Will I ever be able to play as a villain in Champions Online, ever????

freewaydoggy · July 2017

I mean, wouldn't it be awesome if I could create & customize my main character as a villainess & then create a heroine nemesis that always tries to stop her at every turn, but my villainess comes up victorious?

ealford1985 · July 2017

Doubtful

avianos · July 2017

Champions Online doesn't need a villain side, that would be a waste of resources and DEVs time

chaosdrgnz43 · July 2017

Seeing how that takes a sh*t ton of coding, I don't see that happening. I'm not even sure if the current devs know the whole framework of the game. Meaning I'm not sure they're up for it.

aesica · July 2017

You pretty much have to rely on good old-fashioned RP, and I don't see that changing.

jonsills · July 2017

Villains are proactive. Heroes react to villain plots. Therefore, the very structure of MMOs argues against playing a true villain - the most you could hope for is to be the superpowered mook in an NPC villain's plot.

legendarylycan · July 2017

an MMO would need to be sandbox before you can have proactive villains...and since game companies are so afraid of making FULL sandbox games nowadays, that will never happen

pantagruel01 · July 2017

The only specific options for a supervillain in CO are Onslaught and the Stronghold Apocalypse PvP map. It is not likely that anything else will be added.

roughbearmattach · July 2017

nope

flyingfinn · July 2017

One day. After they change the current Nemesis System work like 'nemesis that always tries to harass hero at every turn'.

magpieuk2014 · July 2017

I'd quite like the ability to play as a Villain vs Heroes in a 5 v 5 Alert, or similar - CO / Team Fortress, basically - but I don't see it happening.

dialamx · July 2017

The only chance we'll have is either Onslaught, Dark Heroes (RPing your character where you're actually killing criminals), or do what I did and make a character that's so completely insane that there is no good or evil, right or wrong. He just does what ever, and his nemesis is a hero who went insane trying to catch him, and has now turned to committing crimes. Once again, though, it just boils down to RPing or playing an OV.

Cryptic really doesn't have the resources, or manpower, to make a villain side to CO. Plus Cryptic had a hard enough time with NCSoft, when trying to make City of Villains. PWE cares even less about the CO part of the company, and would probably be worse to work with, when making a Villain side.

markhawkman · July 2017

jonsills said:
Villains are proactive. Heroes react to villain plots. Therefore, the very structure of MMOs argues against playing a true villain - the most you could hope for is to be the superpowered mook in an NPC villain's plot.

Yeah, that's exactly what you are in DCUO.... You're a minion of the Legion of Doom. Not even a high-ranking minion...

pantagruel01 · July 2017

magpieuk2014 said:
I'd quite like the ability to play as a Villain vs Heroes in a 5 v 5 Alert, or similar - CO / Team Fortress, basically - but I don't see it happening.

Stronghold Apocalypse is 5v5 villains vs heroes.

riverocean · July 2017

Nope. Champions has probably received all the major development it's ever going to get. Despite the complaints, the villain side of DCUO really isn't that bad. I mostly enjoyed it -- but then I like playing the "naughty' faction in games.

freewaydoggy · July 2017

So do I like playing the "naughty" faction. I guess I will have to find either a single player that allows that or see how I can make one happen....

riverocean said:
Nope. Champions has probably received all the major development it's ever going to get. Despite the complaints, the villain side of DCUO really isn't that bad. I mostly enjoyed it -- but then I like playing the "naughty' faction in games.

catstarsto · July 2017

if they had a bigger staff and budget, i imagine they would make a villain side like they made a klingon side for sto.

championshewolf · July 2017

No, they had no plans to make a Villain side for Champions. Two attempts in the MMO industry, as far as the 4 super hero titles are concerned, have tried and both failed miserably. City of Villains, which was just CoH reskinned in the end no matter how you try to paint it (but better designed, streamlined and honestly better storytelling) and DCUO (which just made you even more of a sidekick than the hero side). Both games, you were basically just doing the work of someone else's big scheme, with DCUO making you feel even more like you were doing sloppy seconds of the B plot than anything, and both games, eventually just threw up their hands and eventually just made Villains tag-a-longs to the heroes, shuffling them off to a point that their entire reason for existing was pointless. Oh promotions would still talk about them as if they were a thing, but unless you were thick as brick and twice as dense, anyone who was a villain player knew that their side was cooked.

