrible terrible idea
I have no reason at all to change my mind.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Quote:
All I'm alluding to is that people like Leonardo da Vinci didn't keep tinkering with their masterpieces for decades after they had technically finished them the 'first' time. If Leo had handled the Mona Lisa like Lucas handled his movies the she might have ended up with a moustache and a top hat. ;).
I think a better analogy would be classic authors and their books rather than painters and paintings.
Conan Doyle, Poe and Twain all revised and changed their stories after they were first published. There are 3 versions of Dracula from Stoker.. one with an extra chapter one with less chapters and the one we know today.
Other filmmakers have changed their films after release in the past...Hitchcock, Chaplin, and even more recently (yet still before Lucas went crazy I think) Ridley Scott. Even Spielberg changed scenes in ET and Last Crusade (then changed them back).
What I am alluding to is its not unheard of for storytellers to change the story you may already know. The original still exists so you can pick which one you want....except in the case of Lucas.... who would not release the original versions after he tinkered. That's his true madness....not Jar Jar, not Han and Greedo and not a ridiculous cgi Jabba....its trying to erase what came before.
I do agree that Lucas is crazy though....I think the medical term is 'eat a bowl of paint chips' nuts or the more elegant 'Bugnutz' crazy.

Yeah I didn't mean to imply that Lucas was the only guy who ever came up with the idea to create new/alternate versions of his own previous work. And I'm sure you could have probably mentioned many instances where the "alternate" versions might have proved to be better or more well received than the originals.

But perhaps you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that Lucas sort of became uniquely famous (infamous?) for trying his best to not only pretend his original versions didn't exist but doing everything he could to deny access to his original versions like he was trying to rewrite history in some kind of sick Orwellian fantasy.

I suspect if Lucas had just openly offered his newer alternate versions along with the originals in an equal fashion then there would have been far less controversy and we wouldn't even be talking about it in a random forum post in 2015. For example Ridley Scott released several versions of Blade Runner and he even went so far as to say that he "prefers" one of the alternate cuts over the original theatrical release. But despite his preference he has never tried to "suppress" the original version in any way and even includes it in later multi-version releases because he's apparently sane enough to realize that other people have their own opinions about which version they like best.

I guess when you become as big a Lucas did it led him to think he could actually "fully control" his creations. Go figure...

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Are Terrorists too "mature"a subject for a 4 color game?
Well first of all ask a some of the comic book terrorists we've seen.
Aim, Hydra, The Watchdogs, Flag Smasher, there are others but these are off the top of my head.
I have no doubt that this game will also feature would be conquerors and tyrants, like Lord Recluse
Superheroes always fight terrorism.
Next let's compare terrorism to some other evils that might be in the game.
Will there be drugs?
Will there be murderous monsters out to devour human flesh or souls?
But the real question is not should these things be in the game,
there can't be any doubt that such things will be there
The real question is whether or not players should be able to do these kinds of things
It does create a lot of potential problems
But if they can't then why let them play villains at all?
I've said all along that it's a terrible terrible idea
I have no reason at all to change my mind.

Just because there will probably always be limits to enacting extreme forms of "villainy" in games like this doesn't mean that people should be prevented from playing anything other than "heroes". There are plenty of degrees of abstract "badness" people can do in games that would not cross many (if any) lines of decency.

Take for example a classic game like the original Warcraft. In it you had players play either as the Humans or the Orcs. Now technically you could say the Orcs were the bad guys or the "villains" of the game but as far as the game was concerned both the Human and Orc players were basically doing the same things against each other to win the game. The game mechanics were abstracted enough that dealing with the bigger concepts of "good versus evil" didn't really apply.

All we're saying here is that the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" have become very emotionally and politically charged especially in the last few years. Allowing players to specifically call themselves "terrorists" and letting them do uniquely terroristic things (like taking hostages in the name of a religion) probably should be avoided in CoT. But while we avoid those specific things there are literally dozens of other activities that a "villain" could be involved with that would not even come close to being related to the hot-button issue of real-world terrorism.

There is a wide-ranged spectrum of things people can do in a game like this that span all the way from "hero" to "vigilante" to "rogue" to "villain" and dozens of other labels in-between. To say that people shouldn't play "villains" in general just because there are a few specific issues that need to be considered and/or limited is very naive and shortsighted.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lord Nightmare
Lord Nightmare's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 15:44
And if you play Warcraft 3

And if you play Warcraft 3 they show all the sides being jerks to each other. And only one person who wants to purge non-human allies (GARITHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!)

Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...

Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

I guess when you become as big a Lucas did it led him to think he could actually "fully control" his creations. Go figure....

It might also be that Lucas was fairly unique in how much actual control he had over his creation. Few other directors control a movies distribution to the level he did.....I am sure Kubric would have tweaked movies till the end of time given the chance ....

Quote:

Just because there will probably always be limits to enacting extreme forms of "villainy" in games like this doesn't mean that people should be prevented from playing anything other than "heroes". There are plenty of degrees of abstract "badness" people can do in games that would not cross many (if any) lines of decency..

Very well said.

I would like to add that these limits are not to hinder a player but to show respect to a very complicated subject like real world terrorism. It will be acknowledge within the game, just as drug use, poverty and radicalism will be, but they are subjects the game cannot explore fully. This is why they will be used in the abstract by employing comic book concepts to them.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

It might also be that Lucas was fairly unique in how much actual control he had over his creation. Few other directors control a movies distribution to the level he did.

I would argue that in some ways as soon as a movie is shown to an audience it's as much theirs as it is the person's who made it. I tend to think people like Lucas will never understand the subtly of that "shared experience".

Based on that notion it might actually be a good thing (intentional or not) that most directors don't get to have absolute control over their movie creations. Not only did that power lead Lucas into thinking he could "rewrite" history with his special editions but it's been said that much of what went wrong with the prequel trilogy was that there was no one there with the veto authority to help dial back Lucas' overly-whimsical ideas. Midi-chlorians my ass. ;)

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I am sure Kubric would have tweaked movies till the end of time given the chance.

As cool as it might have been to have had dozens of versions of The Shining or A Clockwork Orange I have a feeling Kubrick wouldn't have tried to pretend the theatrical release versions of those movies "didn't happen".

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

I would argue that in some ways as soon as a movie is shown to an audience it's as much theirs as it is the person's who made it. I tend to think people like Lucas will never understand the subtly of that "shared experience"..

While I agree that there is a shared connection between creator and audience, it is the creator who decides how to present it and the audience decides how to perceive it.
This argument (oft repeated) is basically accusing Lucas of taking something from us. He didn't. We still got to experience the version we originally enjoyed. That shared connection still exists. We are just not able to revisit that connection anymore (or rather were not able to).

You may not enjoy the changes Lucas made but he had every right to do so. Its his vision and it changed over the years(or perhaps just as he claims it was his original vision) so he presented this vision. Where he was flawed was trying to force others to change as he had. There was a selfishness (probably too strong a word) in the decision to hide what he had presented previously in my opinion but he wasn't stealing when he did so.

Quote:

Based on that notion it might actually be a good thing (intentional or not) that most directors don't get to have absolute control over their movie creations. Not only did that power lead Lucas into thinking he could "rewrite" history with his special editions but it's been said that much of what went wrong with the prequel trilogy was that there was no one there with the veto authority to help dial back Lucas' overly-whimsical ideas. Midi-chlorians my ass. ;).

Sometimes this may be true. But in the end I would much rather have the story the creator wanted to present than the corporate vision. While Lucas had enough control to make creative choices that made fans upset with the prequels...Sam Raimi had so much forced on him it ruined what he was trying to do with Spiderman 3. The original script for Last Action Hero was a brilliant exploration of violence as entertainment but put through the Hollywood ringer it became exactly what it condemned....with a cartoon cat. Too much control on David Lynch and we don't get Lost Highway. I would gladly take a flawed prequel from Lucas if it meant that all other directors present their story as they want as well. At the very least I would be seeing the intended story.

Then again.....the Hollywood ringer had given us Avengers, Goodfellas and Ghostbusters. So what do I know.

Quote:

As cool as it might have been to have had dozens of versions of The Shining or A Clockwork Orange I have a feeling Kubrick wouldn't have tried to pretend the theatrical release versions of those movies "didn't happen"..

I dunno....kubric was pretty crazy. His detail oriented style of film making saw some insane measure he took with cast and crew to get the shot he deemed perfect. I would not put the idea of Kubric going back and changing things he felt were not presenting the vision he had and outright ignoring the rest. I read stories where he got upset about peoples mis-interpretation of his ideas and expressed his desire to fix these 'issues'. But it is speculation on my part so I could be wrong.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Where he was flawed was trying to force others to change as he had.

I think this is our basic point of agreement. I honestly would not have minded if Lucas had created 100 versions of Star Wars as long as he hadn't gotten on the kick of trying to suppress any one of them in favor of the others. The very notion of that was as insane as thinking he could have brought back all these birds after they were released during this opening ceremony of an Olympics. Cat was out of the bag, George.

I don't deny his freedom to alter his own artwork. I deny his attempt to make me believe the version he likes is the only one that should exist.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

But in the end I would much rather have the story the creator wanted to present than the corporate vision.

Don't assume that I necessarily meant that all movie directors must submit to CORPORATE oversight. My point is that it clearly benefits some directors to have some significant ARTISTIC guidance and/or peer review... or in Lucas' case a sane four year old that could have told him his idea for Jar Jar Binks was 'ka-ka-poopy-pants'. lol

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I dunno....kubric was pretty crazy.

Sure Kubrick was an "eccentric perfectionist" to put it mildly. Still I don't think he would have ever pulled a "Lucas". ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

I think this is our basic point of agreement. I honestly would not have minded if Lucas had created 100 versions of Star Wars as long as he hadn't gotten on the kick of trying to suppress any one of them in favor of the others. The very notion of that was as insane as thinking he could have brought back all these birds after they were released during this opening ceremony of an Olympics. Cat was out of the bag, George..

Yup we fully agree what has us upset...I just personally think in the sake of fairness we (or more accurately I) should be clear why we (me) are upset. Its personal frustration over not getting what we want as fans and not that Lucas stole or ruined what we have already gotten. I strongly suspect that many of the complaints about the revisions made are more misplaced disappointment than true anger.

Quote:

Don't assume that I necessarily meant that all movie directors must submit to CORPORATE oversight. My point is that it clearly benefits some directors to have some significant ARTISTIC guidance and/or peer review... or in Lucas' case a sane four year old that could have told him his idea for Jar Jar Binks was 'ka-ka-poopy-pants'. lol.

I'm sorry...I was trying to be creative (and show off a bit) with my acknowledgement that its not usually as black and white as I was implying when I finished with the 'so what do I know'. I did not mean to imply you supported corporate oversight or not....more just to say its seldom as simple as we would like it to be. I probably should have been more straightforward than try to be all fancy .....but hey...just be glad I excluded a huge section on actors interpretations and editors roles...it could have been even worse I think.

Let me just be clear now with what I meant. Directors, producers and studios all want to make a specific type of film...and its not always the same film... in the end its us as fans that decide if we enjoy it .... whos vision it was is of much less importance in the grand scheme.

Quote:

Sure Kubrick was an "eccentric perfectionist" to put it mildly. Still I don't think he would have ever pulled a "Lucas". ;).

Possibly...as I said...its speculation.... I was just drawing conclusions based on his filming method and almost criminal lack of concern for people vs his vision (his notorious treatment of Shelly Duvall) and the fact that he actually did change part of the Shining after release (check IMDB for details). The fact no one actually was clamoring for the original ending (and how quickly he changed it) makes it impossible to say if he would acknowledge this change with an original release now or just ignore peoples desires given the option. Or alternately it might just be his change was and is universally considered an improvement so it not needed. I dunno.... Kubric was as you say an "eccentric perfectionist" to put it mildly. I would hardly be surprised by anything that man did in pursuit of his art.

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
A lot to reply to here, but I

A lot to reply to here, but I'm working now so I'll have to do it later - I'll be back.

"TRUST ME."

Kiyori Anoyui
Kiyori Anoyui's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/10/2013 - 11:03
With the new star wars coming

With the new star wars coming out I started rewatching them(I now have the remastered editions) And when it came to that scene in Part IV I was like..... wha?!?!! I was very confused. I knew something was off. I at first thought that must of been how it happened in the original, didn't know there was a reason for changing it, I'll have to look it up in more detail

The Carnival of Light in the Phoenix Rising
"We never lose our demons, we only learn to live above them." - The Ancient One

Avatar by lilshironeko

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Kiyori Anoyui wrote:
Kiyori Anoyui wrote:

With the new star wars coming out I started rewatching them(I now have the remastered editions) And when it came to that scene in Part IV I was like..... wha?!?!! I was very confused. I knew something was off. I at first thought that must of been how it happened in the original, didn't know there was a reason for changing it, I'll have to look it up in more detail

Heh, yeah the whole "Han shot first" thing has been a major Star Wars nerd-fan controversy for almost 20 years now.

The core of the controversy seems to be a fundamental revision in how George Lucas wants people to initially react to the Han Solo character. Even though there's now supposedly documented proof that the original theatrical scripts indeed had "Han shoot first" Lucas seems to be maintaining that he never wanted Han to be taken as a "cold-blooded killer" and asserts that's a negative quality of the character that the fans (mysteriously to him) "want" to believe.

The problem with Lucas' position is that it's not a matter of what the fans "want" to believe. As much as Lucas wishes to wave his hands and neuralyze our collective memories about what happened it's irrefutably clear that Han shot first in the theatrical release. Lucas' key misunderstanding is that what Han did doesn't make him a "cold-blooded killer" as much as a "sure-handed survivor" who's prepared to do what he needs to do to avoid being killed. Greedo had a gun drawn on Han and was clearly there to kill him - there was nothing "cold-blooded" about Han's reaction to that deadly threat. Greedo even verbally threatens him using words that makes it clear he's there to kill Han. By shooting first Han showed us he had the guts and the smarts to outmaneuver his opponents. It's not that Han necessarily even wanted to kill Greedo, but he knew he was trapped and had to take drastic action to avoid losing his own life. It's absolutely clear from the original context that Han is not a sadistic murderer that kills just for the fun of it - sadly Lucas seems to think that's what we would think if he didn't "fix" it.

