Now again, I wonder what sort of practical reason do you have for making sure that Overwatch is a superhero game? Is it just so you can argue for it to be on this list?
I was just arguing that it's reasonable to include it on the list. That doesn't require everyone to agree that it's a superhero game; presumably, if you don't think it belongs on the list you won't vote for it. It's at best an edge case, not a pure example of the genre.
Man, you have a lot of trouble understanding things. I'm not being stubborn or in denial. You're just not capable of having a discussion with a person of differing opinion without flying off into a rage. I didn't say that EVERYTHING fits the genre, but when you blur lines, a lot more stuff fits in. I didn't go off and say Three's Company is superheroes. I didn't say Days of Our Lives was superheroes. I didn't say Cujo was superheroes. You have trouble comprehending, maybe because of a language barrier, I dunno, but mixed in with your rage mode?
Now again, I wonder what sort of practical reason do you have for making sure that Overwatch is a superhero game? Is it just so you can argue for it to be on this list?
I was just arguing that it's reasonable to include it on the list. That doesn't require everyone to agree that it's a superhero game; presumably, if you don't think it belongs on the list you won't vote for it. It's at best an edge case, not a pure example of the genre.
That part in general wasn't really directed at you; you didn't go all up butts because someone said it doesn't belong.
I didn't say that EVERYTHING fits the genre, but when you blur lines, a lot more stuff fits in. I didn't go off and say Three's Company is superheroes. I didn't say Days of Our Lives was superheroes. I didn't say Cujo was superheroes.
Don't hide behind an implied language barrier. You did try reduction to absurd with equaling it with unrelated things like Mario Brothers or Star Wars. Don't act now as if you were playing gently and cultural and were attacked in return.
Please, it won't fly anyway. Besides, pasting YT videos into an angry post and then complaining how someone else is butthurt is ironic. Pot meets the kettle, eh?
The point is, this genre never was a monolith set in stone with some kind of untouchable canon or rules. There are some loose guidelines and that's all.
Look at all recent redesigns made to classic costumes, like Cap America, or Tony Stark, and ask yourself how much modernising it will take until legacy names will be everything what's left to separate modern take on the genre from what you see in the Blizzard's game.
Oh that's rich, you think I'm making angry posts? I'm not the one throwing insults around.
Language barrier or no, you're misunderstanding things I say.
I don't think it's absurd to say that Peter Pan is a superhero if we're using the broad range of criteria you want to use. Like I said from the beginning, it's the setting that can usually define what a superhero setting is. If all you require is that you have fantastic powers and fight bad guys Overwatch and Peter Pan is both of those things. That's why I think it's important that the setting recognizes it when the characters themselves don't fit exact criteria. Heck I've even given exceptions to the "rules" of what I think makes superheroes, because I understand that not all superheroes meet the same criteria; it's not a Venn Diagram where all things overlap at least somewhat. That's why setting, to me, can be used as a cornerstone when the characters themselves don't define themselves completely.
And what is so absurd about Peter Pan? Is it just because it's a kid's story? The whole "nope, he's from Neverland, can't be a superhero" thing is weak. He matches several tropes. At least I have a definable line and can point to it. You just use nebulous things like "the genre has passed you by and that pisses you off" arguments. "They're not costumes, they're "tacticool.""
I'm not using any broad criterias. Not sure when you read it.
My criteria for what kind of setting fits the genre are actually pretty strict. What kind of characters fit - likewise.
Never considered a gun toting Frank Castle a superhero, at best a guy who happends to share the setting with actual superheroes (unlike Batman, Frank hardly has a real costume, to begin with).
But seriously, if you repeat with the Peter Pan analogy, I think it's time to stop. Once again - the setting. You can have all kinds of superpowered characters, but the setting makes it viable.
If you had Peter Pan fighting magical supervillains in New Yourk, in a shared continuity with other characters doing the same, then he'd actually qualify as a superhero.
Guardians of the Galaxy are superheroes due to simple association to the Marvel superhero universe, the same way the Silver Surfer and Inhumans are, only with their origins not necessarily being from Earth, and their interactions with Earth-based Marvel superheroes. The setting to do with Guardians is still fundamentally superheroes.
And this is the key word that seems to be overlooked: association. Overwatch has no association to the superheroe genre established by their respective publishers. Peter Pan has no such association either.
Shoe-horning in your own justifications just because certain characters have certain visual motifs and general themes that are coincidentally, NOT intentionally, similar to that found in superhero mediums but lacking that association doesn't necessarily make what you claim is true.
Shoe-horning in your own justifications just because certain characters have certain visual motifs and themes that are coincidentally, NOT intentionally, similar to that found in superhero mediums doesn't necessarily make what you claim is true.
You do realise that this kind of definition is basically rejecting any idea of building any new comic universe outside of rehashing/rebooting Marvel, DC or Valiant? Short of going a way of a total homage, of course.