CoH, Going Rogue basically marked the end of any hope for villain side getting anything meaningful beyond token updates as a majority of villain players either quit past that point or just gave up and went hero side to at least participate in the lion's share of content then with other players. DCUO, most people I talk to that played villains say it's just not worth it anymore and to just stick to heroes.

A common fallacy that players thought up during the early days of Champions Online was that Dark Champions was the villain book for Champions, which just isn't true. Dark Champions is the dark, low powered, questionable morality heroes in comics like Punisher, Moon Knight, and even Batman before he just got Frank Miller'd into a god. The city of Dark Champions, Hudson City, was often thought it would be an expansion city at one point, but even the lore of Champions would make that impossible as the Champions book has always stated that Hudson City was off limits to super heroes and all super powered heroes and villains avoided it for some reason, that was never explained.

magpieuk2014 · July 2017

if they had a bigger staff and budget, i imagine they would make a villain side like they made a klingon side for sto

Klingons aren't villains.... even the Romulans aren't really villains (that's the Tal Shiar). It's a bit more factional, conflict is based on competing ideology rather than a simple good/bad divide. I always found CO to be quite good at reflecting that; VB Apocalypse with the various gangs turning against each other and the opportunity to choose allies felt like a good piece of storytelling content.

orangeitis · July 2017

jonsills said:
Villains are proactive. Heroes react to villain plots. Therefore, the very structure of MMOs argues against playing a true villain - the most you could hope for is to be the superpowered mook in an NPC villain's plot.

This right here. This is harmful thinking for devs to have. Chuck out the "very structure of MMOs" and there would allow more creative control by the players. We don't need to be "playing a game" in order to enjoy a virtual, persistent world.

That's what is holding MMOs back. Painfully.

(not necessarily a response to you, jonsills. This subject has been bugging me for at least a decade now)

catstarsto · July 2017

magpieuk2014 said:
if they had a bigger staff and budget, i imagine they would make a villain side like they made a klingon side for sto

Klingons aren't villains.... even the Romulans aren't really villains (that's the Tal Shiar). It's a bit more factional, conflict is based on competing ideology rather than a simple good/bad divide. I always found CO to be quite good at reflecting that; VB Apocalypse with the various gangs turning against each other and the opportunity to choose allies felt like a good piece of storytelling content.

I guess the later tv series gave them more personality depth and an ally status, but from what I can tell the old series and when STO first got started, the klingons where the bully/villains as where the romulans. Stereotypical on top of it. I but I can see where your coming from now, as every faction/alien race has a drama about their people, even those crystal spider people have feelings now. Plus the new Khan in the JJ-verse version was given a more sympathetic storyline then the original one who was a ruthless (Red Skull/hail hydra style) tyrant. lol

...what we used to call the simple heroes and villains has changed so much, they have grayed the dividing line so characters with the most tragic past ends up getting the fan base no matter how evil they are and what would of been the hero is written to have a more sullied personality or made infamous as if J Jonah Jamison was writing the story to make you dislike them more...like they did for superman. The entertainment industry has gone Bizzaro!

^darn modern writers...grumbles...

championshewolf · July 2017

orangeitis said:

jonsills said:
Villains are proactive. Heroes react to villain plots. Therefore, the very structure of MMOs argues against playing a true villain - the most you could hope for is to be the superpowered mook in an NPC villain's plot.
This right here. This is harmful thinking for devs to have. Chuck out the "very structure of MMOs" and there would allow more creative control by the players. We don't need to be "playing a game" in order to enjoy a virtual, persistent world.

That's what is holding MMOs back. Painfully.