Basically Lucas seems to totally misunderstand what's going on here and it's frustrating to see him appear so retroactively clueless about what's otherwise a pivotal, character revealing scene for Han.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

Heh, yeah the whole "Han shot first" thing has been a major Star Wars nerd-fan controversy for almost 20 years now..

That single change is probably the one that upset fans the most....because it essentially changes the tone of the scene....its not like the other changes that re-enforce the original like the extra X-wings in the Death Star Battle or the extended ending of Return showing the various worlds over throwing the Empire.

The idea of Han shooting first was also echoed in Empire when he first meets Vader ....instantly he draws and shoots.

Han was Lucas's bad boy with a heart of gold and he wanted to soften him.....what makes changing Han shooting first so odd a choice was not minutes before Ben Kenobi cut a guys arm off for just threatening Luke. Hardly a proportional response... but one that fits the location and set the tone for the scene. Its a dangerous place.

I personally think Lucas was trying to further the 'old west' theme he set up for Mos Eisley (a lawless border town) when he changed the scene to include what could be seen as an old fashion quickdraw in which the gunslinger Han draws so fast that even though Greedo drew first Han was quicker. But he forgot that the idea of the 'hero' shooting under the table was also used in westerns. Which I think was his original intent...to show that Han was not just a gunslinger but an OUTLAW gunslinger. Instead of reinforcing the western theme it changed Han from a Clint Eastwood 'Man with no name' gunslinger to a Roy Rogers cowboy thus losing a bit of his appeal.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Han was Lucas's bad boy with a heart of gold and he wanted to soften him.....what makes changing Han shooting first so odd a choice was not minutes before Ben Kenobi cut a guys arm off for just threatening Luke. Hardly a proportional response... but one that fits the location and set the tone for the scene. Its a dangerous place.

Yeah that kind of highlights the hypocrisy of Lucas being concerned that Han was going to be considered too "cold-blooded" when you realize Obi-Wan probably could have handled the guys pestering Luke in maybe a hundred other ways that didn't involve cutting a guy's arm off. Frankly that move always seemed pretty "cold-blooded" to me.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I personally think Lucas was trying to further the 'old west' theme he set up for Mos Eisley (a lawless border town) when he changed the scene to include what could be seen as an old fashion quickdraw in which the gunslinger Han draws so fast that even though Greedo drew first Han was quicker. But he forgot that the idea of the 'hero' shooting under the table was also used in westerns. Which I think was his original intent...to show that Han was not just a gunslinger but an OUTLAW gunslinger. Instead of reinforcing the western theme it changed Han from a Clint Eastwood 'Man with no name' gunslinger to a Roy Rogers cowboy thus losing a bit of his appeal.

Maybe Lucas was trying to redefine Han as a different kind of "cowboy" or some such. But to my mind it just comes off making Han look incredibly stupid and naive. Here's the picture: Han is a roguish smuggler/pirate who has another known bounty hunter guy pointing a gun practically in his face. The bounty hunter guy effectively tells him "I'm going to kill you now". Why would Han ever let Greedo just shoot first in that situation? How can it be a matter of wanting to portray Han as being "noble" enough not to shoot first if all it would have done is likely left him with a hole in his head that Greedo put there?

Bottomline Han shooting first made logical sense for all sorts of reasons LEAST of which was making him look like some kind of "bad ass". Han HAD TO SHOOT FIRST simply as self defense to save his own life - he didn't do it to be "cold-blooded" or evil in any way. It's maddening to think Lucas would purposely want Han to look like some kind of dim-witted idiot to let Greedo shoot first.

And don't even get me started on the near-impossibility that Greedo didn't even hit Han in the bastardized rewritten scene. If you accept Lucas' pipe-dream that Greedo was always "supposed" to shoot first how could he have possibly missed Han at that distance? They were both sitting still and his gun was only like 3 or 4 feet from Han. As I said in an earlier post I think even Helen Keller could have hit Han in that scenario. The embarrassment of having Greedo miss simply adds insult to injury to this whole unfortunate debacle.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Bottomline Han shooting first made logical sense for all sorts of reasons LEAST of which was making him look like some kind of "bad ass". Han HAD TO SHOOT FIRST simply as self defense to save his own life - he didn't do it to be "cold-blooded" or evil in any way. It's maddening to think Lucas would purposely want Han to look like some kind of dim-witted idiot to let Greedo shoot first.

This. Greedo straight up tells Han that he IS going to shoot him.

Greedo: You can tell that to Jabba. At best, he may only take your ship.
Han Solo: Over my dead body!
Greedo: That's the idea... I've been looking forward to this for a long time.
Han Solo: Yeah, I'll bet you have. *shoots*

Han was acting in self defense. Lucas essentially neutered his character - and the visual change looked HORRIBLE to boot - very jarring.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

Maybe Lucas was trying to redefine Han as a different kind of "cowboy" or some such. But to my mind it just comes off making Han look incredibly stupid and naive..

Honestly I never found Han to be smart at all. Cunning maybe....but smart....I dunno.

Lets look at some of the 'dumb' things he did throughout the original trilogy...

Goes back to a planet where the biggest underworld figure just happens to be the one who wants to kill him.

Tries to convince the voice on the radio that everything is OK in the prison ....badly.

Almost kills someone with a ricochet by shooting in the garbage compactor.

Shoots the floor to confirm his suspicion they are inside the space slug.

Thinks the best option to save Lando from the Sarlacc is to shoot a tentacle when he can barely see instead of just letting Chewy do it.

His ambush plan for the speeder bike soldiers was to come up behind one and knock him out. Which he screws up.

Han is a great character and my personal favorite among all the characters in both the prequels and the original trilogy and he had lots of awesome qualities.....smarts just never was one to me.

I do agree that letting Greedo shoot first would have made him criminally dumb though.

Quote:

And don't even get me started on the near-impossibility that Greedo didn't even hit Han in the bastardized rewritten scene..

Its actually worse than you remember I think. In that scene Lucas actually manipulated the images to make it appear as if Han was dodging the blast that would never have hit him in the first place. So what we have here is a case where Lucas not only wanted Greedo to shoot first and miss but that Han was relying on his ability to dodge being shot.

The changes in that scene were, from beginning to end and from concept to execution, bad.

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:
gluke wrote:

All indisputable acts of terrorism, yet reasonably cartoonish in nature to be in action movies, rather than political dramas. Someone please tell me this game can be teen-oriented without being completely toothless?.
These examples are all VERY different than your original post and none of which requires the terrorist path you proposed.

Well I'll grant you the first one is not really an act of terrorism at all (although as an infiltration agent the T800 was likely intended to perform covert ops of sabotage designed to terrorize in the sense of terrorism, and the police station shootout could be a good representation of what he/it did normally in the future war) but the whole incident would've been classified as one, you even hear one of the cops say "What is it, terrorists or something?" early on in the attack.
But no, those examples would be indicative of a terrorist path as described in my first post, IMO. They could also be used in other villainous paths such as World Conqueror or Monster, but that doesn't mean they are somehow unlike the actions of a terrorist.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

In general I doubt that many stories will involve deliberate direct injury towards innocent civilians who cannot fight back.... that alone would likely boost the rating above teen.
But the idea of attacking a police station full of armed cops or raiding a tech lab filled with a bunch of trained guards sounds like a regular mission to me (the Terminator and GIJOE clips). One we saw a ton of in CoH...so I don't see those being hard to duplicate. The GIJOE one is pretty much perfect as is because even what is being stolen is a comic book style weapon and involves crazy powered foes.
As for the Batman one....destroying a stadium full of innocents....that's a bit more unlikely to happen in the game....but not out of the realm of possibility. What would make some of these difficult is how destructible the environment is and that type of thing is not usually in MMO's for obvious reasons.
The truth is...its the tone of the stories that will decide if the action is teen or higher. There is a big difference in tone when you have a villain suicide bomb a coffee shop of innocents vs one who physically attacks a military base full of mech suits. That's true of any violence you find in games. Huge difference between your strong guy who punches a helpless foe into orbit and one who fights a giant robot.
As many have said...the terrorists in the game are unlikely to be 'true' terrorists. A real terrorist targets innocents to further a political or religious agenda. The purpose of a terrorist attack is not to win an engagement but to weaken the targets resolve with fear to get them to give up.... By its very nature a true terrorist would seldom come into contact with the heroes.

Why? The MO of a terrorist you just described could easily be applied to any number of comicbook supervillains, something noted by Goyer and the Nolan brothers when they wrote the Chris Nolan bat-films and established that in a realistic setting, most of Batman's enemies would be classed as a terrorist, but also acknowleged by many other writers over the years whenever superhero comics made any mention of politics. So it seems to me the main or only thing separating a conventional supervillain from a terrorist who is pursued by superheroes as well as interpol would be their personal motivation or ultimate objective, and that would depend on the writer or, in this case, the player.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

Using this style of villain as a player character makes the game simply a murder sim as, by your own definition, the targets are not combatants but civilians who will not have the tools to provide any sort of opposition to the player character.

And that differs from the exploits of a generic megalomaniac supervillain how? As far as I am aware, comic book villains have targeted innocent people for as long as there have been comic books, there has never been an unwritten rule that they should focus honorably on people who can in some way fight back (well, unless the Comics Code Authority included a mandate to that effect, which wouldn't surprise me, tbh. But I'm still aware of no such rule, as even through the most inane and tame days of the Silver Age, the Joker was still targeting innocent people).
Again, it seems the main difference between fictional terrorists and other villain archetypes is that terrorists use more conventional/less esoteric methods of attack, and that they somehow believe they are not villains at all.
Plus, when you say "the targets are not combatants but civilians who will not have the tools to provide any sort of opposition to the player character", what opposition do you mean? If armed combatants like police or soldiers are the targets of most supervillains, in comics or in this game, those well-trained, well-armed operatives still stand no chance against you, do they? If you approach this issue purely from a moral standpoint, why is it less troubling to kill a police officer or soldier made of pixels than it is to kill a random passerby crossing the street? Why is it so less troubling to kill a superhero than a passerby that you can get excited about the prospect of playing a diabolical mastermind who vows to kill Anthem or some other crusading crime-fighter, but the idea of killing ordinary people in the background chills your blood?
This is a game.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

This is why your original suggestion of a terrorist path that :
Quote:
is a bona fide terrorist, ie committing acts of indiscriminate violence against public and public servant targets in order to further a cause and coerce action from the authorities .
will probably not even be considered as on top of all the rating, public opinion and moral issues... it would just not be a game the devs are making.

One thing I like most about superhero comics is the great disparity in their universes which, in some ways, mirrors the disparity of POV in real-life society. The view of the fictional world you'd get by reading Detective Comics or any of the Bat-titles would belight years away from the one you'd see when you read Superman, and the one in Superman would be wholely different to Flash or Wonder Woman or Martian Manhunter or Suicide Squad or Hellblazer or Sandman or Lucifer or Joker (title) or Lobo or Doom Patrol or Animal Man or many of the character-focused limited series since the POV of the main characters are completely different, the tones and atmospheres are different, the entire genres or subgenres are different. For Marvel, a prime example would be the world the Punisher lives in compared to that of almost every other Marvel character (which in his case is at its base a conscious decision to make a point about where superhero/villain antics and more realistic crime overlap in the Marvel world): despite being in the same universe and the same city, they mostly pass like ships in the night. There are other Marvel examples like Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Cloak and Dagger etc who focus on darker and more real subject matter, but Punisher is probably the most direct about it. It's cool when these character focused subgenres overlap and come into crossover conflict as well.
So, this is one thing I'd like to see most in a game like CoT: there is content to suit every kind of superhero (and villain) universe character, to suit fans of those kinds of characters. If you want a character like Green Lantern who isn't completely out of place in the game setting, you can have that. If you want one like Luke Cage who fits in, you get that too. One like Charles Xavier, sure. If you want a chain-smoking alcoholic occultist from a city most Americans have never heard of who fights depression due to having got most of his friends and loved ones killed who also isn't out of place in the setting, you can have that too. Want to play an Irish-American pub-dwelling assassin with a line in killing superhumans who fits in with the background, you can.
Want to play a serial killing dream-entity who eats rentboys' eyeballs? Sure. Want to play a superpowered former rape-victim with multiple personality disorder? Sure. Want to play Richard III? Sure. Want to play one of The Mighty Paladins' characters? Sure. Don't want any of these character concepts to seem hopelessly out of place in the game background? That seems to be what the Pathways system is for, and the main thing I hope it will provide: wide variation of content across the spectrum of a superhero 'verse, from Golden Age antics through to Platinum Age (or wherever you'd say the New 52 is at) through Sci-Fi, through Sci-Fantasy, through High Fantasy, through Mythology through Grant Morrison through Urban Crime through Horror through Cosmic Stuff and back around to Golden Age again.
As such, if you want to play an indiscriminate mass-destructive attention-seeker as a villain, politically, spiritually or theologically motivated or otherwise, then you're probably in luck there too. I would be very surprised if we had a Path called "Path of the Terrorist" but I'd be a little disappointed if there was no path that deserved to be called that. In that, my original post may have been misleading, but I thought it would be fairly obvious that I didn't expect an actual Path with the word Terrorist in it, just as Path of the Monster would not likely be called Path of the Serial Killer, Path of the Sadist, Sociopath or Rorscharch, even though those may be accurate descriptions of what it's designed for.
I particularly was struck by these passages of the Paths update:

Quote:

If you are to start as a Paragon and fall, you will be hated more than a villian who started as a simple bank robber. If you are a Detective that lies about results… well, you may just wind up a bit noir, so long as you do it with justice as your goal.
But a Paragon can work his way back, even after executing three men with a piece of their home planet. It will still be remembered. It will mark him. But he can regain trust.
There are characters, like Spider-Man, who wander up and down the spectrum. Batman is often wanted by the police, with varying frequency. And there are those who, like Captain America, have no problem with killing when needed, but can still fall prey to self doubt.
Our alignment spectrum isn’t simply four slices of a spectrum, and your character won’t be in black and white.
I can’t promise a completely unique game experience from start to level cap. But I can say that we plan to have entire zones dedicated to your Path, and the shared adventures you will have will be the strongest we can make them. I can even say that your first twenty levels, we are aiming to make nearly completely unique, barring those adventures we feel everyone should experience.