And this is the key word that seems to be overlooked: association. Overwatch has no association to the superheroe genre established by their respective publishers.
Urr... that would be because Blizzard doesn't have a previously established superhero setting. Are you saying that there can never be a new superhero setting?
Care to show an official source to state that their intentions all along was to introduce a new superhero setting while drawing from present superhero influences?
Also, a reminder that has little to do with actual superhero settings, but a lot to do with real world.
The term "superhero" is, technically, a joint trademark of both Marvel and DC. There are some efforts to void it, but still...
Which is why other publishers avoid using it and substitute a different wording instead.
Blizzard avoiding strict terminology may be coming from Activision lawyers to simply not have the trouble.
Now, forgive me about giving no **** to DC and Marvel claims and not following their mind games.
But seriously, if you repeat with the Peter Pan analogy, I think it's time to stop. Once again - the setting. You can have all kinds of superpowered characters, but the setting makes it viable.
Yes, the setting can be used as a cornerstone. The only difference between my idea of a setting and yours is that the setting has to recognize certain beings as superheroes, not just "any dude that can do stuff other people can't." That's where Peter Pan comes in. In my version of the setting, there is no one that recognizes beings with extraordinary powers as superheroes in that setting, so he doesn't count as a superhero. In your version, why does the setting prohibit him from being a superhero? Is it because he's not a cool badass? He fits several tropes. Modern setting (remember, he goes to London to visit Wendy), powers of flight and immortality, costume, magic, fights bad guys, etc. What, in your idea of setting, is what knocks him out of the superhero running? This is why I asked where you draw the line. Like I said, I have a defined line for when other tropes don't stack up but the character in question is a superhero by all other rights.
I'm not expecting an answer since the subject of my example is taboo, but that's all I've been trying to say and ask.
Guardians of the Galaxy are superheroes due to simple association to the Marvel superhero universe, the same way the Silver Surfer and Inhumans are, only with their origins not necessarily being from Earth, and their interactions with Earth-based Marvel superheroes. The setting to do with Guardians is still fundamentally superheroes.
And this is the key word that seems to be overlooked: association. Overwatch has no association to the superheroe genre established by their respective publishers. Peter Pan has no such association either.
Shoe-horning in your own justifications just because certain characters have certain visual motifs and themes that are coincidentally, NOT intentionally, similar to that found in superhero mediums doesn't necessarily make what you claim is true.
That's what I'm saying. Your "association" is basically the same as "lives in a setting that recognizes superheroes as such." Yours is much more succinct.
And this is the key word that seems to be overlooked: association. Overwatch has no association to the superheroe genre established by their respective publishers.
Urr... that would be because Blizzard doesn't have a previously established superhero setting. Are you saying that there can never be a new superhero setting?
No, you can have new superhero settings. Yeah, you can't use the word because of Marvel/DC bullying, but you can use whatever else fits. Metahumans, Superdudes, whatever.
The claim made here is that Blizzard hasn't claimed that Overwatch belongs to that type of genre. To them it's probably just sci-fi shooter, which fits it just fine, regardless of whether their characters have super powers.
Yes, the setting can be used as a cornerstone. The only difference between my idea of a setting and yours is that the setting has to recognize certain beings as superheroes, not just "any dude that can do stuff other people can't." That's where Peter Pan comes in. In my version of the setting, there is no one that recognizes beings with extraordinary powers as superheroes in that setting, so he doesn't count as a superhero. In your version, why does the setting prohibit him from being a superhero? Is it because he's not a cool badass? He fits several tropes. Modern setting (remember, he goes to London to visit Wendy), powers of flight and immortality, costume, magic, fights bad guys, etc. What, in your idea of setting, is what knocks him out of the superhero running? This is why I asked where you draw the line. Like I said, I have a defined line for when other tropes don't stack up but the character in question is a superhero by all other rights.
Is he fighting muggers, terrorists, or Cap Hook in London? No. It's just a prologue location, the rest of the book is a fantasy novel set in a different land.
That's a big difference in setting.
Guardians of the Galaxy or Silver Surfer are sort of spin-off to the core built around the characters like Spiderman or the Fantastic Four. If there was no Spiderman or Avengers, or any other Earth-based book, if Marvel cosmic titles would start in a void with no ties... They would be in a place no better than Peter Pan. For them association is important, because they lack the setting.
But the GoTG movie? Show it to someone who's not following the books (not really unheard of) or Marvel Universe (again, also happends) and you'll hear that it's a nice space opera/sci-fi comedy.
If the Overwatch characters were in a cyberpunk or space setting, likewise. There would be nothing really superheroic to them, just a sci-fiesque shooter. It's just the Earth they're based on, some of them having actual powers and having normal human backgrounds.
Blizzard avoiding strict terminology may be coming from Activision lawyers to simply not have the trouble.
