Q: What does it mean that Marvel and DC have a trademark on the word “Superhero”?
A: It means that companies cannot enter certain areas of commerce with the word/phrase “superhero” as part of their product name.
Q: What products does this apply to?
A: Publications, but basically comic books and magazines. Also, cardboard stand-up figures, playing cards, paper iron-on transfers, erasers, pencil sharpeners, pencils, notebooks, stamp albums, and costumes
Q: Does this affect our ability to use the word superhero?
A: Only if you want to make a product that fits into those categories and sell it. So, if you want to sell (you can make it for your own personal pleasure) a comic book called “Star Spangled Superhero Stories,” you would not be able to. But if you want to refer to your characters as superheroes within the comic, you can do so. This is what allows DC to refer to their character Captain Marvel as Captain Marvel within the comic, but they cannot use the name Captain Marvel in advertising or as the name of the comic, because Marvel holds a registered trademark of that name.
Important points in bold.
If you believe what this lawyer is actually saying then there's no reason why Blizzard can't refer to their characters as superheroes or their game as a superhero one if they wanted to, and that the "superhero" term isn't as legally taboo as people are making it out to be.
If you believe what this lawyer is actually saying then there's no reason why Blizzard can't refer to their characters as superheroes or their game as a superhero one if they wanted to.
There's a possibility that Blizzard might want to produce Overwatch comic books (this is a nonfactor for CO, as the Champions trademark is actually owned by Heroic Publications so they couldn't do it anyway).
Not only is your information out of date, Jenny, but anyone who is anyone knows that DC lost that right to call Captain Marvel Captain Marvel sometime ago and the character is known as Shazzam.
Not only is your information out of date, Jenny, but anyone who is anyone knows that DC lost that right to call Captain Marvel Captain Marvel sometime ago and the character is known as Shazzam.
Lol that's all you got from the article while ignoring completely everything else, like the actual important points that are actually relevant? Such convenient cherry-picking.
Captain Marvel was put there to mainly address the joint-ownership of the name, but that wasn't the main point of me linking the Q&A. It's irrelevant just how long after the Q&A article was made prior to the time the rights to the name was lost. Obviously that portion of the article is bound to become outdated sooner or later. Also Q&A article is dated 10/29/2015 and is very recent, if you actually bothered to read and pay attention to it in the first place.
Q: What does it mean that Marvel and DC have a trademark on the word “Superhero”?
A: It means that companies cannot enter certain areas of commerce with the word/phrase “superhero” as part of their product name.
Q: What products does this apply to?
A: Publications, but basically comic books and magazines. Also, cardboard stand-up figures, playing cards, paper iron-on transfers, erasers, pencil sharpeners, pencils, notebooks, stamp albums, and costumes
Q: Does this affect our ability to use the word superhero?
A: Only if you want to make a product that fits into those categories and sell it. So, if you want to sell (you can make it for your own personal pleasure) a comic book called “Star Spangled Superhero Stories,” you would not be able to. But if you want to refer to your characters as superheroes within the comic, you can do so. This is what allows DC to refer to their character Captain Marvel as Captain Marvel within the comic, but they cannot use the name Captain Marvel in advertising or as the name of the comic, because Marvel holds a registered trademark of that name.
Important points in bold.
If you believe what this lawyer is actually saying then there's no reason why Blizzard can't refer to their characters as superheroes or their game as a superhero one if they wanted to, and that the "superhero" term isn't as legally taboo as people are making it out to be.
...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...
Yet on CO's game page, http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/champions-online, there is never a mention of Superhero; just phrases like 'action' and 'hero.' The only two instances 'super' is used are in the terms super-team and super-villain, never superhero. CO does not define itself as a superhero game, but as an action-hero game.
Steam tags are, well, Steam tags. Steam dictates them (as can Steam-Users, iirc).
This kind of hair-splitting is only required when something is not absolutely obviously about superheroes. Champions has established that it is exactly that, going way back to the RPG, though you really wouldn't know it just by looking at the video game, nowadays. But its foundation is undeniably about superheroes.
Ah, true, true. Still a 'tag' though. Under 'Game Type' it's an Action MMORPG.
Edit: In that search tags can be misleading. Well, maybe not misleading, but self-referencing. As in say this article: http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/07/overwatch/ It has superhero tags because the word 'superhero' was used in the article, if you get my meaning.