I hope that those twenty levels and the entire Path-specific zones are wide enough to accomodate character types as widely disparate as the ones listed above, including the wackier and more twisted kind, and including mass-murdering attention seekers (if we won't call them terrorists).

islandtrevor72 wrote:

On the other hand, comic book terrorists have crazy schemes to get money to fund the next crazy scheme.

Again, that just sounds like most supervillains you are describing.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

They threaten and sometimes hurt innocents but the real focus is the conflict between these villains and the heroes....

Same answer.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

meaning while the comic terrorists may WANT to commit these atrocities they are just never able to because the heroes are ALWAYS there to oppose them.

And again. Are there any characters in particular you are referring to by this?

islandtrevor72 wrote:

This makes the need for 'real-life' terrorist tactics as a mechanic (or path choice) much less important. Knowing how to firebomb a church or strap dynamite to your body and run towards a crowd just wont be useful in a combat oriented game.

Unless you can convince/blackmail/brainwash other people to do it for you. See film Arlington Road.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

If you want your character to have the same motivations and ideals as a terrorist (not sure why you would personally)

Again, a good villain is a good villain. This is a game. I agree that it would be in poor taste to directly base your toon on a real-life terrorist such as bin Laden or to use a real life terror group like the IRA for background, but that should also apply to most other real life criminals/war criminals as well, depending perhaps on how old the example is, yet I see no-one protesting the use of crime in superhero fiction (nor should they). If you want your villain to reflect a fictionalized version of some aspect of real world geo-politics, such as you'd get in James Bond, Tom Clancy, Frederick Forsyth or whatever, then I see nothing wrong there, and I hope there is a Path that would be appropriate for a character like that.
There is also the fact that many different types of character could be called a "terrorist" owing to their actions, as my video clip responses above showed. Remember that Ozymandias from Alan Moore's/Dave Gibbon's Watchmen, title character from V for Vendetta (more explicitly in the crappy movie, but implicitly in the great comic), and Batman's Anarky (likely based somewhat on V) are all essentially terrorists, as would Tyler Durden be, and in fact Sarah and John Connor by the end of Terminator 2. Could you have a hero version of a terrorist who only destroys buildings and technology, or at least a sympathetic one who only kills villains (which would be the Punisher, if not many other antihero characters as well from Judge Dredd to RoboCop or Rorscharch again). Could this be one of the reasons the Monster Path seems open to be both good and bad character, judging by the wording of the update?

islandtrevor72 wrote:

you can use that as internal storyline and knowing how to make bombs or hijack planes becomes backstory and not something the game has to endorse with a path or actual powers.

Endorse? I'd hope that this game doesn't ENDORSE bombing public buildings any more than it does building giant robots or spraying hallucinogenic gas around, or for that matter provide endorsement for putting on a mask and trying to fight crime. More on this below... However, setting bombs and hijacking aircraft is something most supervillains could do.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

Quote:
This makes me wonder how far we can push the envelope in Mission Creator UGC... I'm gonna try. Wish me luck..
I am sure you can set a much more mature tone in the mission creator than the devs will in the overall game... but even there I think there might be guidelines as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

No doubt. But I'd do so only with maturity, not for (IMO) bad taste or moral gross out or exploitation. One of the things I think UGC could provide would be yet more Path-specific content such as you got in those first 20 levels. So for example if you've levelled up the Path of the Detective, you could get appropriate cerebral UGC missions in which you have to go detecting, finding clues and solving mysteries. Some such Paths would be more suited to realistic or mature content than others.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I would like to say that I don't think (or at least hope) you consider a game where you are encouraged to commit wanton murder by attacking helpless people who are unable to fight back as fun. I think you more or less misspoke in your original post when you said you wanted a path that mimics 'real-life terrorist'. Perhaps you could re-explain what you really mean because I think we are all (I know I am) hung up on the concept of real terrorist with real terrorist actions as a playable character.

Why? This is a serious literal question: why? For one thing, you seem to be saying that killing pixellated cops, soldiers, warriors and superheroes is acceptable, and criminals for that matter, but pixellated civilians is not (the operative word being 'pixellated'). Why is that?
Personally, I'd have a limit when it comes to a game hurting pixellated children or pixellated animals, and glad to say most devs and gamers would agree, but otherwise: just call me Magneto (and maybe not all of them though, when you consider the popularity of Freddy Krueger and Pennywise the clown as horror characters. As another limit, I'd never feel motivated to make a character who was a paedophile or eater of children, either. Well, maybe the second one, but it'd have to be a pretty amazing concept.)
Another limit I'd have for the most part would be any kind of racist or antisemitic character, or at least visibly racist in any way. Same for homophobia or misogyny or other kinds of real-life prejudice, although, as with real-life terrorism above, some kind of fictional or fantastical bigotry like hatred of psychics, extraterrestrials or mutants in the Marvel sense would be okay, since it wouldn't apply to anyone playing the game or living on the planet. I say "for the most part" since most kind of cynical career criminals would harbor prejudice of some kind, if only out of habit or peer pressure, so inventing a character who robs banks, deals drugs or kills for a living and yet is completely fair and politicallly correct seems unrealistic. I just wouldn't voice it or make a deal of it for obvious reasons, nor take it to exploitative extremes (check out this blog for a good reason why not: http://ontologicalgeek.com/on-the-realism-of-sexism/ )
One exception to this was after I watched JK Simmons playing this character: relevant part starts @ 3:50 - NOTE, MATURE: http://tune.pk/video/2764037/oz-gangs-the-aryan-brotherhood#
I genuinely considered making a villain toon in CoH that was an expy of him. That's a character who, if they were real, would happily kill me and most of the people I know in real life, so the fact I'd be okay with a toon like that says a lot both for what a great actor JK Simmons is, and for the fact that I don't feel any need to like or relate to villainous fictional characters in order to consider them a good character or an effective villain, and that in an MMO which is at least in part a big vanity exercise or ego-wank as the British say where you show off your creativity and toon-customization styling skills as much as your gaming ability, I would have no problem with making an avatar who is a despicably vile monster capable of anything with virtually no redeeming features whatsoever and is about as far from me as my ass is from the Sun. Compared to what some great crime and horror characters do before lunch, shooting people on the street wouldn't be nothin', so just point me at em.

This brings up the point that some people do feel they need to like a villain as a character full stop in order to like them as a bad guy in the context of the film/book/whatever. I can't disagree more, in fact in many ways the opposite is true. I can totally understand having sympathetic and complex villains, but all good characters are complex and sympathetic in some way anyway. As a player of CoH, you make a character based on a concept and let them rip in the way that is consistent with that concept. If the concept is a genocidal maniac, that's how you roll. It's similar in ways to writing about a fictional character and (if you RP, or even if you don't) to playing a character as an actor.
I guess if I had to say WHY it's fun to play as a villain, as they were apparently less popular on CoX, it's the ego-inflation of impressing other players with having such a demonic character concept as your toon with a well written description or summary etc in the bio-tab. That, and it's just fun to blow shit up. I guess that's ego-serving as well, since it's about inflicting shock and awe and gaining notoriety. My main toon was on redside, he looked like Red Skull with the chitin mask and a suit and was based equal part on film characters Le Chiffre (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMx7v8XHNA4 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_y7YEIphts) and partly on Keyser Soze (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdeCPGNRjOU). Why? Same as Schillinger expy, same as a terrorist, same as a Joker or Bane expy, same as most other redside toons people make for a game like this, you're not supposed to LIKE the bastards, they're meant to be scary. IMO, at least. Consider the example a short while ago when Lord Nightmare posted a YT video of Dr Doom being Doom, camping it up in a song about being a diabolical cape-swirling complete dastard (and if he had a tache he'd probably twirl that too) of the kind you get on Sautrday morning cartoons, and I countered with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmVnHOWI7I4
the point there being that a more realistic criminal is more intimidating, not just if he's played by a live actor but because the real issues they'd represent have more emotive resonance with an audience because we know they're real (and might even have experienced or witnessed their effects firsthand) and so it makes a good counterpoint to have a character like that in a superhero setting - and I did I mention I liked Punisher? There you go, that's the entire point of him, his stories and his enemies in the Marvel universe. DC doesn't really have a direct equivalent, but it does have John Constantine and characters who face more realistic issues at times. The other point in those two respective vids is that to be a supervillain it seems all you need is a huge ego and no conscience.
For another, when you say "I don't think (or at least hope) you consider a game where you are encouraged to commit wanton murder by attacking helpless people who are unable to fight back as fun" I must remind you again that this game contains playable supervillains, and then perhaps direct you to this list (just for starters): http://hero-envy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-top-10-most-evil-villains-in-comics.html

I'd add that I wouldn't call any of those characters obscure, and in fact several of them are A-List villains. They are about as evil as you can find in superhero comics, and while only one is what I'd term a 'cosmic' type character, the matter of such character also cmes up: if commtting wanton murder of helpless people makes a character unenjoyable to play, does that mean I shouldn't see any such Cosmic space opera archetypes like Thanos, Darkseid or Galactus among the villains? And there should be no such Path for that kind of villain? Since they have bodycounts not just in hundreds but in entire global populations, right? So they must be unplayable as characters?
I'd also say again that many human enemies you would target as a villain character in this game would be comparatively helpless against your attacks after a certain point, from ordinary cops to Longbow-types to whatever. And if you're not havign fun spreading fear and horror among decent members of society, you really ain't cut out playing for the redside...
Seriously, I think you are taking it all too seriously. I will ask you, though: what kind of redside characters did you create in CoH, that you would consider acceptable?
To conclude, I'd refer you to this update https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans/posts/650323
which pretty much answers the question of whether there will be terrorists as we commonly understand the term in CoT. All I asked in my original post is whether this villain archetype would be represented in a Path in some way, which I still hope for, and the fact no dev has fully denied this in the thread I take as a positive sign on the point. I got a couple character concepts loosely worked out some which should blow Titan City away, or should I say TERRORIZE your ass, so I hope there'll be content that suits them.

"TRUST ME."

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 10 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Wow. And people complain

Wow. And people complain about MY walls of text..... :)

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

Why? The MO of a terrorist you just described could easily be applied to any number of comicbook supervillains, .

Quote:

And that differs from the exploits of a generic megalomaniac supervillain how? As far as I am aware, comic book villains have targeted innocent people for as long as there have been comic books.

Quote:

One thing I like most about superhero comics is the great disparity in their universes which, in some ways, mirrors the disparity of POV in real-life society.

Quote:

Again, that just sounds like most supervillains you are describing..

I could go on with these types of quotes from you last post. Almost every counter point you make is of the variety 'it happens in comics so why not in the game'. Arguments of this type are frustrating because it takes a separate discussion to explain why it can't be used in this context.

The short version is...Games and comics are different mediums and as such have different rules in storytelling. One a story is being told to you the other is a story you help write. I am not willing to go into the long version for this discussion.

instead I will just reply to the last part that shows how (at least to me) you have made a confusing and ill thought out suggestion.

Quote:

Why? This is a serious literal question: why? For one thing, you seem to be saying that killing pixellated cops, soldiers, warriors and superheroes is acceptable, and criminals for that matter, but pixellated civilians is not (the operative word being 'pixellated'). Why is that?.

You made this comment in response to me asking you to explain what you meant by 'a path that mimics a real life terrorist'.

Your question here does not take into account the idea of what a game is ...or rather you want a different game than is being made. From a pure game mechanics standpoint the difference is that pixellated cops, soldiers, warriors and superheroes are designed to be an opponent. Pixellated civilians are not. Using one as a target is a combat game...using the other is a murder sim.

Intellectually I can agree that there is little difference between the two...but morally there is a huge difference. Its that difference that will determine the games rating. The fact that you do not see this means it is unlikely you will ever change your opinion.

Quote:

Personally, I'd have a limit when it comes to a game hurting pixellated children or pixellated animals.

And this is where everything just gets nuts to me. You can understand the difference between pixelated children and civilians but cant see the difference between pixellated cops and pixelated civilians?

Quote:

As another limit, I'd never feel motivated to make a character who was a paedophile or eater of children, either. .

and

Quote:

Another limit I'd have for the most part would be any kind of racist or antisemitic character, or at least visibly racist in any way. Same for homophobia or misogyny or other kinds of real-life prejudice,.

You understand how certain concepts are distasteful or inappropriate but fail to see this in the concept of terrorism.

After a detour into the cathartic nature of playing a villain in a game you go on to say

Quote:

For another, when you say "I don't think (or at least hope) you consider a game where you are encouraged to commit wanton murder by attacking helpless people who are unable to fight back as fun" I must remind you again that this game contains playable supervillains, and then perhaps direct you to this list (just for starters): http://hero-envy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-top-10-most-evil-villains-in-comics.html.

You follow this comic book reference with a lot more comic book references. Yet you failed to answer the question.

You talk about 'real life terrorists' then site comic book villains. I literally have no idea what the heck you are suggesting.

What do you mean by 'real life terrorist' because the Joker is not a 'real life terrorist'?

What do you think a typical story and its completion goals would be like?

What rating do you think this game is going to have?

How is introducing mechanics that allow you to kill foes that cannot fight back good for the game?

With so much of your response being contradictory to itself these are all important questions that should be answered.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Wow. And people complain about MY walls of text..... :)

Pshaw. You're a piker when it comes to WALL OF TEXT CRITS YOU!!!


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Why? The MO of a terrorist you just described could easily be applied to any number of comicbook supervillains, .
Quote:
And that differs from the exploits of a generic megalomaniac supervillain how? As far as I am aware, comic book villains have targeted innocent people for as long as there have been comic books.
Quote:
One thing I like most about superhero comics is the great disparity in their universes which, in some ways, mirrors the disparity of POV in real-life society.
Quote:
Again, that just sounds like most supervillains you are describing..
I could go on with these types of quotes from you last post. Almost every counter point you make is of the variety 'it happens in comics so why not in the game'. Arguments of this type are frustrating because it takes a separate discussion to explain why it can't be used in this context.
The short version is...Games and comics are different mediums and as such have different rules in storytelling. One a story is being told to you the other is a story you help write. I am not willing to go into the long version for this discussion.

You mean you won't defend or explain your stated opinion, as I did? Your choice. But I never said the storytelling in this game should behave exactly as if it were a comic or any other kind of lit, so you didn't have to state it all.