This is a pure assumption and so far-fetched. None of the characters in Overwatch even come close in resemblance to well-known superheroes, and who says that it's even necessary for the terminology to be there to even have another company pursue a copyright lawsuit if they feel that plagiarism is involved?
The whole group of heroes (read: heroes, not superheroes. There's a difference) with exceptional abilities and gear going up against a hostile, dominant alien / AI entity in a dystopian future setting has already been done to death and a lot of the times that I've come across such mediums there has never been any association with superheroes. Overwatch looks to be one of them.
And like I mentioned previously, there is a difference between intent and coincidence.
The claim made here is that Blizzard hasn't claimed that Overwatch belongs to that type of genre.
I find a publisher's claims about the genre a work falls under nearly irrelevant to its actual classification. Blizzard is clearly playing around with superhero tropes (in fact, Titan was built around a whole secret identities system...).
And how does this prove that Blizzard actually has this legitimate concern all along that correlates with them not slapping the superhero terminology onto their team first person shooter, and how does it prove that they had the intent of making it a superhero-themed team first person shooter?
And how does this prove that Blizzard actually has this legitimate concern all along that correlates with them not slapping the superhero terminology onto their team first person shooter, and how does it prove that they had the intent of making it a superhero-themed team first person shooter?
And how your words prove the possibility is an assumption? I like my assumption better, it's equally founded.
Besides, anyone here even reads the fluff on the Overwatch site? "The world needs heroes"
It doesn't even read like a standard fluff for a shooter game.
I find a publisher's claims about the genre a work falls under nearly irrelevant to its actual classification. Blizzard is clearly playing around with superhero tropes (in fact, Titan was built around a whole secret identities system...).
Um, sure. I play this first person shooter where this elite soldier or a group of them wear balaclavas to protect their identities so that their personal lives outside of combat duty are not compromised. Does it make it a superhero game because it has a trope that is coincidentally similar to what is found in superhero mediums? Do I need to bring in gigantic mechs into it to make it more true?
Once again, intent versus coincidence. Also if we're going to conveniently ignore a publisher's classification about their game's genre and dismiss it as irrelevant, then Street Fighter is a superhero game, because hadoukens and sonic booms are clearly superpowers.
"Blizzard avoiding strict terminology may be coming from Activision lawyers to simply not have the trouble."
Check it twice because you jump the gun again.
And the possibility may or may not be there.
You know I'm starting to agree with what Biff mentioned about a language barrier problem.
Your wording implies that Blizzard had legitimate concern in avoiding using strict terminology in the first place. The "may" part has to do with assumption that Activision's lawyer's might have been involved in making some kind of legal advice.
Again, waiting on that proof that Blizzard wanted to factually avoid strict terminology like what you're claiming while still having the intention of making Overwatch a superhero-themed game.
Well I don't need to wait, because you're already admitting thatit can't be proven that Blizzard actually wanted to avoid slapping the terminology onto the game due to legal trademark concerns, as opposed to them actually having no intention to use that terminology and label their game as such in the first place.
The claim made here is that Blizzard hasn't claimed that Overwatch belongs to that type of genre.
I find a publisher's claims about the genre a work falls under nearly irrelevant to its actual classification. Blizzard is clearly playing around with superhero tropes (in fact, Titan was built around a whole secret identities system...).
The creator's claims are irrelevant? I'm not sure that's true. Personally, when I began creating my superhero comics, the genre was what defined basically everything I did thereafter. Superheroesdudes, comedy, family-friendly, modern/near-future setting, action, and absurd stupidity. Doesn't mean I can't stray, but to say that what genre I claim my comics to be is irrelevant is silly. Some of the stories I've written contain elements of romance and mystery, but that doesn't mean, at all, that those stories belong in those genres. They're still just silly-stupid superhero stories.
And I'll reiterate, that crossing off a few checkboxes in the superhero genre doesn't automatically plant it in that genre. Secret identities are not exclusive to superheroes; there are many and varied reasons why secret identities might be important to a character, and simply checking off a few other tropes doesn't just make that character a superhero.
The creator's claims are irrelevant? I'm not sure that's true. Personally, when I began creating my superhero comics, the genre was what defined basically everything I did thereafter.
Sure, but it's superheroes because you did that, not because you decided to call it superheroes.
The creator's claims are irrelevant? I'm not sure that's true. Personally, when I began creating my superhero comics, the genre was what defined basically everything I did thereafter.
Sure, but it's superheroes because you did that, not because you decided to call it superheroes.
But like my further examples, you don't just throw them into mystery and romance because elements of those are present. Simply employing a trope doesn't change the genre your product is in.
But like my further examples, you don't just throw them into mystery and romance because elements of those are present. Simply employing a trope doesn't change the genre your product is in.
Depends how heavily you do so. I can easily imagine romance supers (it's just a slightly different flavor of the paranormal romance genre).