(not necessarily a response to you, jonsills. This subject has been bugging me for at least a decade now)

Giving players full control would be bad, since you would end up with rampant cheating and other such scenarios. You don't have to look far to see what happens when you give players full control to do what they want in a game with the mod community. Furthermore, creating something that would allow for such a proactive game play style would take quite a bit of planning to do, otherwise all you would have is the exceptionally boring GTA5 style of gameplay where it just boils down to causing mayhem for a bit. Finally, to even make it work, you would have to focus such a system around PvP. A proactive villain is one thing, but that means little unless a hero is there to attempt to stop them to.

The closest to villain proactivity you got was the paper/newsy missions in City of Villains. And that was bare bones since the mayhem mission that followed every 5 newsies was the same mission over and over with only slight variations based on your level and requirements. Hell, I even wrote a guide on how to tackle those back in the CoV days when people dumbly ran to the end and wondered why they were being swarmed by Longbow.

darqaura2 · July 2017

Heh, I remember those missions. Sometimes allowing the Longbow swarm was done intentionally for challenge on some of the teams I was on.

magpieuk2014 · July 2017

Stronghold Apocalypse is 5v5 villains vs heroes.

I've never tried it, tbh - had it filed under player build vs player builds, and the problem with PvP is that anyone who comes along later on just gets mangled by the players who've got it all down pat (exploits and all).

In my (notional) alert the villain side would be fixed and functional - like an Archetype level build - but with more defensive advantages such as the ability to respawn quickly, spawn minions, have access to gun turrets, defensive pinch points; to make up for any lack of build power by owning the territory and being ready to repel an attack. It's not something you get too often in CO - generally enemies seem oblivious to the fact the heroes are approaching...

magpieuk2014 · July 2017

Plus the new Khan in the JJ-verse version was given a more sympathetic storyline then the original one who was a ruthless (Red Skull/hail hydra style) tyrant. lol

Let us not speak of the JJ-Universe Trek again. Reanimating Kirk with a tribble, ffs. I always thought the original Khan - a genetically engineered superhuman, product of fascist ideology and with the accompanying vanity - was as well rounded a villain as TOS ever had.

championshewolf · July 2017

magpieuk2014 said:
Plus the new Khan in the JJ-verse version was given a more sympathetic storyline then the original one who was a ruthless (Red Skull/hail hydra style) tyrant. lol

Let us not speak of the JJ-Universe Trek again. Reanimating Kirk with a tribble, ffs. I always thought the original Khan - a genetically engineered superhuman, product of fascist ideology and with the accompanying vanity - was as well rounded a villain as TOS ever had.

Oh, you are one of those people. Wasn't a tribble btw, should actually watch the movie.

orangeitis · July 2017

championshewolf said:
Giving players full control would be bad, since you would end up with rampant cheating and other such scenarios. You don't have to look far to see what happens when you give players full control to do what they want in a game with the mod community.

Who said anything about mods? Also, if it's "full creative control", by definition, no one can "cheat" at utilizing said control.

Theonly major problem I see from a virtual world not tied down with "game" rules I'm invisoning that I'm seeing would be the lack of script, which wouldn't appeal to players who want to play through a story, rather than make one up as they go(aka "RP")

championshewolf · July 2017

orangeitis said:

championshewolf said:
Giving players full control would be bad, since you would end up with rampant cheating and other such scenarios. You don't have to look far to see what happens when you give players full control to do what they want in a game with the mod community.
Who said anything about mods? Also, if it's "full creative control", by definition, no one can "cheat" at utilizing said control.

Theonly major problem I see from a virtual world not tied down with "game" rules I'm invisoning that I'm seeing would be the lack of script, which wouldn't appeal to players who want to play through a story, rather than make one up as they go(aka "RP")

If you gave full control, means players would be able to dictate what constitutes as needed and even be able to flood the market with ultra powerful items and gear thus basically making it impossible for people to enjoy the game without said items and power ups (see Skyrim and Fallout 4 at the cornucopia of items far superior than the best items in those game). Furthermore, as the sea of crap that has sprung out of User Generated Content (City of Heroes, Star Trek Online and Neverwinter) and finding one gem in that sea of filth is often back rowed thanks to the glut of easy kill missions designed to power level and or provide easy revenue for players, making any worthwhile effort no matter the skill of the person created it involved pointless as it will reach few people if any at all. And the "featured" content is often little better and often horrible with too much plot contrivance and reasoning. Never mind that a lot of the creators don't understand the less is more or show don't tell rule, and you end up with missions bogged down with crap tons of writing but any actual substance.