Quote:

instead I will just reply to the last part that shows how (at least to me) you have made a confusing and ill thought out suggestion.
Quote:
Why? This is a serious literal question: why? For one thing, you seem to be saying that killing pixellated cops, soldiers, warriors and superheroes is acceptable, and criminals for that matter, but pixellated civilians is not (the operative word being 'pixellated'). Why is that?.
You made this comment in response to me asking you to explain what you meant by 'a path that mimics a real life terrorist'.

No, I didn't. I made it in response to you stating you hoped I wouldn't find fun in a game where you as a villain can/must kill unarmed and/or innocent people. And you didn't answer the question.

Quote:

Your question here does not take into account the idea of what a game is ...or rather you want a different game than is being made. From a pure game mechanics standpoint the difference is that pixellated cops, soldiers, warriors and superheroes are designed to be an opponent. Pixellated civilians are not. Using one as a target is a combat game...using the other is a murder sim.

I don't think I ever suggested making the redside game a farming mission of civilians who don't offer any kind of resistance. lol, I don't think that would even constitute a "game" by definition. I was talking entirely about the moral implications, which is the only issue you seemed to be concerned about.

Quote:

Intellectually I can agree that there is little difference between the two...

Agree with who? I never said that. I was talking about moral implications.

Quote:

but morally there is a huge difference. Its that difference that will determine the games rating. The fact that you do not see this means it is unlikely you will ever change your opinion.

Rating is a separate issue, which I know would be a stumbling block, but that has nothing to do with the moral issues. You don't seem to be listening to me at all...

Quote:

Quote:
Personally, I'd have a limit when it comes to a game hurting pixellated children or pixellated animals.
And this is where everything just gets nuts to me. You can understand the difference between pixelated children and civilians but cant see the difference between pixellated cops and pixelated civilians?

You failed to answer my question, which was intended to make you think about the complexity of this issue. It becomes even more complex when you factor in that the player character in this context is a villain with no morals. Seems you are the one with trouble understanding the issue.

Quote:

Quote:
As another limit, I'd never feel motivated to make a character who was a paedophile or eater of children, either. .
and
Quote:
Another limit I'd have for the most part would be any kind of racist or antisemitic character, or at least visibly racist in any way. Same for homophobia or misogyny or other kinds of real-life prejudice,.
You understand how certain concepts are distasteful or inappropriate but fail to see this in the concept of terrorism.

There is a point I made which directly addressed that, if only you'd read it. No, I won't signpost it.

Quote:

After a detour into the cathartic nature of playing a villain in a game

lol, skimmed, right? Explains a lot.

Quote:

you go on to say
Quote:
For another, when you say "I don't think (or at least hope) you consider a game where you are encouraged to commit wanton murder by attacking helpless people who are unable to fight back as fun" I must remind you again that this game contains playable supervillains, and then perhaps direct you to this list (just for starters): http://hero-envy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-top-10-most-evil-villains-in-comics.html.
You follow this comic book reference with a lot more comic book references. Yet you failed to answer the question.

Which question do you mean? Pretty sure I explained my position to death and answered all your points.

Quote:

You talk about 'real life terrorists' then site comic book villains. I literally have no idea what the heck you are suggesting.

Sigh. In answer to your concerned queries, I explained my position to death to leave you in no doubt what I meant. You skimmed all that, missed my point, ignored my own questions and now want me to repeat myself? Nope.

Quote:

What do you mean by 'real life terrorist' because the Joker is not a 'real life terrorist'?

My point, for the last time, is that supervillains like the Joker often kill civilians. Thus the moral argument against most terrorists would also apply to most supervillains. The most important thing to remember is that this is a GAME.

Quote:

What do you think a typical story and its completion goals would be like?

Getting xp? But I know what you mean, and the answer could be successfully extorting the authorities or killing people if they don't do as you demand, blowing up a monument or important building, sabotage, robbery, etc. That and not being defeated by the superheroes or the cops/army while you're at it. Many terrorist groups also operate as criminal organizations, using the drugs trade for money, buying and selling guns and explosives, having front companies as civilian cover, etc, just like the mob. The difference between that path and other villain paths would be how people (anyone, including the media) views you, IMO, as well as how the player character in-game views themselves.

Quote:

What rating do you think this game is going to have?

I don't know. I know the point you're making, and my answer is still the same: I don't know.

Quote:

How is introducing mechanics that allow you to kill foes that cannot fight back good for the game?

I'm not repeating anything, I'll just refer you to my previous post, comprehensive as it was. I'm not going to help you out here, if you can't be bothered to read it, you must not want an answer very much.

Quote:

With so much of your response being contradictory to itself these are all important questions that should be answered.

You seem to be spoiling for an argument which, beyond this spat so far, I'm not getting into. I answered your questions and asked my own, the rest is up to you.

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Wow. And people complain about MY walls of text..... :)

I hear you, but islandtrevor72 had serious concerns about the moral issues here, and my own position on them, it warranted a serious answer and explanation from me. For that I make no apologies. Now whether he listens is another matter...

"TRUST ME."

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
I'll wager 400 quatloos on

I'll wager 400 quatloos on the newcomer.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Aw, we didn't even get a

Aw, we didn't even get a chance to do this:

Next time we gotta get it right.

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Are Terrorists too "mature"a subject for a 4 color game?
Well first of all ask a some of the comic book terrorists we've seen.
Aim, Hydra, The Watchdogs, Flag Smasher, there are others but these are off the top of my head.
I have no doubt that this game will also feature would be conquerors and tyrants, like Lord Recluse
Superheroes always fight terrorism.
Next let's compare terrorism to some other evils that might be in the game.
Will there be drugs?
Will there be murderous monsters out to devour human flesh or souls?
But the real question is not should these things be in the game,
there can't be any doubt that such things will be there
The real question is whether or not players should be able to do these kinds of things
It does create a lot of potential problems
But if they can't then why let them play villains at all?
I've said all along that it's a terrible terrible idea
I have no reason at all to change my mind.

Like I said to islandtrevor, providing a Path and/or content for any type of villain character doesn't or shouldn't make any kind of moral case for them, no more than making superhero content constitutes an argument for actual vigilantism, so let's not get carried away here. But the reason for including villains as an option should be the same as for making heroes and option and for the making this game an MMORPG in the first place: to allow players to be creative and make their own characters. Denying the chance to cover supervillains as well as heroes would serve no purpose but to make a point that should be obvious to anyone already: committing crimes and being mean to people is a mistake. I'd see no reason to patronize anyone by reminding them of that. It would also deny people half the creativity they'd have by inventing villain characters, so what is gained by it, Paladin?
I'm also interested to know, since you've said you don't like morally ambiguous superheroes and prefer the outwardly pure of heart kind, what kind of villains do you prefer? Do you feel the need to LIKE them as a character, or as I outlined to islandtrevor, are you fine with finding them reprehensible since that doesn't diminish them as a character in the context? I recall you saying you didn't like it when Catwoman is portrayed as a heroine, which implies the same thing to me.

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

Gluke wrote:
How cartoony is cartoony? If we take it to mean the "cartoon violence" seen, say, in the Nolan Bat-films or most action movies, then we could have terrorists indeed. I, for example, would want to be able to do this:
All indisputable acts of terrorism, yet reasonably cartoonish in nature to be in action movies, rather than political dramas. Someone please tell me this game can be teen-oriented without being completely toothless?
"Cartoony" means non-realistic, non-extreme violence. So long as what's shown on screen does not exceed what we saw in CoH, it should pass muster. It's definitely not a matter of style. Even the unquestionably humorous and cartoony Borderlands games are rated "M" (or "18" for PEGI). Or take the new XCOM games, if one prefers a comparison to something other than a FPS: "16" for The Bureau and "18" for Enemy Within, or "M" for both from the ESRB, in each case largely due to the level of violence. (As a point of interest, Going Rogue was rated "16".)
Two of your examples could work, and they could work for one important reason: they don't (directly) involve civilians. Anything that does not involve civilians, other than as what amounts to scenery, can probably be qualified as "crime" rather than specifically "terrorism". Beating up a bunch of guards and defeating some would-be superheroes to take a major landmark hostage (it's a MMO, so destroying is probably not an option)? Sure. Setting off a car bomb at the mall

Well that could be the work of more than one type of villain. The fact that it's a mall (thus full of families with children) would be a deciding factor, but I'd be surprised if we don't see any carbombs at all in this game.

Darth Fez wrote:

or picking off all the dark-skinned NPCs on the street? Uh, no.

That would be racism, which the devs likely (and wisely) wouldn't show in any kind of glorifying or glamorizing light or context. For an example of this, observe the fact that in Captain America: the First Avenger, there is not one single swastika to be seen anywhere in shot throughout the whole movie, they use H for Hydra instead. Also compare the way the two terror groups with the same plan are shown in the movies Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down.

"TRUST ME."

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
(No subject)
TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Seriously I think allowing

Seriously I think allowing players to be villains takes so much away from the game that there's no need to ask what we gain by forbidding them. But you did ask so: What we would gain is a better game where people who want to play villains don't feel welcome and go somewhere else.
What we lose by allowing villains is freedom from such people.

I've also talked at length before about the fact that the game simply can't do villains justice because it can't be the kind of complete world where a villain with a fully realized motive would find missions that fit his motivation without being constantly also forced to do stupid generic missions that are really made for a different sort of villain.

What if I want to make a villain who's main goal in life is to eliminate a particular hero? That's a common enough type of villain in the comics. So I stalk that hero killing him over and over until the other player logs off or complains to the devs that I'm harassing him. And apart from following this guy around and harassing him what is the game going to give a villain like that to do?

Now suppose I want a terrorist, I pick an appropriate target of my wrath, most likely a corporation, a religious group or the government. I hunt them down and attack their buildings, & people. Are the devs really going to cater to such a character by providing basically a whole campaign full of activities related to his goal? I doubt it.

What if I want a serial killer? OH wait no killing combat. But seriously is the game going t let me do a lot of stuff in secret? Is anyone going to be on my trail. Am I going to be able to send taunting notes to the police? Or even leave false clues to confuse my opponents. Will I even leave real clues. If no player picks up the lead will the game provide a suitable police nemesis hot on my trail with the possibility of a cat and mouse game going on for several adventures. Once again I doubt it.

Heroes react to what villains have done and the game can do that with no problem, but Villains take the initiative. Which is something the game can't really handle. Their lives are focused on themselves to such a degree that everything has to be focussed on them or their story doesn't work. Since villains will always require much more work to provide anything like a satisfying game for them, they will either dominate the devs activities, or they will get cheated, (like they did in COV). Either way, they're going to ruin the game there is no way around it. The only type of Villains generic enough to work in an MMO are bank robbers, Drug dealers and mercenaries, That's it. OH you can also, make a character who just runs around doing whatever the game tells him to do, taking whatever missions he can get from whatever contacts are available at his level, but of course that's not role playing that's just hitting buttons and it doesn't matter what the story is because anyone who would enjoy that probably would skip past all of the text anyway.

Finally let me sum it all up with this: By including villains the devs take on a lot of extra work, and dedicate a lot of resources, making what in the end is not just one game (or even just 2 given the complexity of the alignment system) And the non hero versions of the game are the more complicated tasks. Time and resources are limited, and what goes into one of these games comes out of the others diminishing the overall quality of the final product. And the comic book world is after all primarily the superhero's world. That should be the primary focus of the game not this morally ambiguous crap, that will draw the wrong kind of crowd.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

You mean you won't defend or explain your stated opinion, as I did? Your choice. But I never said the storytelling in this game should behave exactly as if it were a comic or any other kind of lit, so you didn't have to state it all...

I didn't want to start an entire separate discussion about why certain elements from comics storytelling do not have a direct translation to a game storytelling. But okay ... fine. Before I do, I will preface this with the fact that when I use the term 'game' I mean a MMO that allows for players to create a personalized character as that is the relevant game type.

First it must be understood that the purpose of a comics stories, or most storytelling mediums be they novels, films ect, is to present a specific view on the subject matter. The author(s) set the scene then determine its progress and outcome. Every detail of the story is decided upon to further the story being told. The audiences participation is one of interpretation. They do not affect any aspect of the story and instead are a passive participant. Two people may see something different in the material but they do not change its completed presentation. An author(s) can take aspects they have already determined to be a factor of the story and change it at anytime or introduce new aspects as they see fit.

The purpose of a games story is of co-operative storytelling. Many aspects of the story are determined before hand...setting, antagonists and goals for example. But progress is only generally (for the most part) determined and the outcome is not set (at worst there are only a few outcomes but no outcome is a guarantee). This is where the co-operative part comes in. The player helps 'write' the story through his/her actions. The more options allowed to the player means that much more involvement they have in the 'writing' of the story. This type of storytelling is more ridged in its dealing of certain factors of the story...most notably those aspects under the players control.

To clarify further...

An author sets out to tell a specific story and through his use of setting, antagonists, protagonists, actions/motivations and all other factors expresses his viewpoint. Lets look at a unique scene (used in this thread)the Mos Eisley scene in Star Wars. The author determined the place to be one of danger, lawlessness and wonder (among other things). It is used to set the tone and feel of the scene taking place. If you change that location you change that tone.... for instance...if it was set in a happy Chuck-E-Cheese. Now you have a dismemberment, a smuggler and death all in a place next to kids celebrating a birthday. How about we just change the scene to another in the Star Wars Universe. Instead of Mos Eislel....what if it took place in Jabbas palace? Both are locations of danger, lawlessness and wonder....but the tone of the scene changes considerably. Now lets say both were options the player could choose as part of a mission. Choose one and a certain story is told....choose the other and a different story is told.

But lets look at the aspect you seem most concerned with...an antagonists with terrorist qualities in comic book styled storytelling and put it through the same lens.

SPOILERS FOR THE DARK KNIGHT DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT (if you have not please do ...its amazing)

To limit the inevitable "but this happened in issue 314' arguments lets just take a scene from Nolans 'The Dark Knight' and look at it from both sides. The scene where the Joker has planted bombs on both the boats more commonly known as the prisoners dilemma scene.

In that scene the Joker set a bomb on two boats then told the passengers of each that both boats would explode after a time unless one boat decided to press a button to make the other blow up. In truth there was no timer and each button was wired to the passengers own boat so if one group proved 'selfish' they would die.

The Joker, in that scene, acts very much like a terrorist (if he actually was or not is a separate debate). He has specific motivations and methods he employs. And the way it played out conveyed a certain message.