But like my further examples, you don't just throw them into mystery and romance because elements of those are present. Simply employing a trope doesn't change the genre your product is in.
Depends how heavily you do so. I can easily imagine romance supers (it's just a slightly different flavor of the paranormal romance genre).
But just because it incorporates elements, doesn't mean it belongs in that section. Anyone buying my stories from the romance or mystery section are going to be sorely disappointed.
Okay, let's try this. Anne McCaffrey wrote a series of novels set on the world of Pern, featuring dashing young men (and, eventually, women) riding fire-breathing dragons to defend their people against a pernicious threat. Only the "dragons" were genetically-engineered lizard-equivalents native to the alien world of Pern that used psychokinesis to fly (and were able to teleport), the humans were explicitly not native to the world and often had trouble living on local crops, and the pernicious threat was that of fungal spores thrown off by the turbulent atmosphere of a planet (probably a captured rogue) in an extremely eccentric orbit. Also, much of the storyline revolved around the relationship between F'lar, leader of the last flight of dragons (due to an unusually large gap between attacks), and Lessa, a young woman with the strange ability to telepathically commmunicate with any dragon (the telepathic link is usually between a rider and his mount).
So, would you classify this as fantasy (dragon-riding warriors, pseudomedieval social constructs), SF (genetic engineering, alien planets, some later stories featuring an AI), romance (F'lar/Lessa, other pairings/groups over time), or supers (psychokinesis, teleportation, telepathy)? I mean, since everything has to fit into neat pigeonholes?
Or her later Talent stories - people with all manner of psychic abilities, and again often falling in love/lust/other emotional connections. Sci-fi (future setting in megacities, eventually using apportation for interstellar travel), supers (every psychic power you ever heard of, and probably a few you hadn't), romance?
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
Punisher is part of the super hero genre and he's just some angry jerk with a trench coat and some guns. Going by that, all that's required to be part of the genre is doing anything remotely heroic, and being superhuman in some way, even if you're not a mutant, magical, technologically enhanced, or from space.
@jon - it's all of the above. things don't need to have just one genre... just look at CO.
But just because it incorporates elements, doesn't mean it belongs in that section. Anyone buying my stories from the romance or mystery section are going to be sorely disappointed.
That's more an issue of quantity. If you've got 200 pages of romance and 100 pages of action, it's probably a perfectly fine entry for the romance section however you label it. If it's got 20 pages of romance and 280 pages of action, not so much.
...The Overwatch fits the bill, literally only one thing it lacks is a trademark of a known superhero franchise or being as blatant copycat with tags removed as is CU. Period.
I dunno. They show Tracer and Winston deploying a "Fastball Special." If I were Marvel, I'd be all over that. ; )
Edit: I do think it's funny how they have pretty much all the kids going, 'Mommy, mommy! Look a Sup..." and then nothing. It's like you can almost hear the lawyer clearing her throat.
Biff, I dunno what you are going for, but you are definitely out of your element on this one. You're trying to basically straw man your view in by making obtuse claims. Furthermore, there is a reason that Blizzard has not called it a super hero game; you know that little litigation that marvel and DC own the copy right to the term, at present and any forms of it, so yea. And remember, Overwatch was going to be their Titan MMO before, but because Blizzard has lost confidence in the current MMO market they shifted gears towards a more TF2 game. Hell, if the original trailer for Overwatch doesn't scream super hero to you, then I guess The Incredibles wasn't a super hero movie to you either. I mean seriously, Tracer, Widow, Reaper, Dr. Doomfist? These practically scream comic book names.
I should also point out some more tropes of the genre;
Winston a super intelligent ape that is a scientist, but at the same time, can be driven into a Hulk-like rage when his anger flairs up becoming a near unstoppable berserk machine.
Mei a scientist that has developed super freezing technology that can freeze her enemies in their tracks as a block of ice or use that technology to create ice structures to her own benefit.
Hanzo, an eagle eye person who uses a bow with uncanny accuracy and mystical ability.
Roadhog, a walking beef cake that lets his muscles do the talking and keeps himself going by inhaling a special drug.
Junkrat, an explosives expert that lost his own leg and comes up with crazy contraptions for his explosives such as billiard balls with smiley faces on them or a self propelling mechanized tire bomb.
Genji, a ninja that uses stealth and misdirection to go after primary targets (hey that sounds like Batman)
That video screamed SUPER HEROES so hard that my head exploded. Anyone looking to argue that it's not part of the genre either hasn't seen it or is being willfully dense ( or just has an inability to admit when they're wrong ).