All you would be doing is shifting the center, and still doesn't fix the proactive versus reactive nature that super heroes and villains would demand in such a setting. The best you can do, in the general scope of an MMO or shared world online experience, is to provide "mayhem" spots that would essentially equate to open world PvP, but more structured and possibly along the lines of say APB. And let's face it, there was one prevailing theme in CoH that was unanimously chanted even by the developers, "The heroes must always win!" which would basically make any potential world ending threat a villain player could come up with pointless, beyond bank robberies and heists, or general mayhem. The chant was so loud it was one of the main reasons that villains began seeing a decline in new content, as any content that might potentially be exclusive to villain side was met with backlash of ugliness, and then when content that was exclusively hero was met with suck it up buttercup replies from those self same people telling us to roll heroes.

orangeitis · July 2017

championshewolf said:
Strawman

That's not what I meant. I mean creative control over YOUR CHARACTER, not the actual world itself. Their destiny, their role in society, etc. Basically, to not be given a script and told that you're X so you'll do things an X would do. Allow the game world to be effected by actions that your character does, rather than to let your character do certain actions because the devs made him/her an X.

No "you made your character a villain, here's your villain script" or "you made your character a hero, here's your hero script", that would be a choice you'd make for your character after "rolling" it, and your character's path would be scripted only by you and the other player characters you interact with. Unstructured, open-world PvP would only be the tip of the iceberg there.

No, don't want thhe ability to make my own scripts in a persistent world, I want no scripts to be held back by. That's what I mean by creative control.

pantagruel01 · July 2017

orangeitis said:
That's not what I meant. I mean creative control over YOUR CHARACTER, not the actual world itself. Their destiny, their role in society, etc. Basically, to not be given a script and told that you're X so you'll do things an X would do. Allow the game world to be effected by actions that your character does, rather than to let your character do certain actions because the devs made him/her an X.

That's something game designers have attempted for years. It runs into two classes of problems:

It requires more AI than we have for the PvE version.
The PvP version has fairly significant problems with being fun.

championshewolf · July 2017

orangeitis said:

championshewolf said:
Strawman
That's not what I meant. I mean creative control over YOUR CHARACTER, not the actual world itself. Their destiny, their role in society, etc. Basically, to not be given a script and told that you're X so you'll do things an X would do. Allow the game world to be effected by actions that your character does, rather than to let your character do certain actions because the devs made him/her an X.

No "you made your character a villain, here's your villain script" or "you made your character a hero, here's your hero script", that would be a choice you'd make for your character after "rolling" it, and your character's path would be scripted only by you and the other player characters you interact with. Unstructured, open-world PvP would only be the tip of the iceberg there.

No, don't want thhe ability to make my own scripts in a persistent world, I want no scripts to be held back by. That's what I mean by creative control.

Call it what you want, it isn't a straw man just because you don't like hearing it. And there is no other tip of the iceberg, you basically described the entire iceberg as it seems you forget that these worlds aren't just for the singular player.

pantagruel01 said:

That's something game designers have attempted for years. It runs into two classes of problems:
It requires more AI than we have for the PvE version.
The PvP version has fairly significant problems with being fun.

It's something developers threw their hands up on and have pushed away from for years to. The last true sandbox MMO that had actually been popular was EVE Online. Before that you had Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies. None of them have drawn much in clout and EVE itself only gains insight every now and then, and even though it offers a lot of freedoms, it is still very much a theme park game surrounded by a very large, but extremely limited sandbox.

EVE had some intriguing drama in its history, the Goon Fleet fiasco on BoB, and of course the ever prominent monocle debacle, but what else has their been? That kind of intrigue is a flash in the pan at best, and has only gotten such acclaim because of the actual real world dollar amount tied around EVE Online in game assets. But there hasn't been much drama since, at least anything anyone would consider big news.