Yeah, this isn't the first place I've seen it labeled as superhero. They call it that in several places.
I'm still not convinced though. Unless Blizzard says that's the world they're building, I think it fits neatly outside of superhero territory.
Since it's probably gonna come up again, I'll explain why I think so. First of all, look at this and any other thread that discusses what is and what isn't a superhero. The category exists to differentiate it from other categories. If we try to include too much into that category, then what's the point of having the category in the first place? It's not a matter of "I don't want your chocolate in my peanut butter," it's just a matter of clearly being able to define things.
If Overwatch is superheroes just by virtue of checking off several things in the "superhero trope list", then so many things, by association, can be claimed to be superheroes. Overwatch has dudes in big mech suits doing incredible things. How many other properties can check off these and other tropes? Warhammer 40,000 employs these and other tropes. What makes it not a superhero setting, then? What about Gundam? Okay, let's rein it in. Samus. She's a girl in power armor that has all sorts of cool abilities that allow her to fight giant monsters and take a beating. Is she a superhero? We've established that a superhero setting is usually modern or future, alien planets and space count just fine. We could go back and forth saying that she does this, this, and that, which is all stuff superheroes do, and she doesn't fit this description, or this, or that, which is stuff that's not present in the superhero genre. But, why? What's the point? What does anyone gain from Samus being a superhero or not? What's the point of diluting the genre so that things can no longer be clearly defined?
What's the point of diluting the genre so that things can no longer be clearly defined?
Because your 'clear definition' is basically "it's published by Marvel or DC", which is a terrible definition for a literary genre and still runs into the problem of books that don't actually seem to fit (for example, Amethyst or Sandman).
All genres have edge cases. Why would the superhero genre be different?
...If Overwatch is superheroes just by virtue of checking off several things in the "superhero trope list", then so many things, by association, can be claimed to be superheroes. Overwatch has dudes in big mech suits doing incredible things. How many other properties can check off these and other tropes? Warhammer 40,000 employs these and other tropes. What makes it not a superhero setting, then? What about Gundam? Okay, let's rein it in. Samus. She's a girl in power armor that has all sorts of cool abilities that allow her to fight giant monsters and take a beating. Is she a superhero? We've established that a superhero setting is usually modern or future, alien planets and space count just fine. We could go back and forth saying that she does this, this, and that, which is all stuff superheroes do, and she doesn't fit this description, or this, or that, which is stuff that's not present in the superhero genre. But, why? What's the point? What does anyone gain from Samus being a superhero or not? What's the point of diluting the genre so that things can no longer be clearly defined?
Except, clear definitions have been offered and then clear examples where Overwatch fits said clear definitions have been given. That is; by definition, clearly defining something. No one is diluting the definition of 'superheroes,' by including Overwatch. Instead, the are clearly defining the term 'superheroes.' We don't have to let anything else piggyback in on said definitions if we don't want to (Shame on them!).
Although, I am beginning to see why publishers (used broadly) and artists (used even more broadly) want to distance themselves from the use of the term. Geez.
Did anyone consider that Blizzard isn't calling it a super hero game because they don't want it to end up being marginalized as part of the niche market that is online super hero video games? They want their game to be popular after all.
I think the problem here is that some of us are trying to come to a consensus on this issue, while others are just very aggressively stating what their opinion is and then getting upset when anyone disagrees and acting like people disagreeing is somehow infringing on their right to have an opinion. When I want to just give my opinion without having anyone disagree, I talk to my dog, she wags her tail at anything I say!
What's the point of diluting the genre so that things can no longer be clearly defined?
Because your 'clear definition' is basically "it's published by Marvel or DC", which is a terrible definition for a literary genre and still runs into the problem of books that don't actually seem to fit (for example, Amethyst or Sandman).
All genres have edge cases. Why would the superhero genre be different?
That is so not what I'm saying. I don't know much about those two characters and don't feel like digging into them to find out where they lie.
Except, clear definitions have been offered and then clear examples where Overwatch fits said clear definitions have been given. That is; by definition, clearly defining something. No one is diluting the definition of 'superheroes,' by including Overwatch. Instead, the are clearly defining the term 'superheroes.' We don't have to let anything else piggyback in on said definitions if we don't want to (Shame on them!).
Exactly. And that's why I said, if you squint hard enough, just about anything look like a superhero. Robocop can be a superhero if I run down a simple checklist of acceptable superhero tropes. The guys from Supernatural. The Silverhawks. And yes, Peter Pan.
No, I'm not just naming ridiculous things, I'm going down that same checklist that people went down for Overwatch, and checked off several of the same boxes, just like people claiming Overwatch is superheroes.
No, I'm not just naming ridiculous things, I'm going down that same checklist that people went down for Overwatch, and checked off several of the same boxes, just like people claiming Overwatch is superheroes.
For any edge case, the more boxes you check the closer you probably are. RoboCop is an edge case (the movie could easily be a superhero origin story), the Silverhawks probably get classed wherever you put super sentai shows (are the Power Rangers superheroes?).
Did anyone consider that Blizzard isn't calling it a super hero game because they don't want it to end up being marginalized as part of the niche market that is online super hero video games? They want their game to be popular after all...
Ehhhh, I dunno. There seems to be a split personality when it comes to how Overwatch is marketed.
On the game side, like at Blizz-friendly cons, it's all shop; meta level talk, if you will. It's a team shooter, you do this and this, or not this and this... mechanics! Which makes sense to market it that way, over there. Know your audience and all that.
However, on the non-game side, like say YouTube and the like, it's all about the story, which is superhero. I'm not sure who that's for exactly. It seems aimed at the niche market, but not quite. Like, maybe it's aimed at the superhero movie market?
That seems a dangerous play to me. Are superhero movie goers really going to come to Overwatch for the story and stay for that type of gameplay? Are we gamers really hurting so much for story, we'll take it on the side?
No, I'm not just naming ridiculous things, I'm going down that same checklist that people went down for Overwatch, and checked off several of the same boxes, just like people claiming Overwatch is superheroes.
For any edge case, the more boxes you check the closer you probably are. RoboCop is an edge case (the movie could easily be a superhero origin story), the Silverhawks probably get classed wherever you put super sentai shows (are the Power Rangers superheroes?).
Amethyst and sandman, if they can't reasonably be called superheroes, why bring them up? Like I said, I'm not saying that superheroes only come from Marvel or DC, nor am I saying that everything that gets published in comic book form needs to be superheroes - I never said anything like that. GI Joe has had comics, all the western comics that used to exist, Transmetropolitan (was that DC or image? I dunno) are all obviously not about superheroes. And I'm sure there's hundreds of other titles as well that are published that aren't about superheroes. Heck, especially in the underground and indie circles, superhero comics are all but frowned upon.
Edge case or no, you're still placing the characters either inside or outside that description. And when you accept edge cases as being a thing, that's where Peter Pan comes in. If you consider him an edge-case superhero, then you're acknowledging him as a superhero. RoboCop I wouldn't put in as a superhero. He's a cyborg cop turned vigilante (if I remember correctly). Hero, yes. Superhero? Not to me. Power Rangers, yes. Silverhawks, I wouldn't say so. In fact I'd class them very close to Overwatch. Ultraman, yes. Godzilla, no. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, no. Ghostbusters, no. The cast of Heroes, yes. Pokemon trainers, no
Did anyone consider that Blizzard isn't calling it a super hero game because they don't want it to end up being marginalized as part of the niche market that is online super hero video games? They want their game to be popular after all...
Ehhhh, I dunno. There seems to be a split personality when it comes to how Overwatch is marketed.
On the game side, like at Blizz-friendly cons, it's all shop; meta level talk, if you will. It's a team shooter, you do this and this, or not this and this... mechanics! Which makes sense to market it that way, over there. Know your audience and all that.
However, on the non-game side, like say YouTube and the like, it's all about the story, which is superhero. I'm not sure who that's for exactly. It seems aimed at the niche market, but not quite. Like, maybe it's aimed at the superhero movie market?
That seems a dangerous play to me. Are superhero movie goers really going to come to Overwatch for the story and stay for that type of gameplay? Are we gamers really hurting so much for story, we'll take it on the side?
If they are pushing it at super hero movie watchers, it's only a side push at best. This is basically part of that new "alternative to CoD shooter market" that we're seeing... the one that hates brown military shooters - things like Sunset Overdrive and Splatoon. There aren't many examples of that market because it's just opening up and I think Blizzard, very smartly, is pushing into it early. They've learned how strong it is to get into a genre as early as possible after all ( see 'king of a genre' ).
Basically someone at Blizzard who gets paid a lot asked themselves "okay what's hot..." and then combined a bunch of aesthetics together to form Overwatch. Super hero movies are hot right now, and they have a very hip aesthetic that applies to a wide range of audiences, so that could very well have been thrown into the batter that baked this cake. Since it's only one part, that's why it's likely not being branded "a super hero thing", because they don't want to narrow people's view on what it is. Once you say "super hero thing" you immediately lose a big audience who hates super hero things for whatever reason - incidentally, you also lose an entire audience who is now offended that you dared call it a super hero thing. Instead, the super hero thing is heavily implied to draw in the audiences who will like that aesthetic, without directly stating it and pushing out the ones who don't - if there's one thing we know, it's that Blizzard hires people who are good at making trailers, and those people did a bang up job at implying the crud out of "SUPER HEROES" without ever directly stating it.
So, no dangerous play here. These guys know how to make a play. After all, they're the ones who took the ultra nerdy world of fantasy mmos and turned it into a genre that those guys who are all about mountain dew, doritos, and going "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH" when someone wins at a video game are comfortable in. If you went back in time and told someone "yeah man, fantasy mmos are gonna be mainstream and cool" they would have hit you with their big dumb nerd glasses. I remember the first time I met a 'bro' in an MMO and I was like.... what are you doing here? What's going on? Ò3Ó And then girls were all over the place... and not nerdy ones either!
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.
Just watched this and gotta say Biff, it looks pretty superhero to me.
If your objection is that the setting needs to acknowledge the characters as superheroes...
Well it doesn't get much more acknowledged than a museum and statues dedicated to their superbattles and the like with kids talking about which of the legendary heroes is their favorite.
Toss in costumed identities, colorful thematic names, etc and you have a pretty interesting take, sure with some twists, on the superhero genre. I mean no one, good guys or bad, even got really hurt.
About the only thing I saw that differed to a significant degree was the whole, everyone uses guns, thing. And that fits more into the idea of superheroes with a twist thing than anything else.
The game has a superhero aesthetic from looking at the trailer. I'll go with that.
As far as gameplay goes from watching gameplay videos? I'm getting a mix of Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament, Tribes and Quake 3 Arena; at it's core it's a team-based competitive first-person shooter with a whole lot of exotic high-tech shooty weaponry going on. If there's anything about the actual gameplay content that's supposed to scream "superheroes" to me, I'm not seeing it.
1Just watched this and gotta say Biff, it looks pretty superhero to me.
If your objection is that the setting needs to acknowledge the characters as superheroes...
Well it doesn't get much more acknowledged than a museum and statues dedicated to their superbattles and the like with kids talking about which of the legendary heroes is their favorite.
Toss in costumed identities, colorful thematic names, etc and you have a pretty interesting take, sure with some twists, on the superhero genre. I mean no one, good guys or bad, even got really hurt.
About the only thing I saw that differed to a significant degree was the whole, everyone uses guns, thing. And that fits more into the idea of superheroes with a twist thing than anything else.
I take this quote from a review that I agree with.
"customisation is so linear; everyone is after the optimal dps:survivability ratio with 0 reliance on other players = autonomous gameplay... Players don't need each other anymore... which in my opinion is a bad thing."
I think someone should hire the Overwatch creative team to build an actual game about capes. This is the prettiest cartoony graphics I saw since a very long time.
The game has a superhero aesthetic from looking at the trailer. I'll go with that.
As far as gameplay goes from watching gameplay videos? I'm getting a mix of Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament, Tribes and Quake 3 Arena; at it's core it's a team-based competitive first-person shooter with a whole lot of exotic high-tech shooty weaponry going on. If there's anything about the actual gameplay content that's supposed to scream "superheroes" to me, I'm not seeing it.
So I guess, Green Arrow, Batman, Punisher, Slade, Deadpool, etc aren't real heroes either since they use guns, swords and other technical gadgetry.
Also not forget that the name Overwatch (which means to watch over) is an elite group of specially trained/endowed beings devoted to protecting the world from villainy, tyranny and evil. An organization that was betrayed from within and was shut down soon after due to public outcry and fear of these people with these extraordinary abilities (hey that's almost the plot intro to the Incredibles).
Again very much the tones of a super hero genre, but slightly more futuristic and replacing the real world critical issues with effigies. Such as shifting racism to being hatred toward the omni's (robots that believe they are sentient creatures) much like how Marvel shifted the racism card from real world to mutants with powers.
I don't think the type of weapon or tools someone uses changes if someone is a superhero. There are a lot of heroes who use gadgets.
The point was that she said the gameplay doesn't look anything like superhero stuff, but more like your typical shooter game. How someone gets "Oh then Green Arrow isn't a superhero" out of that is beyond my comprehension.
I don't think the type of weapon or tools someone uses changes if someone is a superhero. There are a lot of heroes who use gadgets.
The point was that she said the gameplay doesn't look anything like superhero stuff, but more like your typical shooter game. How someone gets "Oh then Green Arrow isn't a superhero" out of that is beyond my comprehension.
Well it is designed to be a squad based fps so it makes sense that it looks like a shooter. Some of the characters are referred to as heroes, whether they are super heroes or not is open to interpretation. It will be interesting to see where Blizzard takes the IP should Overwatch be popular. After all Warcraft started as an RTS and is now a mmo.
I guess the question is, if they made a game that features the entire X-Men team, and is a squad based shooter mechanically( they don't use guns, they use their powers, but with squad based shooter mechanics [ for melee see Shadow Warrior ] )... would this whole argument still be occurring? Would that be less of a super hero game because it is a squad based shooter, even though it features characters that very much give off the super hero vibe?
And if not, then what is left to preclude Overwatch from being super hero? The lack of established super heroes?
Hell I'm sure if I put forth Adam Jensen as a super hero people would be like "NO"... but what if I got rid of all his enhancements save for that blade that comes out of his arm, his metal skeleton, and an implant that makes him heal super fast, then made him grumpy, have messy hair, and had him say "bub" a bunch of times? Suddenly he's a super hero?
Small sample size, I take it with a grain of salt. CO is the superior super hero mmo when you consider the totality of things, customization, powers, mounts or vehicles, flexibility, roleplaying. DCUO has the DC brand, other than that, it is a bottom of the barrell mmo imo.
The poll may be objective though, if the hardcore CO, DCUO, and Marvel forums had no clue about it. Maybe it was folks whom are not fan boys? idk.....because the puzzle game beat DCUO, maybe it was casual gamers? Who knows.
There is no "better game" really. It's whatever floats your boat. Opinion.
I guess the question is, if they made a game that features the entire X-Men team, and is a squad based shooter mechanically( they don't use guns, they use their powers, but with squad based shooter mechanics [ for melee see Shadow Warrior ] )... would this whole argument still be occurring? Would that be less of a super hero game because it is a squad based shooter, even though it features characters that very much give off the super hero vibe?
Jenny only said that the gameplay didn't give it any points toward it being a superhero game. She didn't say that anything that has that kind of gameplay can't be a superhero thing.
Hell I'm sure if I put forth Adam Jensen as a super hero people would be like "NO"... but what if I got rid of all his enhancements save for that blade that comes out of his arm, his metal skeleton, and an implant that makes him heal super fast, then made him grumpy, have messy hair, and had him say "bub" a bunch of times? Suddenly he's a super hero?
Nope. Establish that he's a superhero in the fiction you're writing (or game you're making, or whatever), or insert him into an established superhero setting, and that's all you'd need.
So, having them fight villains doesn't establish them as super heroes?
Then what? They have cool outfits, they have powers, they have gadgets, they're known by people, they're considered heroes, they make witty remarks, they save the innocent... what's left that they need to do to establish themselves? Stan Lee's stamp on their foreheads?
Then what? They have cool outfits, they have powers, they have gadgets, they're known by people, they're considered heroes, they make witty remarks, they save the innocent... what's left that they need to do to establish themselves? Stan Lee's stamp on their foreheads?
Nope, just in-world acknowledgement that they're superheroes. I've said this at least a dozen times in this thread. When you can't define any given character as a superhero by simply crossing off the tropes, the one thing that sets them apart, to me, is simply the setting recognizing them as superheroes. Otherwise they're just Awesome Action Dudes. Like the Deus Ex guy.
Nope, just in-world acknowledgement that they're superheroes. I've said this at least a dozen times in this thread. When you can't define any given character as a superhero by simply crossing off the tropes, the one thing that sets them apart, to me, is simply the setting recognizing them as superheroes. Otherwise they're just Awesome Action Dudes. Like the Deus Ex guy.
So none of that other stuff matters unless some character randomly points at them and says "Those individuals are super heroes".
Well, that seems like a really weird requirement to me considering that, as far as I'm aware, it's actually not very common for that to happen in the genre... but hey, it's only your personal checklist so as long as you're not claiming that anyone else in the public at large has that requirement then I guess you really are just communicating your own needs regarding super heroes. Just imagine people sitting in an avengers film asking "... are there super heroes in this movie?" and nobody really being sure until someone on screen actually says it... does that even happen in the movie?
Me personally I don't need people in movies and comic books to point out things like that - and I suspect there are many people who also don't.
One last question... so someone hands you a bunch of comic books about Amazing Man Guy, like they give you issues 1 through 100... now this guy is basically a Super Man rip off, the only difference is his costume is yellow and green and he's called "Amazing Man Guy" with a big A on his chest - he does all the stuff Super Man does, has basically the same powers, villains, etc. However, nobody even says the words "super hero" until like issue 99, when some guy says "Wow Amazing Man, you sure are a great super hero!" - and that is the first time he, or any character, is acknowledged as a super hero. They call him a hero a bunch of times, but not a super hero. So you're telling me, and again I'm just asking for clarification here so I understand fully what you are expressing, I'm not judging you or talking down to you or anything like that... you're telling me that until issue 99 you were not sure that this comic book featured any super heroes?
Comments
A Q & A with an actual lawyer.
Q: What does it mean that Marvel and DC have a trademark on the word “Superhero”?
A: It means that companies cannot enter certain areas of commerce with the word/phrase “superhero” as part of their product name.
Q: What products does this apply to?
A: Publications, but basically comic books and magazines. Also, cardboard stand-up figures, playing cards, paper iron-on transfers, erasers, pencil sharpeners, pencils, notebooks, stamp albums, and costumes
Q: Does this affect our ability to use the word superhero?
A: Only if you want to make a product that fits into those categories and sell it. So, if you want to sell (you can make it for your own personal pleasure) a comic book called “Star Spangled Superhero Stories,” you would not be able to. But if you want to refer to your characters as superheroes within the comic, you can do so. This is what allows DC to refer to their character Captain Marvel as Captain Marvel within the comic, but they cannot use the name Captain Marvel in advertising or as the name of the comic, because Marvel holds a registered trademark of that name.
Important points in bold.
If you believe what this lawyer is actually saying then there's no reason why Blizzard can't refer to their characters as superheroes or their game as a superhero one if they wanted to, and that the "superhero" term isn't as legally taboo as people are making it out to be.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Captain Marvel was put there to mainly address the joint-ownership of the name, but that wasn't the main point of me linking the Q&A. It's irrelevant just how long after the Q&A article was made prior to the time the rights to the name was lost. Obviously that portion of the article is bound to become outdated sooner or later. Also Q&A article is dated 10/29/2015 and is very recent, if you actually bothered to read and pay attention to it in the first place.
Steam tags are, well, Steam tags. Steam dictates them (as can Steam-Users, iirc).
Edit: In that search tags can be misleading. Well, maybe not misleading, but self-referencing. As in say this article:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/07/overwatch/
It has superhero tags because the word 'superhero' was used in the article, if you get my meaning.
I'm still not convinced though. Unless Blizzard says that's the world they're building, I think it fits neatly outside of superhero territory.
Since it's probably gonna come up again, I'll explain why I think so. First of all, look at this and any other thread that discusses what is and what isn't a superhero. The category exists to differentiate it from other categories. If we try to include too much into that category, then what's the point of having the category in the first place? It's not a matter of "I don't want your chocolate in my peanut butter," it's just a matter of clearly being able to define things.
If Overwatch is superheroes just by virtue of checking off several things in the "superhero trope list", then so many things, by association, can be claimed to be superheroes. Overwatch has dudes in big mech suits doing incredible things. How many other properties can check off these and other tropes? Warhammer 40,000 employs these and other tropes. What makes it not a superhero setting, then? What about Gundam? Okay, let's rein it in. Samus. She's a girl in power armor that has all sorts of cool abilities that allow her to fight giant monsters and take a beating. Is she a superhero? We've established that a superhero setting is usually modern or future, alien planets and space count just fine. We could go back and forth saying that she does this, this, and that, which is all stuff superheroes do, and she doesn't fit this description, or this, or that, which is stuff that's not present in the superhero genre. But, why? What's the point? What does anyone gain from Samus being a superhero or not? What's the point of diluting the genre so that things can no longer be clearly defined?
All genres have edge cases. Why would the superhero genre be different?
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Although, I am beginning to see why publishers (used broadly) and artists (used even more broadly) want to distance themselves from the use of the term. Geez.
I think the problem here is that some of us are trying to come to a consensus on this issue, while others are just very aggressively stating what their opinion is and then getting upset when anyone disagrees and acting like people disagreeing is somehow infringing on their right to have an opinion. When I want to just give my opinion without having anyone disagree, I talk to my dog, she wags her tail at anything I say!
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
No, I'm not just naming ridiculous things, I'm going down that same checklist that people went down for Overwatch, and checked off several of the same boxes, just like people claiming Overwatch is superheroes.
Oh well, I give up.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
On the game side, like at Blizz-friendly cons, it's all shop; meta level talk, if you will. It's a team shooter, you do this and this, or not this and this... mechanics! Which makes sense to market it that way, over there. Know your audience and all that.
However, on the non-game side, like say YouTube and the like, it's all about the story, which is superhero. I'm not sure who that's for exactly. It seems aimed at the niche market, but not quite. Like, maybe it's aimed at the superhero movie market?
That seems a dangerous play to me. Are superhero movie goers really going to come to Overwatch for the story and stay for that type of gameplay? Are we gamers really hurting so much for story, we'll take it on the side?
Edge case or no, you're still placing the characters either inside or outside that description. And when you accept edge cases as being a thing, that's where Peter Pan comes in. If you consider him an edge-case superhero, then you're acknowledging him as a superhero. RoboCop I wouldn't put in as a superhero. He's a cyborg cop turned vigilante (if I remember correctly). Hero, yes. Superhero? Not to me. Power Rangers, yes. Silverhawks, I wouldn't say so. In fact I'd class them very close to Overwatch. Ultraman, yes. Godzilla, no. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, no. Ghostbusters, no. The cast of Heroes, yes. Pokemon trainers, no
Basically someone at Blizzard who gets paid a lot asked themselves "okay what's hot..." and then combined a bunch of aesthetics together to form Overwatch. Super hero movies are hot right now, and they have a very hip aesthetic that applies to a wide range of audiences, so that could very well have been thrown into the batter that baked this cake. Since it's only one part, that's why it's likely not being branded "a super hero thing", because they don't want to narrow people's view on what it is. Once you say "super hero thing" you immediately lose a big audience who hates super hero things for whatever reason - incidentally, you also lose an entire audience who is now offended that you dared call it a super hero thing. Instead, the super hero thing is heavily implied to draw in the audiences who will like that aesthetic, without directly stating it and pushing out the ones who don't - if there's one thing we know, it's that Blizzard hires people who are good at making trailers, and those people did a bang up job at implying the crud out of "SUPER HEROES" without ever directly stating it.
So, no dangerous play here. These guys know how to make a play. After all, they're the ones who took the ultra nerdy world of fantasy mmos and turned it into a genre that those guys who are all about mountain dew, doritos, and going "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH" when someone wins at a video game are comfortable in. If you went back in time and told someone "yeah man, fantasy mmos are gonna be mainstream and cool" they would have hit you with their big dumb nerd glasses. I remember the first time I met a 'bro' in an MMO and I was like.... what are you doing here? What's going on? Ò3Ó And then girls were all over the place... and not nerdy ones either!
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Just watched this and gotta say Biff, it looks pretty superhero to me.
If your objection is that the setting needs to acknowledge the characters as superheroes...
Well it doesn't get much more acknowledged than a museum and statues dedicated to their superbattles and the like with kids talking about which of the legendary heroes is their favorite.