Biff, I dunno what you are going for, but you are definitely out of your element on this one. You're trying to basically straw man your view in by making obtuse claims. Furthermore, there is a reason that Blizzard has not called it a super hero game; you know that little litigation that marvel and DC own the copy right to the term, at present and any forms of it, so yea. And remember, Overwatch was going to be their Titan MMO before, but because Blizzard has lost confidence in the current MMO market they shifted gears towards a more TF2 game. Hell, if the original trailer for Overwatch doesn't scream super hero to you, then I guess The Incredibles wasn't a super hero movie to you either. I mean seriously, Tracer, Widow, Reaper, Dr. Doomfist? These practically scream comic book names.
The video even ends with Tracer saying the world could always use more heroes for crying out loud.
Okay yeah, you've convinced me. By saying I'm throwing around strawman arguments while using a strawman argument in the same paragraph, you win the day. The Incredibles is very obviously a superhero movie because, not only do they employ the most basic of superhero tropes, but they also reside in a universe that very plainly and explicitly acknowledges them as "supers."
I've laid out very plainly what I think makes a superhero. I'd have to eat a really big burrito and then go take a big dump to have a crap to give about what you think of my standards. You're out of your depth because you're telling me my opinions are wrong.
And you really think that Blizzard is too stupid to even come up with the words "supers" or "metahumans" or something? This Overwatch thing looks more to me like a very nicely stylized GI Joe (they're basically soldiers with unique and varied skills and weapons, right?) with monsters and aliens thrown in the mix. It doesn't scream superhero to me, and you can't convince me otherwise, until Blizzard explicitly states that that's what their intentions are, regardless if they're "scared" of using the word superhero.
Also, "hero" does not automatically equal "superhero." You're grasping at straws with that one. I live on a very, very noisy street because there's a police station and a fire department just down the street. I see real heroes every day, but even they'd laugh if I called them superheroes.
Employing some superhero tropes does not make any character a superhero. Sorry.
That video screamed SUPER HEROES so hard that my head exploded. Anyone looking to argue that it's not part of the genre either hasn't seen it or is being willfully dense ( or just has an inability to admit when they're wrong ).
Dude, you're not smart enough to come at me like that. First off, I admit when I'm wrong all the time. Second, I've already said that it's how I define a superhero.
Honestly, the first thing that came to mind when watching that trailer was similarities to Destiny and Wildstar Online, since both games involve an organization of elite soldiers with special abilities and a reliance on exotic technology, only that Destiny has that whole far-future dystopian setting while Wildstar has that cinematic Dreamworks kind of art direction which is something I see in Overwatch.
Humanity on the brink of extinction / slavery fighting against an oppressing hostile global alien / A.I organization. How many dozens of times have I seen this trope being used already in entertainment mediums having nothing to do with superheroes? Heck, even XCOM 2 comes to mind but without the darker, more foreboding tone.
There are definitely tropes similar to that found in superhero mediums. For instance the hostile A.I organization thing is found in Marvel's Days of Future Past storyline, but that trope has already existed way before that. Isaac Asimov had already brought up the concept of A.I. waging war against humanity and seeking control over them decades before. Also look up the short story "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream".
There's also a huge focus on exotic tech with the game. Almost all the characters in that group picture look like they're wearing some piece of tech armor and holding some sort of tech gun or miscellaneous type of tech weapon. Hardly the type of diversity that screams "Superhero" to me as opposed to "High-tech soldiers of the future". Coincidentally and obviously power armor and general tech is something found in superhero mediums as well, but as with other important, defining tropes that are typically associated with superheroes, something that The Incredibles has a lot of since it was brought up, I'm not seeing them.
I'm still not entirely convinced that the game was truly intended to be a superhero game from the start. Also, the term "heroes" doesn't automatically equate to "superheroes". "Heroes" is a very general term used in all sorts of settings, be it modern, Tolkien-fantasy, sci-fi, bla bla bla.
Super heroes. Heroes that are superhuman ( for any given reason ). That's the only constant I've seen across the genre. Given how diverse the genre is, I'm glad I'm not in the position of trying to say it's restricted to only a few things, cause it'd suck having to try to fit in all the things super heroes have been into a narrow definition.
I mean sure, the video never explicitly calls them super heroes... but do you really need the movie, video, comic book, or novel that you're reading to have a character in them say "Those guys are super heroes" for you to know they are?
Why even bother fighting to restrict the genre anyway.
I mean sure, the video never explicitly calls them super heroes... but do you really need the movie, video, comic book, or novel that you're reading to have a character in them say "Those guys are super heroes" for you to know they are?
I'd be fine with Blizzard explicitly calling them superheroes and the game a superhero one, other than "futuristic hi-tech soldiers versus evil robots".
Until then, whatever floats your boat at this point. Some people see them as superheroes. Others see them as future-tech good vs bad guys. How the product is being presented to me has a lot more to do with the latter than the former.
I'd be fine with Blizzard explicitly calling them superheroes and the game a superhero one, other than "futuristic hi-tech soldiers versus evil robots".