Developing such sandboxes, especially in a multiplayer environment, would require vast amount of resources. Because you don't just account for one player, you have to account for many. It's why it is amusing watching people scream for balance one day, then whine like babies when the pendulum swings back on them. People always assume that a multiplayer game, especially an MMO, exists in a vacuum, but they don't. To create a world where you'd have such plethora of freedoms just isn't possible, and if you want to kill your super hero game and make it impossible to grow, make it pure PvP and unrestricted PvP. Hell, EVE only has the vast amount of accounts it had at one time because people would run multiple accounts at once, and UO didn't get it's 250,000 until they opened Trammel, aka the PvP free zone.

GTA5 Online, again, is a perfect place to see what happens with unrestricted PvP. Try starting fresh there, if you haven't. You et gunned down, or rather tanked down or rocketed from afar more times than you can count.

darqaura2 · July 2017

orangeitis said:

championshewolf said:
Strawman
That's not what I meant. I mean creative control over YOUR CHARACTER, not the actual world itself. Their destiny, their role in society, etc. Basically, to not be given a script and told that you're X so you'll do things an X would do. Allow the game world to be effected by actions that your character does, rather than to let your character do certain actions because the devs made him/her an X.

No "you made your character a villain, here's your villain script" or "you made your character a hero, here's your hero script", that would be a choice you'd make for your character after "rolling" it, and your character's path would be scripted only by you and the other player characters you interact with. Unstructured, open-world PvP would only be the tip of the iceberg there.

No, don't want thhe ability to make my own scripts in a persistent world, I want no scripts to be held back by. That's what I mean by creative control.

That's nice, but something like that would never come to this game. There just aren't the resources for such a huge change. Also anything with open world pvp is pretty much dead on arrival.

orangeitis · July 2017

darqaura2 said:
That's nice, but something like that would never come to this game. There just aren't the resources for such a huge change. Also anything with open world pvp is pretty much dead on arrival.

Yeah, that's true.

chaelk · July 2017

riverocean said:
Nope. Champions has probably received all the major development it's ever going to get. Despite the complaints, the villain side of DCUO really isn't that bad. I mostly enjoyed it -- but then I like playing the "naughty' faction in games.

I played both side and on day did the same mission from both sides.
Kill A to rescue B
Kill B to rescue A

the heroes were mooks for the majors too

chaelk · July 2017

orangeitis said:

championshewolf said:
Strawman
That's not what I meant. I mean creative control over YOUR CHARACTER, not the actual world itself. Their destiny, their role in society, etc. Basically, to not be given a script and told that you're X so you'll do things an X would do. Allow the game world to be effected by actions that your character does, rather than to let your character do certain actions because the devs made him/her an X.

No "you made your character a villain, here's your villain script" or "you made your character a hero, here's your hero script", that would be a choice you'd make for your character after "rolling" it, and your character's path would be scripted only by you and the other player characters you interact with. Unstructured, open-world PvP would only be the tip of the iceberg there.

No, don't want thhe ability to make my own scripts in a persistent world, I want no scripts to be held back by. That's what I mean by creative control.

this would require each mission to have several diferent thigns you could do and several different results.
also probably a reputation system to go with it.
based on reputation, you would/would not be able to get certain missions or deal with certain people.
The more freedom to choose your path, the more options required, the more programming required

chaelk · July 2017

snip... unrestricted pvp.

Evony (of the dubious advertising)
totally pvp, you got a one week grace period when you started, then butchered.
joining a guild, anyone in the guild attacked/spied on anyone, youcould get attacked.
joining an alliance, if anyone in your alliance attacked/spied on anyone in any guild in the alliane, you would get wiped out,
It ran 24hrs, so it was perfectly normal to log off with several cities you had carefully built up, then to lg back on and find someone had killed/stolen them all

markhawkman · July 2017

chaelk said:
snip... unrestricted pvp.