Toss in costumed identities, colorful thematic names, etc and you have a pretty interesting take, sure with some twists, on the superhero genre. I mean no one, good guys or bad, even got really hurt.
About the only thing I saw that differed to a significant degree was the whole, everyone uses guns, thing. And that fits more into the idea of superheroes with a twist thing than anything else.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
As far as gameplay goes from watching gameplay videos? I'm getting a mix of Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament, Tribes and Quake 3 Arena; at it's core it's a team-based competitive first-person shooter with a whole lot of exotic high-tech shooty weaponry going on. If there's anything about the actual gameplay content that's supposed to scream "superheroes" to me, I'm not seeing it.
So... Peter Pan?
(Not directed at you, ashen).
There's always dissatisfied/disillusioned customers.
Ok, maybe recently it's not that terrible...
I take this quote from a review that I agree with.
"customisation is so linear; everyone is after the optimal dps:survivability ratio with 0 reliance on other players = autonomous gameplay... Players don't need each other anymore... which in my opinion is a bad thing."
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I would like to see more people being punched in the face though... and I think smackwell would agree.
It's just missing that little drop of vital essence, you know? Not enough salt.
That salt being bare knuckle violence.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
So I guess, Green Arrow, Batman, Punisher, Slade, Deadpool, etc aren't real heroes either since they use guns, swords and other technical gadgetry.
Also not forget that the name Overwatch (which means to watch over) is an elite group of specially trained/endowed beings devoted to protecting the world from villainy, tyranny and evil. An organization that was betrayed from within and was shut down soon after due to public outcry and fear of these people with these extraordinary abilities (hey that's almost the plot intro to the Incredibles).
Again very much the tones of a super hero genre, but slightly more futuristic and replacing the real world critical issues with effigies. Such as shifting racism to being hatred toward the omni's (robots that believe they are sentient creatures) much like how Marvel shifted the racism card from real world to mutants with powers.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Edit: oh my god someone fix this stupid forum's nested quotes already. This is the worst crap.
I don't think the type of weapon or tools someone uses changes if someone is a superhero. There are a lot of heroes who use gadgets.
And if not, then what is left to preclude Overwatch from being super hero? The lack of established super heroes?
Hell I'm sure if I put forth Adam Jensen as a super hero people would be like "NO"... but what if I got rid of all his enhancements save for that blade that comes out of his arm, his metal skeleton, and an implant that makes him heal super fast, then made him grumpy, have messy hair, and had him say "bub" a bunch of times? Suddenly he's a super hero?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
This thread contains the silliest inference ever. The lack of establishing that they're superheroes, in my opinion. Seriously, that's all. Nope. Establish that he's a superhero in the fiction you're writing (or game you're making, or whatever), or insert him into an established superhero setting, and that's all you'd need.
Again, in my opinion.
Then what? They have cool outfits, they have powers, they have gadgets, they're known by people, they're considered heroes, they make witty remarks, they save the innocent... what's left that they need to do to establish themselves? Stan Lee's stamp on their foreheads?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Well, that seems like a really weird requirement to me considering that, as far as I'm aware, it's actually not very common for that to happen in the genre... but hey, it's only your personal checklist so as long as you're not claiming that anyone else in the public at large has that requirement then I guess you really are just communicating your own needs regarding super heroes. Just imagine people sitting in an avengers film asking "... are there super heroes in this movie?" and nobody really being sure until someone on screen actually says it... does that even happen in the movie?
Me personally I don't need people in movies and comic books to point out things like that - and I suspect there are many people who also don't.
One last question... so someone hands you a bunch of comic books about Amazing Man Guy, like they give you issues 1 through 100... now this guy is basically a Super Man rip off, the only difference is his costume is yellow and green and he's called "Amazing Man Guy" with a big A on his chest - he does all the stuff Super Man does, has basically the same powers, villains, etc. However, nobody even says the words "super hero" until like issue 99, when some guy says "Wow Amazing Man, you sure are a great super hero!" - and that is the first time he, or any character, is acknowledged as a super hero. They call him a hero a bunch of times, but not a super hero. So you're telling me, and again I'm just asking for clarification here so I understand fully what you are expressing, I'm not judging you or talking down to you or anything like that... you're telling me that until issue 99 you were not sure that this comic book featured any super heroes?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.