Until then, whatever floats your boat at this point. Some people see them as superheroes. Others see them as future-tech good vs bad guys. How the product is being presented to me has a lot more to do with the latter than the former.
I know people tend to ignore it because they are constantly thinking that it isn't real, but, by law Blizzard cannot call them super heroes because Marvel and DC jointly own all forms of the word Super Hero under a copyright. It's being challenged but until they rule otherwise, it's not something you can swing around since Marvel and/or DC have sunk several start up companies for that very reason.
I know people tend to ignore it because they are constantly thinking that it isn't real, but, by law Blizzard cannot call them super heroes because Marvel and DC jointly own all forms of the word Super Hero under a copyright. It's being challenged but until they rule otherwise, it's not something you can swing around since Marvel and/or DC have sunk several start up companies for that very reason.
A simple search on google using the keywords "superhero trademark lawsuit" shows examples of people / companies explicitly using the term "superhero" in their actual product titles / headers, be it the actual comic book title, a name of child group activity program and even a brand of donuts.
This leads me to believe that comic books, games, whatever can still be explicitly described as being superhero -medium names- without having it in the actual product title and header. If that's the case then I don't see a problem with Blizzard being able to publicly refer to their game as a superhero one if they wanted to. The term doesn't even have to be actually used in the game itself to achieve that.
Right on CO's steam store page its genre is being tagged as "superhero" and even has the word in its product description. Even on the Arcgames page the tag is there. Seems like there isn't a problem with CO being identified as a superhero game right from the source. Funny that.
Right on CO's steam store page its genre is being tagged as "superhero" and even has the word in its product description. Even on the Arcgames page the tag is there. Seems like there isn't a problem with CO being identified as a superhero game right from the source. Funny that.
There's actually a bit of litigation history between Hero Games and Marvel, though I'm not finding the details (other than a dispute about the name Champions, which Marvel lost). It's not clear whether the Marvel and DC 'superhero' trademark can actually be enforced outside of comics (and it fairly specifically doesn't apply to RPGs -- they failed to respond in a timely manner to tabletop RPGs that called themselves superhero RPGs, including the Champions RPG), but Blizzard may not have wanted to push the point. Note that one reason for Cryptic buying the Champions Universe may have been litigation protection, it's harder to claim infringement when you can point to a long history of tabletop games.
Comments
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Please, it won't fly anyway. Besides, pasting YT videos into an angry post and then complaining how someone else is butthurt is ironic. Pot meets the kettle, eh?
The point is, this genre never was a monolith set in stone with some kind of untouchable canon or rules. There are some loose guidelines and that's all.
Look at all recent redesigns made to classic costumes, like Cap America, or Tony Stark, and ask yourself how much modernising it will take until legacy names will be everything what's left to separate modern take on the genre from what you see in the Blizzard's game.
And that's unavoidable.
Language barrier or no, you're misunderstanding things I say.
I don't think it's absurd to say that Peter Pan is a superhero if we're using the broad range of criteria you want to use. Like I said from the beginning, it's the setting that can usually define what a superhero setting is. If all you require is that you have fantastic powers and fight bad guys Overwatch and Peter Pan is both of those things. That's why I think it's important that the setting recognizes it when the characters themselves don't fit exact criteria. Heck I've even given exceptions to the "rules" of what I think makes superheroes, because I understand that not all superheroes meet the same criteria; it's not a Venn Diagram where all things overlap at least somewhat. That's why setting, to me, can be used as a cornerstone when the characters themselves don't define themselves completely.
And what is so absurd about Peter Pan? Is it just because it's a kid's story? The whole "nope, he's from Neverland, can't be a superhero" thing is weak. He matches several tropes. At least I have a definable line and can point to it. You just use nebulous things like "the genre has passed you by and that pisses you off" arguments. "They're not costumes, they're "tacticool.""
My criteria for what kind of setting fits the genre are actually pretty strict. What kind of characters fit - likewise.
Never considered a gun toting Frank Castle a superhero, at best a guy who happends to share the setting with actual superheroes (unlike Batman, Frank hardly has a real costume, to begin with).
But seriously, if you repeat with the Peter Pan analogy, I think it's time to stop. Once again - the setting. You can have all kinds of superpowered characters, but the setting makes it viable.
If you had Peter Pan fighting magical supervillains in New Yourk, in a shared continuity with other characters doing the same, then he'd actually qualify as a superhero.
And this is the key word that seems to be overlooked: association. Overwatch has no association to the superheroe genre established by their respective publishers. Peter Pan has no such association either.
Shoe-horning in your own justifications just because certain characters have certain visual motifs and general themes that are coincidentally, NOT intentionally, similar to that found in superhero mediums but lacking that association doesn't necessarily make what you claim is true.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
The term "superhero" is, technically, a joint trademark of both Marvel and DC. There are some efforts to void it, but still...
Which is why other publishers avoid using it and substitute a different wording instead.