Evony (of the dubious advertising)
totally pvp, you got a one week grace period when you started, then butchered.
joining a guild, anyone in the guild attacked/spied on anyone, youcould get attacked.
joining an alliance, if anyone in your alliance attacked/spied on anyone in any guild in the alliane, you would get wiped out,
It ran 24hrs, so it was perfectly normal to log off with several cities you had carefully built up, then to lg back on and find someone had killed/stolen them all

Reminds me of this browser game called astroempires I used to play. it got tiresome after a while...

orangeitis · July 2017

chaelk said:

orangeitis said:

championshewolf said:
Strawman
That's not what I meant. I mean creative control over YOUR CHARACTER, not the actual world itself. Their destiny, their role in society, etc. Basically, to not be given a script and told that you're X so you'll do things an X would do. Allow the game world to be effected by actions that your character does, rather than to let your character do certain actions because the devs made him/her an X.

No "you made your character a villain, here's your villain script" or "you made your character a hero, here's your hero script", that would be a choice you'd make for your character after "rolling" it, and your character's path would be scripted only by you and the other player characters you interact with. Unstructured, open-world PvP would only be the tip of the iceberg there.

No, don't want thhe ability to make my own scripts in a persistent world, I want no scripts to be held back by. That's what I mean by creative control.
this would require each mission to have several diferent thigns you could do and several different results.
also probably a reputation system to go with it.
based on reputation, you would/would not be able to get certain missions or deal with certain people.
The more freedom to choose your path, the more options required, the more programming required

No, you still misunderstand. What I'm talking about would require there to be absolutely no scripted missions at all.

championshewolf · July 2017

orangeitis said:

No, you still misunderstand. What I'm talking about would require no scripted missions at all.

I'm sorry, but it would. There is no magical utopia where things will happen, and there is no code diverse or robust enough to handle all player wants, desires and happenstance.

catstarsto · July 2017

championshewolf said:

orangeitis said:

No, you still misunderstand. What I'm talking about would require no scripted missions at all.

I'm sorry, but it would. There is no magical utopia where things will happen, and there is no code diverse or robust enough to handle all player wants, desires and happenstance.

I dont know, I think a free Questionite code or button would make a lot of players happy...I know I would be! ^_^

jonsills · July 2017

"No scripted events" requires a truly intelligent Gamemaster - Lord knows I've played with some real humans who just couldn't handle the PCs going off his carefully-laid rails. (I only had to enforce the rails once - I needed the players to go to a particular place in the seedy part of London to find a time machine, and one of the players really, really wanted to go scout around to find himself a drug den instead. He was going to steal and use all the illicit pharmaceuticals they had, rather than go back in time and make sure the Magna Carta was signed. Had to push him back onto the "rails" for that one, or there would have been no game.)

AI isn't even advanced enough to keep up with railroad GMs - it certainly isn't advanced enough to give you the sort of completely open play you want in a persistent multiplayer world like an MMO. No matter what you play online, you're going to have a plot to follow. I'm just glad we don't have too many 20 Bear Asses missions in CO. (Bad memories of slaughtering goretusks up and down Westfall, trying for hours to find enough of them with livers. You'd think "liver" would be a pretty standard piece of equipment for a living wild boar, wouldn't you?)

championshewolf · July 2017

Yes, players are notorious for going off script. Even in table top PnP games, it can be difficult for a GM to come up with responses on the fly for out of left field responses that players can come up with because, "hey it's a game and there for my characters doesn't have to be as careful as I would naturally be," or "I can just re-roll another one if things go south here," thus that level of consequence of the scenario isn't as over bearing as it would naturally be. It's hard on a normal person to be able to think on the fly for troublesome/uncooperative players, I can't imagine trying to program that many contingencies for those type of players either. And there is no mistake there, anonymity of the internet tied with ego/douche bag mentality when you have an almost consequence free system in an MMO (death hardly matters these days for instance) is prime for some off script behaviors.