Now take another character and swap him for the Joker, lets say Bane from the Dark Knight Rises. His character would not employ the same methods or have the same motivations. Both Joker and Bane may threaten the boats but Bane would use that threat to draw police to the boats and either kill them or trap them while Joker was trying to give an object lesson. The Joker wanted innocent people to die to prove his point, while Bane is unlikely to want the anyone to die.

That's just two 'terrorist' style villains from the same storytelling universe. But it shows how an author uses one type of antagonist to tell one story and another to tell a different story.

Now lets take that scenario and look at it from a game standpoint with the player taking on the role of the 'terrorist' in the story. Well right off the motives cannot be predetermined... that's in the hands of the player to determine. This in turn means that the mission objective cannot be too specific. It also means that foes need to be introduced or challenges need to be applied. In essence the entire scenario is at once gutted and then remade.

Which brings me back to my original point. The reason why Nolan used the Joker and gave him the motivations and methods he did was to tell a specific story. That story cannot be told in the same way in the context of gameplay.

This is why when you say things like

Quote:

The MO of a terrorist you just described could easily be applied to any number of comicbook supervillains.

they do not fit the context of the discussion. There are storytelling reason why they do the things they do, have the motivation they do and their success or failure is what it is that are more complex than just being an example of a 'terrorist' in a comic.

So using

Quote:

And that differs from the exploits of a generic megalomaniac supervillain how? As far as I am aware, comic book villains have targeted innocent people for as long as there have been comic books.

as the basis for your argument you are neglecting to consider that the reason why those villains do those things are to tell a specific story the author had in mind. Putting the actions of that villain in the hands of a player no longer tells the same story and changes the way it is told. Allowing a player to target the innocent civilians adds an element of morality to the story that is not present in the way an author uses an antagonist targeting civilians.

Now just to be clear. I am not saying that one type of storytelling is better than the other or that both mediums can't be used to tell stories with the same objective viewpoint. I am saying that HOW they do so follow different rules. Direct comparisons of comic book villains, or any character in general are just not valid in this context because the use of a character in the comic is vastly different than its use in a game.

I will reply to the rest in my next post.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

You mean you won't defend or explain your stated opinion, as I did? Your choice. But I never said the storytelling in this game should behave exactly as if it were a comic or any other kind of lit, so you didn't have to state it all..

I did have to state it because you failed to understand why those arguments and examples have little to no correlation to the discussion.

Quote:

No, I didn't. I made it in response to you stating you hoped I wouldn't find fun in a game where you as a villain can/must kill unarmed and/or innocent people. And you didn't answer the question..

The entire quote of mine you used dealt with my questioning your use of the term real life terrorist. Here it is again.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I would like to say that I don't think (or at least hope) you consider a game where you are encouraged to commit wanton murder by attacking helpless people who are unable to fight back as fun. I think you more or less misspoke in your original post when you said you wanted a path that mimics 'real-life terrorist'. Perhaps you could re-explain what you really mean because I think we are all (I know I am) hung up on the concept of real terrorist with real terrorist actions as a playable character..

If all you were responding to was the first sentence then why include my reason for saying it? I mean many other times in that post you take a single sentence quote from me and respond to it. The use of this entire quote made me think your question was to the overall thought and not just one part of it.

Regardless...I did answer your question. You asked what the difference between killing pixellated cops and civilians was and I explained why...but I am not above self quoting to emphasis...

islandtrevor72 wrote:

From a pure game mechanics standpoint the difference is that pixellated cops, soldiers, warriors and superheroes are designed to be an opponent. Pixellated civilians are not. Using one as a target is a combat game...using the other is a murder sim.

Intellectually I can agree that there is little difference between the two...but morally there is a huge difference.
.

If what I said does not make sense to you then I am willing to elaborate...but I did answer your question.

Quote:

I don't think I ever suggested making the redside game a farming mission of civilians who don't offer any kind of resistance. lol, I don't think that would even constitute a "game" by definition. I was talking entirely about the moral implications, which is the only issue you seemed to be concerned about..

I would like you to go back and re-read my posts. You will find that I referenced morality twice before this. The first time was in a list of possible issues with your suggestion that included game rating, public opinion and the game type the devs are making. The second use was to answer your question about the difference between killing cops and civilians in games.

As for you thinking I am saying you want to make ' the redside game a farming mission of civilians who don't offer any kind of resistance.'. My statement does not make the assumption that is what you want. It states the difference between each as a target in a game context. Again...it was answering your question... the one you said I didn't answer.

Quote:

Agree with who? I never said that. I was talking about moral implications..

This again was part of the answer to the question you say I never answered. You are right I was making the assumption that you did not consider a difference between civilian targets and combatant targets. As you never once... not even in your entire 'Personally, I'd have a limit when it comes to...' list of things you would not want express you saw a difference between them so I was led to think this way.

Quote:

Rating is a separate issue, which I know would be a stumbling block, but that has nothing to do with the moral issues. You don't seem to be listening to me at all....

Sorry, but is you who isn't listening.

My problems with your suggestion are not one primarily of the 'moral implications'. As you can see here...

islandtrevor72 wrote:

Honestly I don't think this has a place in CoT at all. There are too many drawbacks for too little gain with its inclusion. Public opinion, game rating, immature players, possible mishandled mechanics ect all could make this a serious issue for the game itself. And all we really get in return is a controversial (for controversial sake) story, a dubious path choice and some RP. .

and here

islandtrevor72 wrote:

In general I doubt that many stories will involve deliberate direct injury towards innocent civilians who cannot fight back.... that alone would likely boost the rating above teen..

and here

islandtrevor72 wrote:

on top of all the rating, public opinion and moral issues... it would just not be a game the devs are making..

and here

islandtrevor72 wrote:

The truth is...its the tone of the stories that will decide if the action is teen or higher. There is a big difference in tone when you have a villain suicide bomb a coffee shop of innocents vs one who physically attacks a military base full of mech suits. That's true of any violence you find in games. Huge difference between your strong guy who punches a helpless foe into orbit and one who fights a giant robot..

and most notably here

islandtrevor72 wrote:

If you want your character to have the same motivations and ideals as a terrorist (not sure why you would personally) you can use that as internal storyline and knowing how to make bombs or hijack planes becomes backstory and not something the game has to endorse with a path or actual powers. .

My issues with your suggestion are not of its 'moral implication'. Only once do I bring up morals and as I said its one of 4 things I see as potential issues with your suggestion.

The last quote here obviously shows that you can make any character you want to make and give it any motivations or ideals you see fit. But I do not see any gain that outweighs the possible issues with this type of character being an endorsed archetype through the use of missions, paths or powers. Your character is your character ...it can be what you want it to be but asking that the game include anything that encourages, rewards or glorifies hot button topics such as terrorism is at best very naïve and at worst dangerous to the games long term existence.

Quote:

You failed to answer my question, which was intended to make you think about the complexity of this issue.. .

I did answer your question....you maybe did not like my answer or did not understand it ...I dunno...but I did.

I also understand the complexity of the issue....to a much greater degree than I think you do. You state your personal limits when it comes to children and animals yet fail to include that other players may have those same limits when it comes to civilians. It was a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the actual issues with the game including these type of stories by trying to bog things down in a philosophical debate about the morality of violence in video games. One I was not and am not inclined to engage in here...with you.

But lets look at the next part of that last quote...

Quote:

It becomes even more complex when you factor in that the player character in this context is a villain with no morals

Your personal comfort level in playing a character with no morals in no way changes any of the issues the game will face with the inclusion of stories, a path, mechanics or powers that focus on the injuring or killing of civilian class characters.

Issues you want to ignore in favor of a moral debate.

Quote:

There is a point I made which directly addressed that, if only you'd read it. No, I won't signpost it..

No need...I will...

Quote:

since it wouldn't apply to anyone playing the game or living on the planet.

I had read it. My reply takes your idea of not allowing bigotry in the game because it may 'apply' to others and expresses my disbelief that you do not see how the concept of terrorism can have an emotional response as well.

Racism, sexism, ageism .....ect do not just affect those it is directed towards. Just as terrorism does not just affect those who are victims of it. They have a far wider reach and touch people on an emotional level. To say that something does not apply to anyone simply because its not directed at them is a gross misrepresentation of how the real world works.

Quote:

lol, skimmed, right? Explains a lot..

Nope. I showed that I understood what you had said when I used the word 'cathartic' and how it was not relevant to the discussion of a 'terrorist class' when I said detoured. If anything I was dismissive of it.

At that point in the discussion I was getting frustrated with the fact that you continued to try and direct things away from every issue I had expressed previously. Instead wanted to discuss points you felt you could 'win'.

Quote:

Which question do you mean? Pretty sure I explained my position to death and answered all your points..

The question of what you meant by a 'real life terrorist' with ' real life terrorist actions'. Up until that point all you had said was that comic books villains kill civilians and tried to say that this makes them just like a real life terrorist. You repeat this thought below to which I will reply in full.

Quote:

Sigh. In answer to your concerned queries, I explained my position to death to leave you in no doubt what I meant. You skimmed all that, missed my point, ignored my own questions and now want me to repeat myself? Nope..

No you didn't explain your position. You repeated the same mantra 'comic villains kill so it should be allowed'. I read it all and the questions I did not answer I explained why I wasn't going to (except one which I will go into in a bit).

As far as missing your point... its entirely possible, but from my point of view your 'point' is either ones that I don't consider applicable or ones I simply do not agree with.

Quote:

My point, for the last time, is that supervillains like the Joker often kill civilians. Thus the moral argument against most terrorists would also apply to most supervillains. The most important thing to remember is that this is a GAME..

Ok, I see now that you do not know what terrorism means. Its not just the actions or end result but also the MOTIVE behind them. Terrorism in not just simply killing civilians....its using violence and the threat of violence to further a political, social or religious agenda.

The 'moral argument' of a civilian being killed is not the same 'moral argument' when discussing terrorism. The fact you think they are is shocking.

Regardless...morality is not going to be the deciding factor in the inclusion of a 'terrorist class' (for lack of a better term) in the game. They will be issues similar to the ones I brought up and others I have not considered. See ...I remembered it was a game.

Quote:

Getting xp? But I know what you mean, and the answer could be successfully extorting the authorities or killing people if they don't do as you demand, blowing up a monument or important building, sabotage, robbery, etc. That and not being defeated by the superheroes or the cops/army while you're at it. Many terrorist groups also operate as criminal organizations, using the drugs trade for money, buying and selling guns and explosives, having front companies as civilian cover, etc, just like the mob. ..

None of these require a specific path dedicated to a terrorist archetype. Again...you are thinking of terrorism in terms of the actions they take without considering the motivations behind them.

The motivations are decided by the player not the content. I can have a gun trading character who does not support terrorism. I can have a character who kidnaps/kill civilians and not be a terrorist. I can have a character blow up, extort, make demands, sabotage, rob or any other action terrorist partake in and not be a terrorist character. Then again they could be if I wanted to.

The inclusion of a terrorist path would not add enough to the game to make it worth it when compared to the issues it would cause. Especially when you consider that you will most likely be able to tailor your personal experience in the game to fit that archetype without the game specifically pointing you towards it.

Quote:

I'm not repeating anything, I'll just refer you to my previous post, comprehensive as it was. I'm not going to help you out here, if you can't be bothered to read it, you must not want an answer very much..

Your idea of comprehensive and mine differ greatly. I personally don't consider repeating the thought 'its in the comics' a variety of ways as comprehensive. I will just chalk this question up to you not actually having an answer.

Quote:

You seem to be spoiling for an argument which, beyond this spat so far, I'm not getting into. I answered your questions and asked my own, the rest is up to you..

If I made you think I was spoiling for an argument I apologize. That was not my intent. I asked for clarification on points you made that I either did not understand or could just not believe were as they appeared. I offered counterpoints to show that I did not agree with many of the opinions you express. And finally I did not respond to aspects of your posts that were beyond the scope of the discussion so as to not get sidetracked from the original suggestion.

Which brings me to the question I did not acknowledge in any previous post I made in the thread.

Quote:

I will ask you, though: what kind of redside characters did you create in CoH, that you would consider acceptable?.

I played all sorts of villains, including one who was an inhuman monster whose food was the souls of others.

But this is completely irrelevant.

We are not discussing if a terrorist character is acceptable to play or not.....we are discussing if the devs should encourage this type of character with a path, mission choices, powers or mechanics. That's what you fail to understand... I don't care what character you play...I care about the impact having a path dedicated to terrorism would have on the game.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Right, I can Not imagine ever

Right, I can Not imagine ever playing a character who attacks the Population in support of some ideology. I'm not saying that anyone would.could/should not play such a character. However, I see no positives in having the Devs 'hard-code' such a thing into the game. If for no other reason than it being a player-generated background detail and not something that needs to be explicit.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 35 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

Darth Fez wrote:
or picking off all the dark-skinned NPCs on the street? Uh, no.

That would be racism, which the devs likely (and wisely) wouldn't show in any kind of glorifying or glamorizing light or context. For an example of this, observe the fact that in Captain America: the First Avenger, there is not one single swastika to be seen anywhere in shot throughout the whole movie, they use H for Hydra instead. Also compare the way the two terror groups with the same plan are shown in the movies Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down.

Well, yes, but terrorism, especially today, is rooted in some kind of prejudice. You can't honestly be suggesting that it's bad to allow for racism and the swastika (let's not forget that it is still a religious symbol) - heck, in America one could probably throw communism and even socialism into the same hat - because those somehow hit close to home, but who cares if a few dozen civilians are blown up in Turkey or Iraq, let's be able to do that in our game.

I've no doubts that there will be bombs and explosions galore in CoT. "Bomb" isn't some kind of shorthand for terrorism, after all. It's all about the intent. In CoH the PCs didn't go into the police station because they decided that they wanted to kill some cops. They did so to free another villain.

I don't know either of those movies. I may have seen a part of one of them, in which case the improbable attackers were North Koreans, not terrorists. Beyond that I can't comment on them.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Again, justas a headsup I don

Again, justas a headsup I don't have time now but will reply later.

"TRUST ME."

ConundrumofFurballs
ConundrumofFurballs's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 21 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 16:03
Since no one else has posted

Since no one else has posted an official statement on this, I will.

At this time, terrorism is intended to not appear in game as a concept (where terrorism is defined as the "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal").

Yes, there will be villainous actions. Yes, there will be actions that are designed so that they force a hero to act. These actions will not be used in such a way as to incite terror among the civilians in Titan City or the world in which it exists.

We will not be including any content that results in the feeling of terrorism as a concept. We are producing a family game, with a targeted rating of "T for Teen".

Terrorism as a concept would result in a rating significantly far above what we are going for, as well as violating the theme of a four-color super-powered world. Additionally, it would result in families having to avoid large blocks of content; we want families to be able to play the entire game, and not have to shield their children from the game itself.

For your edification, we are expecting only four paths at launch: Street Hero, Spandex Hero, Spandex Villain, Street Villain.

Additionally, with respect to religion (since it came up...), we will not be featuring anything specifically related to any one religion over another except where to do otherwise would adversely affect the city or lore components. To be specific, there will be churches; it is New England, and to not have churches would reduce the realistic feel of a proper city. There will be crosses in the graveyard; these are a staple in graveyards, and to not have them would be unrealistic. Other religions and religious-affiliated material will appear where it is appropriate to the concept. We include these purely for the sake of realism. They are not intended to be anything other than a backdrop where their exclusion would interfere with immersion or have other potentially negative repercussions.

On the third topic that has appeared, I will refrain to comment because it isn't actually related to the game's lore.

I hope this clarifies things regarding what is intended for inclusion or exclusion in CoT.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Conundrum of Furballs

Composition Team, Staff Writer

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Seriously I think allowing players to be villains takes so much away from the game that there's no need to ask what we gain by forbidding them. But you did ask so: What we would gain is a better game where people who want to play villains don't feel welcome and go somewhere else.
What we lose by allowing villains is freedom from such people.
I've also talked at length before about the fact that the game simply can't do villains justice because it can't be the kind of complete world where a villain with a fully realized motive would find missions that fit his motivation without being constantly also forced to do stupid generic missions that are really made for a different sort of villain.
What if I want to make a villain who's main goal in life is to eliminate a particular hero? That's a common enough type of villain in the comics. So I stalk that hero killing him over and over until the other player logs off or complains to the devs that I'm harassing him. And apart from following this guy around and harassing him what is the game going to give a villain like that to do?
Now suppose I want a terrorist, I pick an appropriate target of my wrath, most likely a corporation, a religious group or the government. I hunt them down and attack their buildings, & people. Are the devs really going to cater to such a character by providing basically a whole campaign full of activities related to his goal? I doubt it.
What if I want a serial killer? OH wait no killing combat. But seriously is the game going t let me do a lot of stuff in secret? Is anyone going to be on my trail. Am I going to be able to send taunting notes to the police? Or even leave false clues to confuse my opponents. Will I even leave real clues. If no player picks up the lead will the game provide a suitable police nemesis hot on my trail with the possibility of a cat and mouse game going on for several adventures. Once again I doubt it.
Heroes react to what villains have done and the game can do that with no problem, but Villains take the initiative. Which is something the game can't really handle. Their lives are focused on themselves to such a degree that everything has to be focussed on them or their story doesn't work. Since villains will always require much more work to provide anything like a satisfying game for them, they will either dominate the devs activities, or they will get cheated, (like they did in COV). Either way, they're going to ruin the game there is no way around it. The only type of Villains generic enough to work in an MMO are bank robbers, Drug dealers and mercenaries, That's it. OH you can also, make a character who just runs around doing whatever the game tells him to do, taking whatever missions he can get from whatever contacts are available at his level, but of course that's not role playing that's just hitting buttons and it doesn't matter what the story is because anyone who would enjoy that probably would skip past all of the text anyway.
Finally let me sum it all up with this: By including villains the devs take on a lot of extra work, and dedicate a lot of resources, making what in the end is not just one game (or even just 2 given the complexity of the alignment system) And the non hero versions of the game are the more complicated tasks. Time and resources are limited, and what goes into one of these games comes out of the others diminishing the overall quality of the final product. And the comic book world is after all primarily the superhero's world. That should be the primary focus of the game not this morally ambiguous crap, that will draw the wrong kind of crowd.

You've actually made a good number of points here explaining why roleplaying "villains" in a computerized MMO game is currently hard to support well. For the record I don't think anyone has ever claimed that CoV completely nailed it to everyone's satisfaction.

But CoT WILL be allowing players to play villains. This is a fact you'll have to accept. Will it be able to handle it better than CoV did? Perhaps; perhaps not. But I suspect the only way computerized games will ever be able to fully support the proactive nature of villainy is for them to keep trying. Practice makes perfect after all. Anyone who's played pen-n-paper RPGs knows that it's currently far easier for a human GM to play flexibly enough to support players who want to do "villainous" things. But eventually computer games will become sophisticated enough to handle these things just as well.

I'd rather CoT do its best to advance the state of the art in "computerized villainy" than to take the attitude that "since it can't be perfect now we might as well not even try it". If computer game designers in general took your attitude on the matter we'd all still be playing Pong.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

(where terrorism is defined as the "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal")..

I am completely floored that websters dictionary actually changed the definition of terrorism to this completely meaningless drivel.

For the record the definition I grew up with was 'acts or threats of violence against a governments populace to a achieve a political, religious or social agenda.'

This new definition is so broad it can be applied to anything. A schoolyard bully would be guilty of terrorism if you use it.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
I wouldn't hold us back to

I wouldn't hold us back to Pong I assure you.
You seemed to have missed the point, that; I don't consider player villains to be a desirable goal to start with.

I do want a good superhero game, and I'm willing to put up with a lot to get it.
(I think that's enough to push us way past Pong)
I know there will be player villains, and that's one of the things I'm willing to put up with.
Though I do wish they'd, at least, put the villains off, to a future update, instead of having them at launch, because (I believe) that would greatly speed up the launch.

My point originally was that I don't see how we could possibly prevent terrorism from appearing in the game with the combination of player made missions and player villains. But in saying that I mentioned that I wish we didn't have player villains anyway and Gluke asked me what I thought the game would gain by excluding them. That's why I gave the spiel above, even though I know that decision has already been irrevocably set.
I wasn't hoping to change anyone's mind just answer a question about why I feel the way I do.

ConundrumofFurballs
ConundrumofFurballs's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 21 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 16:03
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Quote:
(where terrorism is defined as the "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal")..
I am completely floored that websters dictionary actually changed the definition of terrorism to this completely meaningless drivel.
For the record the definition I grew up with was 'acts or threats of violence against a governments populace to a achieve a political, religious or social agenda.'
This new definition is so broad it can be applied to anything. A schoolyard bully would be guilty of terrorism if you use it.

This is one of several definitions, most specifying political or other agendas. My point was to provide a base for what I was referring to as the concept of terrorism. Obviously the scale with which it is used is a substantial determinant as to whether something is or is not terrorism.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Conundrum of Furballs

Composition Team, Staff Writer

ConundrumofFurballs
ConundrumofFurballs's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 21 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 16:03
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Though I do wish they'd, at least, put the villains off, to a future update, instead of having them at launch, because (I believe) that would greatly speed up the launch.

I have to ask:

How do you believe that the inclusion of villains slow down launch?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Conundrum of Furballs

Composition Team, Staff Writer

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

This is one of several definitions, most specifying political or other agendas. My point was to provide a base for what I was referring to as the concept of terrorism. Obviously the scale with which it is used is a substantial determinant as to whether something is or is not terrorism..

My issue was not with your use of it.....but the fact that Websters made the change to begin with.

Its almost an Orwellian type change. This broad definition allows for the term 'terrorism' to be applied to any action the reader sees fit which in turn opens the door for a non-proportional response just by invoking the term. This type of re-definition is the same that dictators and would be dictators use to twist public perception a specific way.

Now before anyone gets all hot and bothered....I don't think that is what Websters is doing.... at least not intentionally.... but the over generalizing of the subject like this hinders proper discourse and hurts advancements in understanding. The fact that its a respected source like Websters makes all the more troubling to me.

So ConundrumofFurballs, your use of this definition does not bother me.... its that this definition exists. I am sure most people would understand that this definition is not exactly complete (as is evident by the comments in that link). I did not mean to imply that you personally did not understand what the term terrorism actually means and for that I apologize.

EDITED TO INCLUDE

It should be noted that the definition was from the dictionary for kids and as such Websters tends to simplify things. The problem is those simplifications are usually in terms of not including words in the description children would have to look up as well. In this case the simplification presents incomplete information.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
ConundrumofFurballs wrote:
ConundrumofFurballs wrote:

I have to ask:
How do you believe that the inclusion of villains slow down launch?

There is a lot of material that has to be prepared both for heroes and villains (and all of the others in between). These different types of characters will each require specialized content. As I said before, these different paths are in effect totally different games, and each one has to be a complete game. In addition there's the work of implementing a complete alignment system, with alignment mobility prelaunch. (Something COH didn't do until long after COV had been launched).
The more you have to do, the longer it will take. That seems simple enough.

ConundrumofFurballs
ConundrumofFurballs's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 21 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 16:03
I disagree with your feelings

I disagree with your feelings on this, but it is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I will say that we are treating hero and villain content, from a composition perspective at least, as different animals. We aren't just flipping a story from heroes and making it for villains, or vice versa. They are distinct. The overall tone and setting of the game does not change, but the perspective does.

Including the villain content, from a composition perspective, isn't costing us any more time than doing pure hero would. I cannot speak for art, or tech, or any other department, but for composition, it is not taking additional time.

You may or may not think that this is satisfactory to modify your position, and that is your choice.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Conundrum of Furballs

Composition Team, Staff Writer

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Paladin,

Paladin,

I could be wrong, might be, but I think the same Mission that a Hero gets might be reused for a Villain player just by allowing 2 to 3 Spectrum Options to pick from when conversing with the Mission Giver (doesnt need to be a NPC Person/Creature always).

So for example the 2 to 3 spectrum options might ask:

- Mission Giver Text:
Lorem Ipsum......Lorem Ipsum......Lorem Ipsum......

- Mission Giver Response(s):
1) Do Something Noble or Righteous (+1)
2) Do Something Indifferent to many (+0)
3) Do Something Vile or Underhanded (-1)

Now, I JUST KNOW you will ask if MWM will be consistently putting Noble or Righteous as the 1st one in each and every Response... and I cant say for sure, and I dont know if at least the text Colors will be consistent for the +1 (Blue'ish), +0 (Green'like) , -1 (Red'ish) responses, even if MWM's NPC Responses are not very clear for each and every response. :/

There might be an Option you need to enable for the Color Coding of responses through. Some players wont like that from the Get Go, so it should be Disabled at the account level?? Errr, No... you should see if for each individual PC Alt you roll. ;)

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Dude... Jesus Christ. You couldn't understand my points less if they were in fucking Swahili. I have to admit I got half way through your second post there (#48) on my thoughts, how relevant they are and y'know, what's wrong with me, and gave up since not one single sentence of mine had you managed to correctly read or take on board. I then picked up again near the bottom to see no improvement. That's impressive.

To summarize: you all but asked if I was a terrorist sympathizer, I explained how not and where I was coming from to the best of my ability, and you [italic]went mad from the revelations and fled into the peace and safety of a new dark age[/italic]. Or may as well have done, for all the good it's done you, me or anyone else who's been following this hot mess for the past stupid number of days. I hope at least you understand this: bye bye.

So, after this "detour" from conventional reality, back to the thread:

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Darth Fez wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:

Gluke wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:
or picking off all the dark-skinned NPCs on the street? Uh, no.
That would be racism, which the devs likely (and wisely) wouldn't show in any kind of glorifying or glamorizing light or context. For an example of this, observe the fact that in Captain America: the First Avenger, there is not one single swastika to be seen anywhere in shot throughout the whole movie, they use H for Hydra instead. Also compare the way the two terror groups with the same plan are shown in the movies Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down.
Well, yes, but terrorism, especially today, is rooted in some kind of prejudice. You can't honestly be suggesting that it's bad to allow for racism and the swastika (let's not forget that it is still a religious symbol) - heck, in America one could probably throw communism and even socialism into the same hat - because those somehow hit close to home, but who cares if a few dozen civilians are blown up in Turkey or Iraq, let's be able to do that in our game.

I didn't suggest anything like that. I would, and this was part of my whole thinking when making the original post, rank terrorist actions at the deep end of criminal behaviour, but still as criminal behaviour. I would class a terrorist as a criminal archetype and therefor would like to see a Path that reflects it. If people object or don't want to see such a fictional character in a game, I'd respect that, but still want to see it myself. However, the swastika as used by Nazis is a very specific symbol particular to them and insulting to (well anyone decent but ostensibly:) Jewish people, Gypsies, black people, gay people and anyone else they targeted. I don't think it's a double-standard to regard the swastika as off-limits but some kinds of terrorist activity as permissable when it comes to deciding on appropriate content for a superhero game.

Darth Fez wrote:

I've no doubts that there will be bombs and explosions galore in CoT. "Bomb" isn't some kind of shorthand for terrorism, after all. It's all about the intent.

I mentioned carbombs to use your own example of a carbomb outside a mall. It was the mall part that I found unlikely, owing to the presence of children, but not necessarily the carbomb nor a terrorist group to plant it.

Darth Fez wrote:

In CoH the PCs didn't go into the police station because they decided that they wanted to kill some cops. They did so to free another villain.

Terrorists have often been extremely big on the principle of their members in jail being POWs, marytrs etc, and not just criminal lunatics, so they could have had a smilar mission to that. But if they had gone in there just to kill cops, it could've been classed as a terrorist action.

Darth Fez wrote:

I don't know either of those movies. I may have seen a part of one of them, in which case the improbable attackers were North Koreans, not terrorists. Beyond that I can't comment on them.

They make terrorists in North Korea, too. I forget the details in Olympus Has Fallen,the precise connection between the N. Korean government or army and the bad guys like training or funding, but they were specifically a terrorist group, North Korean nationalists working against the South, and not the N. Korean army.
My point is that they were made to look like a frighteningly effective and (in)credible threat from the overwrought title onwards, with their good-looking, Affably Evil leader and great organization (particularly here, in the best sequence of a fairly mediocre movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJAK3vqxSLA yeah, and I want to do THAT in CoT too), meanwhile the baddies in White House Down with a near-identical premise are a group of white nationalist domestic terrorists of the racist, South Will Rise Again sort, and they are made to look like buffoonish hicks with more bullets than brains who can't get anything right. So it's okay to make an Asian threat from a foreign country (politically well-timed, as well) look cool and impressive as bad guys go, but a bunch of xenophobic domestic ones can't look too impressive, maybe as it might glorify racism and inspire real hicks like that, and also make America look powerless or out of control if it has as much to worry about from its own citizens as it does with other countries'? The comparative points of those two films released around the same time.
(I also just read a bit in Dude, Where's My Country? (2003) recently where Michael Moore says, regarding 9/11: "Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time, so, George [Bush], let me ask you a question: if fifteen of those nineteen hijackers had been North Korean, and they killed 3,000 people, do you think the headline the next day might read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"?")

But this is drifting off-topic now.

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Seriously I think allowing players to be villains takes so much away from the game that there's no need to ask what we gain by forbidding them. But you did ask so: What we would gain is a better game where people who want to play villains don't feel welcome and go somewhere else.
What we lose by allowing villains is freedom from such people.

Lol, so I guess people like me, you mean? Why do you see other players that way, and what is the distinction of "such people"? In my time on CoH and in DCUO, I never saw any trends among one side that didn't apply to the other, from immature players and spammers to control freaks.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I've also talked at length before about the fact that the game simply can't do villains justice because it can't be the kind of complete world where a villain with a fully realized motive would find missions that fit his motivation without being constantly also forced to do stupid generic missions that are really made for a different sort of villain.

I get your point there, but that would apply equally to the heroes' side. There are many kinds of superhero tropes, and ppeople are free to invent whatever kind of character they want.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

What if I want to make a villain who's main goal in life is to eliminate a particular hero? That's a common enough type of villain in the comics. So I stalk that hero killing him over and over until the other player logs off or complains to the devs that I'm harassing him. And apart from following this guy around and harassing him what is the game going to give a villain like that to do?

lol, the same thing Hush or Joker or Riddler do when they're not pursuing Batman, I guess. Again, it's just a game, and some element of enjoyment is up to the initiative of the player. I would be surprised if any player is so obsessed with acting out one single scenario with their toon that no other content holds any interest for them. If that were the case, then they'd be pretty impossible to please regardless what the game is like.
As for that villain trope, stalking another player is not advisable in any MMO, I'd imagine, but if you really want to play that angle then either choose a player who will play along in PVP, RP or whatever, or choose an NPC. If there is such a system in place for the latter, then all the better. In the meantime, whenever I make a hero toon for CoT @ beta/launch, I hereby give permission for The Mighty Paladin to stalk my ass.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Now suppose I want a terrorist, I pick an appropriate target of my wrath, most likely a corporation, a religious group or the government. I hunt them down and attack their buildings, & people. Are the devs really going to cater to such a character by providing basically a whole campaign full of activities related to his goal? I doubt it.

Why? If it's because of the subject matter, then as per the whole point of this thread, I hope we do get a path like that. That seems to me what the Paths are all about.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

What if I want a serial killer? OH wait no killing combat. But seriously is the game going t let me do a lot of stuff in secret? Is anyone going to be on my trail. Am I going to be able to send taunting notes to the police? Or even leave false clues to confuse my opponents. Will I even leave real clues. If no player picks up the lead will the game provide a suitable police nemesis hot on my trail with the possibility of a cat and mouse game going on for several adventures. Once again I doubt it.

lol, you're coming up with some good content ideas there, so again I hope that's EXACTLY the kind of thing we get in the Paths. That may be one route in the Path of the Monster you have there. Why are you doubtful about it?

TheMighytPaladin wrote:

Heroes react to what villains have done and the game can do that with no problem, but Villains take the initiative. Which is something the game can't really handle.

We don't know that yet. Have you kept up with the updates? This one in particular might address some of your fears: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans/posts/650323

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Their lives are focused on themselves to such a degree that everything has to be focussed on them or their story doesn't work. Since villains will always require much more work to provide anything like a satisfying game for them, they will either dominate the devs activities, or they will get cheated, (like they did in COV). Either way, they're going to ruin the game there is no way around it. The only type of Villains generic enough to work in an MMO are bank robbers, Drug dealers and mercenaries, That's it. OH you can also, make a character who just runs around doing whatever the game tells him to do, taking whatever missions he can get from whatever contacts are available at his level, but of course that's not role playing that's just hitting buttons and it doesn't matter what the story is because anyone who would enjoy that probably would skip past all of the text anyway.

I get what you're saying, but it's still both too much of a generalization of players, their expectations, their toons and the content and too early to say. My main toons on CoH and DCUO were/are villains, and I never ran out of things to do or felt the character concept was unfulfilled by the content presented. For one thing, I was still conscious it's a game with levelling and xp to gain, I never felt the need to take the character idea so seriously as to never suspend disbelief even when I'm repeating an instance. For another, even if a player was a hardcore RP'er who was in character from the second they logged in to the moment they logged out again, then their character's 'story' would continue as they interacted with other players, wouldn't it? If their enjoyment of the game came only from acting out the narrative of their toon's life of crime to the max, then it would up to them to either develop that character as they see fit, or else to keep the character in a self-fulfilling cycle of madness or whatever.
The point is, if a gamer has such a demanding expectation of the gameplay, then they must expect to take the initiative as the author (so to speak) of their toons' character, to improvise and be creative themselves. And all that is to say nothing of actual content updates. The player can't expect the content of an mmo to provide all the RP character development, if that's what they're looking for.
I understand your point, but have faith in the devs, we haven't seen all this stuff in action yet...

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Finally let me sum it all up with this: By including villains the devs take on a lot of extra work, and dedicate a lot of resources, making what in the end is not just one game (or even just 2 given the complexity of the alignment system) And the non hero versions of the game are the more complicated tasks. Time and resources are limited, and what goes into one of these games comes out of the others diminishing the overall quality of the final product. And the comic book world is after all primarily the superhero's world. That should be the primary focus of the game not this morally ambiguous crap, that will draw the wrong kind of crowd.

lol, a crowd full of what, nuts like me? I have no doubt there will be some immature players in this game, as with any game, but I see little reason to think they'll all be redside. I saw plenty of douchebags in the blue, and plenty of perfectly good gamers in red.
About the ambiguity, either you don't equate the moral ambiguity with realism, or you don't care for realism in this context at all? Moral ambiguity is a big part of modern comic superhero characterization, it adds another dimension to the alignment system, to progress and to immersion, so hard work as it may be for the devs, I'm both extremely grateful for their efforts and optimistic about what they can achieve.

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
My point overall, is that,

My point overall, is that, having seen what is planned for the Paths system, I wonder if one of the paths will be a "terrorist" of some kind.
I realize the very word terrorist is bound to incite controvery, but let us say that, just as there is a Path for a Cat Burglar and another for a Gang Leader, there may be one for an activist of social and political reform determined to effect change in the status quo or the system - drastic or slight - who uses force, up to and including lethal force.
They may regard themselves as in the right, they may be very conscious of imparting a particular message, but the central idea is they do not commit crimes just for money or fun, they do it to impose their own philosophy on others, or at least attack what they view as the ruling philosophy already in place, using violence and the threat of violence, and they use the tactics of a terrorist to do so.
With that as the foundation of a path, you could end up with very different characters, with at one end characters like V or Anarky or other moderately sympathetic agents of change who oppose the establishment but generally avoid killing innocent people, and at the other end of the spectrum you could have genuine fascists and fanatics who specifically target people in order to force the authorities/superheroes/whoever to do what they demand. They could be genuinely working towards what they think is the greater good or callously superficial about it. But a crucial thing is the Path would not be telling the player what their in-game motivation, cause or grievance is -THAT is the background part that most folks here are referring too as being not "endorsed" or hardcoded into the content by the devs - it would rather be setting out the way their actions come across, how they are perceived and how the course of their criminal career runs. In short, the same things that other Paths seem to promise to do for other types of villain activity, but if they have a distinct MO or task requirement, it would be to maintain their public profile clearly, release info and impart messages clealry or cryptically and to monitor the media to see how their messages come across, then act accordingly to steer public perception via media towards what they want. They could thus act just to spread fear, panic and paranoia, or make people mistrustful of the government, cops or superheroes (rightly or wrongly), or to make their cause sympathetic to people (or superheroes) by exposing and targeting perceieved wrongdoings. They can kill indiscriminately, or strictly purposefully, or refrain from killing but cause destruction of other kinds, etc. When you lay out potential like this, you see how varied a path like this could be, as you see how it mirrors very disparate types of super-characters from Lex Luthor to the Punisher to Ozymandias (Watchmen) to the Joker or to Batman himself in comic book terms, any of which could be defined as a terrorist or one who commits acts of terror, and either freely takes credit/blame for it or pins it on others to affect change. Certainly this Path would be of a darker and more sober tone than many others, but referring again to what I said to islandtrevor, such disparity of option is IMO a good thing. The option is there if you want it, but you're free to ignore it if you don't.
But bear in mind that since we haven't seen exactly what the Path contents are, how they run, how much freedom of choice routing there is or anythign else that EVERYTHING here is speculation. Just as we don't know how much freedom a Cat Burglar path might give (eg if you can only rob certain people in each stage as you level or whether it's more free, whether you can give all your stolen goods to the poor, put them on ebay or burn them all as a gesture in Titan Square and have differing effects with different routing for each such decision, all from level 1) we don't know how much wide the choices of a conjectural path of this kind would be.
You might call this Path the Anarchist, although that would be politically narrow, so maybe the Activist or something similar, who knows?
Personally, I still think this is a potentially awesome idea, but after that detour with islandtrev I think I lost a few IQ points, so really I wouldn't take my word for it.

EDIT: after ConundrumOfFurballs' reply above, #52, I realize that at least partly we won't get this. Oh well. I hope that some of the ideas outlined in this post might make an appearance in some form or another, such as the media conscious activist etc, and while I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to see content of this type, it has to be T-rated and so can't be as dark or realistic as one might expect. I'm still looking forward to the game, so bring it on. ;)

"TRUST ME."

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
TheMightyPaladin wrote:
TheMightyPaladin wrote:

I wouldn't hold us back to Pong I assure you.
You seemed to have missed the point, that; I don't consider player villains to be a desirable goal to start with.
I do want a good superhero game, and I'm willing to put up with a lot to get it.
(I think that's enough to push us way past Pong)
I know there will be player villains, and that's one of the things I'm willing to put up with.
Though I do wish they'd, at least, put the villains off, to a future update, instead of having them at launch, because (I believe) that would greatly speed up the launch.
My point originally was that I don't see how we could possibly prevent terrorism from appearing in the game with the combination of player made missions and player villains. But in saying that I mentioned that I wish we didn't have player villains anyway and Gluke asked me what I thought the game would gain by excluding them. That's why I gave the spiel above, even though I know that decision has already been irrevocably set.
I wasn't hoping to change anyone's mind just answer a question about why I feel the way I do.

No I didn't miss your point. I just categorically reject the idea that "villain players" in games like these can (or even should) be avoided despite whatever opinionated laundry list of rationalizations you come up with.

I want a "good superhero game" as well. And since superheroes can't exist without supervillains the very notion that human players could (or again should) not play as either as they choose is almost nonsensical regardless of the challenges involved. It would be like trying to play chess with only one set of pieces or, to computerize the analogy, it would be like playing a version of Warcraft where human players were not allowed to play as the Orcs. I would actually argue the lack of "player villainy" is one of the fundamental reasons Champions Online is a relative failure as a "superhero" game.

I wasn't hoping to change anyone's mind just answer a question about why MOST PEOPLE feel the way I do.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 10 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I don't know what the data

I don't know what the data looks like across different games, but I always believed that CoX did the villains pretty well, at least in terms of missions, powers, etc. The reason I never got intellectually or emotionally invested in any villain characters I made was mostly personal choice. I always wanted to be Spider-Man or Captain America, I never wanted to be Doctor Octopus or The Red Skull.

I wonder what kind of numbers they get in Star Wars in terms of "Rebel Allliance" versus "Empire".

Assuming you can create parity and set up the villain mechanics and powers in CoT to be on par with the hero stuff, I personally still don't think that's going to make everyone want to play more villains than in CoX, and CoX was way more hero than villain, for the most part. I think people are just more moved by heroes and want to be heroes more than they want to be villains. As the old saying goes, every villain is the hero of their own story.

Edit: Masterminds, given their ability to generate swag faster than most other builds, were arguably the BEST AT in CoX, for all "greedy" intents and purposes, and at first they were only available as villains. Even that didn't cause me to want to play my one villain MM character a lot. I created and leveled and Incarnated out my HERO Mastermind by the end, and there was my villain, still languishing at like level 30 at the end of the game.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

You couldn't understand my points less if they were in XXXXXXX Swahili..

Yup, when someone points out just how stupid your argument is its best to blame them for not understanding you.

I'll take my 400 quatloos now please.

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

No I didn't miss your point.

Well, your response sure did

Lothic wrote:

I wasn't hoping to change anyone's mind just answer a question about why MOST PEOPLE feel the way I do.

A question no one asked, or probably ever would.

And you guys seriously used to wonder why I prefer to solo.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

I'll take my 400 quatloos now please.

I've seen you in the challenge ring a few too many times to ascribe the role of "newcomer" to you. I'm also well acquainted with your Modus Operandi.

Nice try.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
I never said I was the

I never said I was the newcomer...

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 35 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

I didn't suggest anything like that. I would, and this was part of my whole thinking when making the original post, rank terrorist actions at the deep end of criminal behaviour, but still as criminal behaviour. I would class a terrorist as a criminal archetype and therefor would like to see a Path that reflects it. If people object or don't want to see such a fictional character in a game, I'd respect that, but still want to see it myself.

We'll have to disagree. Terrorism involves criminal acts just as racism tends to involve criminal acts, ranging from vandalism to murder. It's the intent behind those crimes - ideology vs personal gain, simply put - that makes them so repulsive compared to a murder that occurs during a robbery, or even the targeted death of another individual. There's a reason why such villains tend to be dehumanized, as you point out about the movie White House Down.

In any case, since we have an official answer to the question any further discussion is futile.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

I'll wager 400 quatloos on the newcomer.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I'll take my 400 quatloos now please.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I never said I was the newcomer...

You fail at comprehension. This is why we can't have nice conversations.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
How betting works....

How betting works....

You bet on an outcome.... if you are right you get the wager...if you are not you pay the wager....