Blizzard avoiding strict terminology may be coming from Activision lawyers to simply not have the trouble.
Now, forgive me about giving no **** to DC and Marvel claims and not following their mind games.
I'm not expecting an answer since the subject of my example is taboo, but that's all I've been trying to say and ask. That's what I'm saying. Your "association" is basically the same as "lives in a setting that recognizes superheroes as such." Yours is much more succinct.
The claim made here is that Blizzard hasn't claimed that Overwatch belongs to that type of genre. To them it's probably just sci-fi shooter, which fits it just fine, regardless of whether their characters have super powers.
Is he fighting muggers, terrorists, or Cap Hook in London? No. It's just a prologue location, the rest of the book is a fantasy novel set in a different land.
That's a big difference in setting.
Guardians of the Galaxy or Silver Surfer are sort of spin-off to the core built around the characters like Spiderman or the Fantastic Four. If there was no Spiderman or Avengers, or any other Earth-based book, if Marvel cosmic titles would start in a void with no ties... They would be in a place no better than Peter Pan. For them association is important, because they lack the setting.
But the GoTG movie? Show it to someone who's not following the books (not really unheard of) or Marvel Universe (again, also happends) and you'll hear that it's a nice space opera/sci-fi comedy.
If the Overwatch characters were in a cyberpunk or space setting, likewise. There would be nothing really superheroic to them, just a sci-fiesque shooter. It's just the Earth they're based on, some of them having actual powers and having normal human backgrounds.
The whole group of heroes (read: heroes, not superheroes. There's a difference) with exceptional abilities and gear going up against a hostile, dominant alien / AI entity in a dystopian future setting has already been done to death and a lot of the times that I've come across such mediums there has never been any association with superheroes. Overwatch looks to be one of them.
And like I mentioned previously, there is a difference between intent and coincidence.
You'd wish it was an assumption:
http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-1/marvel-and-dc-sue-small-publisher-over-using-word-superhero
The legal reality is a bit more absurd.
If a company can sue, they will sue. Even if it is not really possible to win in the court the trial itself will be costly and that's enough to force an agreement.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
And how your words prove the possibility is an assumption? I like my assumption better, it's equally founded.
Besides, anyone here even reads the fluff on the Overwatch site? "The world needs heroes"
It doesn't even read like a standard fluff for a shooter game.
Once again, intent versus coincidence. Also if we're going to conveniently ignore a publisher's classification about their game's genre and dismiss it as irrelevant, then Street Fighter is a superhero game, because hadoukens and sonic booms are clearly superpowers.
Please show the proof aka fact that was Blizzard's legitimate concern all along.
I don't have to.
Because I did not state it as a fact.
The wording was:
"Blizzard avoiding strict terminology may be coming from Activision lawyers to simply not have the trouble."
Check it twice because you jump the gun again.
And the possibility may or may not be there.
Your wording implies that Blizzard had legitimate concern in avoiding using strict terminology in the first place. The "may" part has to do with assumption that Activision's lawyer's might have been involved in making some kind of legal advice.
Again, waiting on that proof that Blizzard wanted to factually avoid strict terminology like what you're claiming while still having the intention of making Overwatch a superhero-themed game.
I'm implying that it might be a reason in a corporate world to avoid usage of a term only because of a lawsuit paranoia.
Though at the same time it can't be proved.
Nor it can be disproved.
I don't see how "may" as in "something may be" is an implication of "something is".
You're seriously jumping the gun here...
I was met with a situation when a perfectly good design had to be ditched because it was too similar to something else on the market.
You won't get the proof because I did not claim it as a fact, so I don't know from which part of your vast imagination this demand is coming.
But carry on. If you have a spare time for waiting...
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
heroesdudes, comedy, family-friendly, modern/near-future setting, action, and absurd stupidity. Doesn't mean I can't stray, but to say that what genre I claim my comics to be is irrelevant is silly. Some of the stories I've written contain elements of romance and mystery, but that doesn't mean, at all, that those stories belong in those genres. They're still just silly-stupid superhero stories.And I'll reiterate, that crossing off a few checkboxes in the superhero genre doesn't automatically plant it in that genre. Secret identities are not exclusive to superheroes; there are many and varied reasons why secret identities might be important to a character, and simply checking off a few other tropes doesn't just make that character a superhero.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
So, would you classify this as fantasy (dragon-riding warriors, pseudomedieval social constructs), SF (genetic engineering, alien planets, some later stories featuring an AI), romance (F'lar/Lessa, other pairings/groups over time), or supers (psychokinesis, teleportation, telepathy)? I mean, since everything has to fit into neat pigeonholes?
Or her later Talent stories - people with all manner of psychic abilities, and again often falling in love/lust/other emotional connections. Sci-fi (future setting in megacities, eventually using apportation for interstellar travel), supers (every psychic power you ever heard of, and probably a few you hadn't), romance?