And there is a delicate line between legitimate PvP and griefing/harassment in games. Open world games, such game play styles tend to be detrimental to the actual game, hence why there are dedicated people to protecting new players in games like EVE Online, because such toxic play hurts the game. This is why the more popular games tend to stick with controlled, arena style PvP instead of free for all open world PvP as well. Even WoW's PvP servers are still structured PvP, not free for all. If you don't like being ganked, simple solution there is just pick the bigger faction, since in those type of PvP games, that's exactly what happens because "git gud" usually involves playing with the people that carry the bigger stick.

spinnytop · July 2017

Evil is dumb, that's why good always wins.

decorumfriends · July 2017

"I disagree."

catstarsto · July 2017

hey, dont make use the raspberry!!

nepht · July 2017

freewaydoggy said:
I mean, wouldn't it be awesome if I could create & customize my main character as a villainess & then create a heroine nemesis that always tries to stop her at every turn, but my villainess comes up victorious?

I've been playing the villain for 6 years now. There are plenty of player controlled hero characters that you can duel and punch in the &^%$.

magpieuk2014 · July 2017

Oh, you are one of those people. Wasn't a tribble btw, should actually watch the movie.

The problem was that it was a comic-book death/resurrection bait-and-switch that lost the reboot any credibility. When Spock died in "The Wrath of Khan" it was a genuine shock but that plotline - Kirk dying, ffs - was resolved so quickly and casually that it would have been embarrassing in an 80s episode of "Doctor Who". Then they went and blew up the "Enterprise" in "Beyond"... it's just lazy and cheap plotting. Shame, because the first reboot movie was great.

championshewolf · July 2017

magpieuk2014 said:
Oh, you are one of those people. Wasn't a tribble btw, should actually watch the movie.

The problem was that it was a comic-book death/resurrection bait-and-switch that lost the reboot any credibility. When Spock died in "The Wrath of Khan" it was a genuine shock but that plotline - Kirk dying, ffs - was resolved so quickly and casually that it would have been embarrassing in an 80s episode of "Doctor Who". Then they went and blew up the "Enterprise" in "Beyond"... it's just lazy and cheap plotting. Shame, because the first reboot movie was great.

That seems to be a silly excuse to hate on a series. Honestly, I've enjoyed the JJ reboot because it has captured the spirit of TOS, but whatever floats your boat. BTW, ressurrecting Spock was just as if not more comic bookie and killed the weight of the ending of Star Trek 2. Thankfully Star Trek 4 was awesome.

darqaura2 · July 2017

championshewolf said:

magpieuk2014 said:
Oh, you are one of those people. Wasn't a tribble btw, should actually watch the movie.

The problem was that it was a comic-book death/resurrection bait-and-switch that lost the reboot any credibility. When Spock died in "The Wrath of Khan" it was a genuine shock but that plotline - Kirk dying, ffs - was resolved so quickly and casually that it would have been embarrassing in an 80s episode of "Doctor Who". Then they went and blew up the "Enterprise" in "Beyond"... it's just lazy and cheap plotting. Shame, because the first reboot movie was great.
That seems to be a silly excuse to hate on a series. Honestly, I've enjoyed the JJ reboot because it has captured the spirit of TOS, but whatever floats your boat. BTW, ressurrecting Spock was just as if not more comic bookie and killed the weight of the ending of Star Trek 2. Thankfully Star Trek 4 was awesome.

Didn't the resurrection of Spock in Star Trek 3 take at least a year though? (I'm referring to the span of time between the films). Also they kinda kept the plot of his reintegration/rebirth going at the start of Star Trek 4. So the whole thing had weight at the time.

I think his issue is that it happened so quickly with no span of time in JJ's version, that the death was seem to be cheap in JJ's version of that plot when compared to the original.

Personally I don't mind it, and didn't find either all that comic booky, (it's scifi and it's star trek, let's have some reasonable expectations lol) but I can see why some might if they remembered and enjoyed the original path of Spock's death, resurrection and relearning of the divide between his Vulcan and Human heritage between all three of those original movies vs the seeming rush job for JJ Universe Kirk.

catstarsto · July 2017

championshewolf said:

magpieuk2014 said:
Oh, you are one of those people. Wasn't a tribble btw, should actually watch the movie.

The problem was that it was a comic-book death/resurrection bait-and-switch that lost the reboot any credibility. When Spock died in "The Wrath of Khan" it was a genuine shock but that plotline - Kirk dying, ffs - was resolved so quickly and casually that it would have been embarrassing in an 80s episode of "Doctor Who". Then they went and blew up the "Enterprise" in "Beyond"... it's just lazy and cheap plotting. Shame, because the first reboot movie was great.
That seems to be a silly excuse to hate on a series. Honestly, I've enjoyed the JJ reboot because it has captured the spirit of TOS, but whatever floats your boat. BTW, ressurrecting Spock was just as if not more comic bookie and killed the weight of the ending of Star Trek 2. Thankfully Star Trek 4 was awesome.

I would have to disagree. I think it captured the spirit of the millennial generation. Instead of a crew of professionally trained scientists and soldiers, we have a group of young arrogant fools playing everything by ear, who manages to survive and win because the writer is on their side, certainly not because they are confident in their training and know what they are doing! Even their version of spock always looked angry, and contemptual like an internet troll, not laid back in confidence of his logic. The social content was a fast paced mess of no discipline, just mouthy and unstable personality's feeling their way around the universe with no clue, in some haphazard attempt to...well, when are they ever exploring??

NO, this is starbucks hipsters in space. They would of been the misfits if you intoduced this bunch to the old series, like they did with the space hippies episode.

championshewolf · July 2017

darqaura2 said:

Didn't the resurrection of Spock in Star Trek 3 take at least a year though? (I'm referring to the span of time between the films). Also they kinda kept the plot of his reintegration/rebirth going at the start of Star Trek 4. So the whole thing had weight at the time.

I think his issue is that it happened so quickly with no span of time in JJ's version, that the death was seem to be cheap in JJ's version of that plot when compared to the original.

Personally I don't mind it, and didn't find either all that comic booky, (it's scifi and it's star trek, let's have some reasonable expectations lol) but I can see why some might if they remembered and enjoyed the original path of Spock's death, resurrection and relearning of the divide between his Vulcan and Human heritage between all three of those original movies vs the seeming rush job for JJ Universe Kirk.

There's no actual mention of time span. Most people assume things to account for errors in things like the appearance of the Enterprise from 2 to 3, but beyond that, no. I can't remember the source but if I recall the events of 3 were suppose to be right after 2, with maybe a month or two between events, since the Enterprise was in pitiful shape at the end of 2 and needing of repairs. Remember the warp drive was at best being held together by duct tape and bits of string after all.

The thing that was kept on the back burner was Spock's death in 2. There had been a leak about it because Spock was suppose to have died early in 2, but they moved his death back. In fact, you will note that for a large portion of 2, Spock is missing from the movie which entails that beyond the voice over lines, they had no intention of having him around. It was quite obvious they were going to try and bring back Spock some how, but no idea how since the title of 3 is, of course, The Search for Spock. They just weren't letting on it was Nimoy.

The big weight, of 3, was the destruction of the Enterprise. Now a days no one bats and eyelash at this point anymore, because the Enterprise (especially the D) can't seem to go without being destroyed multiple times over. Hence why the D's final destruction never held any weight to most, versus the original TOS Enterprise. Most people had seen the D destroyed dozens of times by that point and well, they already made it a staple that it was gone. Me I was just happy to see the lame duck D gone and replaced by something that looked more like the Enterprise I knew, just too bad TNG movies tended to suck.

Personally, as far as Spock's rebirth, I loved the character, but the whole Genesis thing was a cop out. The only reason it didn't happen in Star Trek 2 was Paramount was sure Nimoy was gone because he had been clamoring for an out for years. But evidently, after Star Trek 2 reminded him of the fun he use to have versus Gene's attempt during the Motion Picture, Nimoy wanted back in and even wanted to direct and Paramount was on full sail at that point.

Will I ever be able to play as a villain in Champions Online, ever????

Comments