And THATS why we can't have nice conversations. You think you are smart.

I cant wait until there is an ignore feature on the forums because I have no willpower.

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Sooo, how about those

Sooo, how about those Villains? ;)

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
They're bad

They're bad

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 35 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
And that's why they get

And that's why they get caught.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

TheMightyPaladin
TheMightyPaladin's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/27/2014 - 18:25
Caught?

Caught?
No that can't happen.
If they really got caught, they'd complain that the game wasn't fair and they'd probably quit playing.
Instead they'll just get beaten and revive in some hide out or corrupt doctor's office.
The prisons will likely be empty, or revolving doors with less security than my house.
And I'll be just shocked if we ever see the inside of a courtroom.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Aaaaand ... islandtrevor72

Aaaaand ... islandtrevor72 wins the Don't Feed The Troll sign. Again.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

You fail at comprehension. This is why we can't have nice conversations.

So I'm not going mad here? I was starting to worry...

"TRUST ME."

Gluke
Gluke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/05/2014 - 06:36
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

Quote:
You couldn't understand my points less if they were in XXXXXXX Swahili..
Yup, when someone points out just how stupid your argument is its best to blame them for not understanding you.
I'll take my 400 quatloos now please.

I probably shouldn't ask, but I also have little willpower sometimes... do you honestly believe you understood my intended meaning at time of writing better than I do?

"TRUST ME."

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 57 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Gluke wrote:
Gluke wrote:

So I'm not going mad here? I was starting to worry...

Let's just say that if MWM ever needs to hire a projector, they'll know who to call. Fortunately, a lot of us doubt the need will ever arise ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
Personally, I am not opposed

Personally, I am not opposed to the general concept of the OP. However, terrorist is such a loaded term that it would never be implemented. Taking what you said in the OP, I would suggest repackaging it into the Path of the Idealist. One such idealist in comic/movie lore would be Magneto, who in his own mind is not the villain. He has an Ideal that he is striving to achieve and is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve that Ideal. Regardless of cost.

Just a suggestion.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

I probably shouldn't ask, but I also have little willpower sometimes... do you honestly believe you understood my intended meaning at time of writing better than I do?.

Of course I can't read your mind....but that's hardly the point.

I understand what you want well enough to not agree with it and find your arguments to be faulty.

You want to have a 'path' that allows you to create a villain that explores the conceptually darker nature of humanity in a presumably safe arena of a video game.

I disagreed with this game being the place to do that because the 'gain' of opening those options is not worth the 'cost' in issue it would create. Issues like public opinion, rating, loss of sales, immature players and possible mishandled mechanics. You failed to address any of those in a way that changed my opinion.

Furthermore you made arguments to me that had no relation to what I was concerned with.

You drew comparisons between fictional characters actions and the real life concept of terrorism as an example of what you want.

What I find flawed with this argument is that those fictional villains you use as an example are written to be the antagonist of the story. As such they can do things that are very reprehensible because they directly influence the gravity of the story and its antagonist. When you turn them into the 'protagonist' of the story you run into issues. When I say 'protagonist' I mean make them a player character and allow the player to choose to act in the same reprehensible manner as those written to be antagonists. As a character in an MMO you can expect there to be an element of success equals reward, so when the 'goals' of the character are to commit atrocities there is the expectation of rewards for the successful completion of those goals. In a worst case situation you are rewarding people for crimes that are viewed as the worst possible. You have to see how that is going to be viewed by those outside the game as a bad thing. How it will affect public opinion of the game which in turn affects sales and ratings.

I also take great issue with your oversimplification of the concept of terrorism in general. This is not as simple as comparing the actions of one to the actions of another.

My issues with your entire suggestion have nothing to do with morality and I don't consider you a 'terrorist sympathizer'. I just don't think its good for the game.

I will take this opportunity to apologize for calling your arguments stupid. It was impolite and my only defense was that I had reached a level of frustration in both my personal life and in this conversation that pushed me beyond good sense. Its not an excuse but an explanation.

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Wow... I get distracted for

Wow... I get distracted for a couple months and all hell breaks loose.

Point one: Conundrum of Furballs clearly stated the game will open with four paths: Street Hero, Spandex Hero, Spandex Villain, Street Villain

Which makes the vast majority of this thread a moot point.

Point two: Mighty Paladin, as per his usual, does not comprehend how a "hero" game can include player villains.

To which I offer my usual nonsensical reply, "It just does."

Point three: Greedo, Solo, and poor misunderstood George Lucas.

Hollywood is not like the world you and I live in. It is highly insulated, built upon a foundation of fantasy, and earns its money by telling pleasing lies to gullible people like me who buy theater tickets, cable subscriptions, DVD collections, and Blu-Ray collections to experience the delusions they so lovingly prepare. Lucas tried to bury earlier versions of Star Wars because he wanted to control audience experience. Naturally, he failed. Sooner or later I'm sure "classic" versions of the films will be released, probably by his heirs.

Point four: Terrorists in MMOs, or more precisely, terrorist player characters in this MMO

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, so I will not try. I would not like to see any player characters have the ability to destroy the environment of the game. From my perspective, the civilians and civilian structures are part of the environment. Enemy NPCs (MOBs, in old school parlance) are not part of the environment. They are active game elements. So, to my way of thinking, there is a vast gulf between enemy groups and non-combatant civilian groups. The civilians are moving statuary and should not be subject to attack. Period. Not for any reason. Now, if a particular story line calls for attacks on civilians, then those civilians should be inside an instanced mission separate from the game environment. They should also have some means to respond to attacks. Perhaps they pull out a concealed weapon. Perhaps they grab a rock or garbage can and throw it. Perhaps it is only after the player attacks the civilian that they discover this particular civilian is a master of Krav Maga. They look like civilians and act like civilians unless directly attacked, then they become enemy NPCs. Giving players the ability to rain down destruction on an instanced environment is fine. Giving them the ability to destroy the shared environment (including civilians) is not fine. My opinion and mine alone. Others are free to agree or disagree as they see fit.

Therefore, if the game were to include any form of "terrorist" at some point in the future, all of those missions and mission parameters would have to be instanced because allowing those player characters to wreck destruction on the shared world is not acceptable to me. No exceptions.

Point five: terrorists are merely another kind of villain

This is a badly mistaken assumption that has been propagandized relentlessly by elements in society that do not understand the nature of terrorism in general, and Islamic terrorism in particular. Every terrorist has a political objective. Period. That objective might be a cover or disguise for simple wealth gathering or sadism (as in the Die Hard series), but this is extremely unusual and I can say with complete confidence it is not something I have ever encountered in the real world. All terror organizations are political in nature, even when they use religious justification for their actions. Terrorists are soldiers in a war with a specific agenda and terror is the strategy they use to fight that war. They are not the same as serial killers, serial rapists, drug dealers, grifters, or common thugs. It is a dangerous mistake to attempt to understand their organizations and motivations using the same thinking as one applies to understanding the criminal mind. They are not criminals. They are soldiers.

Therefore, terrorists do not belong in a super hero or super villain game, comic-style or otherwise. They belong in war games, even though they normally attack non-combatants and militarily meaningless targets. Because their goals and objectives are political, they are armies and not gangs. Granted, some of them are poorly organized and poorly equipped, but that does not make them thugs. Their motivations are completely different. Their emotional and psychological weaknesses are completely different. Their entire internal landscape is completely different. When you think of them as criminals you make it easier for them to accomplish their objectives because you put in place entirely ineffective and inefficient security measures. You cannot stop terrorism by using the same tools as you would use for fighting crime. Doing so just makes their job easier because they assume right from the beginning that they will have to find a way to avoid those kind of security measures. Because they think and plan differently than criminals, they simply go around security measures designed to stop crime. In most cases, it doesn't even slow them down.

In City of Titans, the one role they might be suitable for is as a unique and particularly troublesome NPC enemy group. It would take careful programming and writing to portray their political objectives and methodologies in a way that would be distinct from normal NPC groups. In CoX, the Malta group and the Skyraiders pulled this off brilliantly. The Council and Knives of Artemis and all the others, not so much. On the redside, the Longbow operations were very terrorist in the way they went about their business and organized the storylines. The covert hero mission story arcs, on the other hand, were less terrorist and more vigilante in their style, which I happen to think made for very effective storytelling.

But player character villains as terrorists would not make any logical sense to me at all. I would feel the same about them as The Mighty Paladin feels about player character villains: completely pointless and a waste of resources to develop. Save them for things like Call of Duty.

(Wall of text Crit+5)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

The themes you speak of are very mature and probably not suitable for a 4 color style comic book game. I personally would assume that issues like this, as well as issues like poverty, crime, drugs and other society ills will be used in more simplistic styles than the blurred lines you see in more realistic media.
Honestly I don't think this has a place in CoT at all. There are too many drawbacks for too little gain with its inclusion. Public opinion, game rating, immature players, possible mishandled mechanics ect all could make this a serious issue for the game itself. And all we really get in return is a controversial (for controversial sake) story, a dubious path choice and some RP.
A story that involves some of the themes you discussed (like a villain who thinks himself the hero or a terrorist plot to foil) can be included with little trouble but to draw attention to (and possibly glorify) a playable terrorist as sanctioned by the game is grossly dangerous.
The reason why stories like 'No Russian' work in those other games is because you are not in the drivers seat really....its in the game to provoke an emotional response and make the player choose his actions accordingly. The game is story driven and the story is one that is dark and thought provoking......this does not work well in an MMO that does not have a dark theme....all that happens when this type of story is introduced into games with a lighter tone is they stand out and become a jarring experience that is seldom enjoyable.
There is nothing wrong with games dealing with dark and mature themes (Until Dawn, Last of Us, CoD, Heavy Rain to name a few) but it would be very out of place and detrimental to a game like CoT.

Who says that it's 4 colour at all? One of the villains we have to fight is corpse candle, who's a serial killer, and another is the pyrebrands who are drug dealers... where are you getting 4 colour from?

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
4 color comics did not shy

4 color comics did not shy from violence or mature subject matter but it was handled in a simplistic manner. Characters such as Tarzan, Lone Ranger, Dick Tracy as well as other western/ gangster characters lost to time were all staples of the 4 color era and each dealt with vile characters committing crimes. The most common factor of the 4 color comics was that the lines of good and evil were clear.

If 4 color comics were still being published the idea of serial killers and drug dealers would have replaced mob bosses and booze smugglers.

Regardless... there is a huge difference between including a foe who is a serial killer in the game and creating content for you to play as that serial killer....which was the point of this discussion.

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
islandtrevor72 wrote:
islandtrevor72 wrote:

4 color comics did not shy from violence or mature subject matter but it was handled in a simplistic manner. Characters such as Tarzan, Lone Ranger, Dick Tracy as well as other western/ gangster characters lost to time were all staples of the 4 color era and each dealt with vile characters committing crimes. The most common factor of the 4 color comics was that the lines of good and evil were clear.
If 4 color comics were still being published the idea of serial killers and drug dealers would have replaced mob bosses and booze smugglers.
Regardless... there is a huge difference between including a foe who is a serial killer in the game and creating content for you to play as that serial killer....which was the point of this discussion.

Well in city of villains there was an alignment mission where you actually got to burn down a part Croatoa and in city of heroes there was a mission that actually portrayed a genuinely sympathetic villain in the form of the SWAT leader that was sick of watching innocent people die while heroes got free medicare and an instant teleporter to a hospital for free AND a big major villain that was sympathetic in a way that he was crazy and alone and didn't fully understand that he was hurting people in the form of the clockwork king! Just because something has one element of a genre, doesn't make it that genre!!! That's like saying a monkey and a bird are the same thing because they both have legs and live in trees, and while an MMO that is based on old pulp novels and comic books sounds cool, it's not what I put money behind! If I choose to play a villain? I should feel like a villain!!!

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 33 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Well, I'd rather play with

Well, I'd rather play with 256 colors, or more, but I still cannot imagine someone Wanting to be a villain. Villains are anti-social. Sure, they gather in gangs, so they can share the experience of being oppressed by society. However, villain gangs are also there as an avenue to advancement and all villains are just waiting for their opportunity to take advantage of their 'friends' and neighbors, to advance their own villainous career. Villains spend at least as much time fighting among themselves, as they do fighting Heroes.

I prefer to be among people who appreciate me for being a good guy.

Be Well!
Fireheart

notears
notears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 52 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Well, I'd rather play with 256 colors, or more, but I still cannot imagine someone Wanting to be a villain. Villains are anti-social. Sure, they gather in gangs, so they can share the experience of being oppressed by society. However, villain gangs are also there as an avenue to advancement and all villains are just waiting for their opportunity to take advantage of their 'friends' and neighbors, to advance their own villainous career. Villains spend at least as much time fighting among themselves, as they do fighting Heroes.
I prefer to be among people who appreciate me for being a good guy.
Be Well!
Fireheart

And that's your preference... but as a villain player and a roleplayer? I liked being the villain for many different reasons... there was more freedom to it and in roleplays the villain acted more as the GM of it all... I liked thinking of what my character would try next and work with other players to see what they would do... sometimes other people would come in with their villains and see how they would interact with my plots and even see who could out manipulate the other... and that was fun... look I understand if you like playing the hero rather than the villain, but if you honestly are saying that I shouldn't be able to the villain just because it's an option you personally wouldn't pick? That's just being selfish!!!

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 6 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote:
Quote:

Just because something has one element of a genre, doesn't make it that genre!!! That's like saying a monkey and a bird are the same thing because they both have legs and live in trees, and while an MMO that is based on old pulp novels and comic books sounds cool, it's not what I put money behind!.

Fine...we don't agree its not the modern version of 4 color. But I would suggest you actually go find out what 4 color actually was before you form this opinion.

Quote:

If I choose to play a villain? I should feel like a villain!!!.

This is what happens when you come into a dead thread and don't read any of it. You miss the point of what was being discussed and don't see all the times this was discussed before. You can play any villain you want but the game won't create a 'path' for every villain. But I am not advocating the removal of villains. I am simply saying that in a playable terrorist class is not suitable to CoT.

It really doesn't matter because it was already addressed by the devs. There won't be one.

I don't know what you think you 'put your money behind' but I doubt the game will ever include paths, missions or mechanics that allow you to realistically depict villainous or evil actions and still hope to be a teen game.

Really man...read at least a bit past the first post.

Pages

Topic locked