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
@jon - it's all of the above. things don't need to have just one genre... just look at CO.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Edit: I do think it's funny how they have pretty much all the kids going, 'Mommy, mommy! Look a Sup..." and then nothing. It's like you can almost hear the lawyer clearing her throat.
The video even ends with Tracer saying the world could always use more heroes for crying out loud.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Winston a super intelligent ape that is a scientist, but at the same time, can be driven into a Hulk-like rage when his anger flairs up becoming a near unstoppable berserk machine.
Mei a scientist that has developed super freezing technology that can freeze her enemies in their tracks as a block of ice or use that technology to create ice structures to her own benefit.
Hanzo, an eagle eye person who uses a bow with uncanny accuracy and mystical ability.
Roadhog, a walking beef cake that lets his muscles do the talking and keeps himself going by inhaling a special drug.
Junkrat, an explosives expert that lost his own leg and comes up with crazy contraptions for his explosives such as billiard balls with smiley faces on them or a self propelling mechanized tire bomb.
Genji, a ninja that uses stealth and misdirection to go after primary targets (hey that sounds like Batman)
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I've laid out very plainly what I think makes a superhero. I'd have to eat a really big burrito and then go take a big dump to have a crap to give about what you think of my standards. You're out of your depth because you're telling me my opinions are wrong.
And you really think that Blizzard is too stupid to even come up with the words "supers" or "metahumans" or something? This Overwatch thing looks more to me like a very nicely stylized GI Joe (they're basically soldiers with unique and varied skills and weapons, right?) with monsters and aliens thrown in the mix. It doesn't scream superhero to me, and you can't convince me otherwise, until Blizzard explicitly states that that's what their intentions are, regardless if they're "scared" of using the word superhero.
Also, "hero" does not automatically equal "superhero." You're grasping at straws with that one. I live on a very, very noisy street because there's a police station and a fire department just down the street. I see real heroes every day, but even they'd laugh if I called them superheroes.
Employing some superhero tropes does not make any character a superhero. Sorry. Yes, all very fine tropes that this game shares with superheroes. But again... Dude, you're not smart enough to come at me like that. First off, I admit when I'm wrong all the time. Second, I've already said that it's how I define a superhero.
Squint, squint, Ducky Momo.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Humanity on the brink of extinction / slavery fighting against an oppressing hostile global alien / A.I organization. How many dozens of times have I seen this trope being used already in entertainment mediums having nothing to do with superheroes? Heck, even XCOM 2 comes to mind but without the darker, more foreboding tone.
There are definitely tropes similar to that found in superhero mediums. For instance the hostile A.I organization thing is found in Marvel's Days of Future Past storyline, but that trope has already existed way before that. Isaac Asimov had already brought up the concept of A.I. waging war against humanity and seeking control over them decades before. Also look up the short story "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream".
There's also a huge focus on exotic tech with the game. Almost all the characters in that group picture look like they're wearing some piece of tech armor and holding some sort of tech gun or miscellaneous type of tech weapon. Hardly the type of diversity that screams "Superhero" to me as opposed to "High-tech soldiers of the future". Coincidentally and obviously power armor and general tech is something found in superhero mediums as well, but as with other important, defining tropes that are typically associated with superheroes, something that The Incredibles has a lot of since it was brought up, I'm not seeing them.
I'm still not entirely convinced that the game was truly intended to be a superhero game from the start. Also, the term "heroes" doesn't automatically equate to "superheroes". "Heroes" is a very general term used in all sorts of settings, be it modern, Tolkien-fantasy, sci-fi, bla bla bla.
I mean sure, the video never explicitly calls them super heroes... but do you really need the movie, video, comic book, or novel that you're reading to have a character in them say "Those guys are super heroes" for you to know they are?
Why even bother fighting to restrict the genre anyway.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Until then, whatever floats your boat at this point. Some people see them as superheroes. Others see them as future-tech good vs bad guys. How the product is being presented to me has a lot more to do with the latter than the former.
I know people tend to ignore it because they are constantly thinking that it isn't real, but, by law Blizzard cannot call them super heroes because Marvel and DC jointly own all forms of the word Super Hero under a copyright. It's being challenged but until they rule otherwise, it's not something you can swing around since Marvel and/or DC have sunk several start up companies for that very reason.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This leads me to believe that comic books, games, whatever can still be explicitly described as being superhero -medium names- without having it in the actual product title and header. If that's the case then I don't see a problem with Blizzard being able to publicly refer to their game as a superhero one if they wanted to. The term doesn't even have to be actually used in the game itself to achieve that.
Right on CO's steam store page its genre is being tagged as "superhero" and even has the word in its product description. Even on the Arcgames page the tag is there. Seems like there isn't a problem with CO being identified as a superhero game right from the source. Funny that.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained