薔薇語

Yeah, that would have been nice. I still don't think it would have really fixed the issue for me. He knows he needs to be incognito and is hardly that foolish, I would think, but at least it would have given us something. Also, I was really surprised by the Garrik thing, too. At fist I just thought "oh, yeah! Super speed so he can just avoid all conventional and most extraordinary locks" but that obviously isn't the case. It is getting too annoying. They should just put the team out in an open field with a nice sun roof. -- I just now noticed there is a show called Vixen on the CW. I have only gotten a bit into it but it seems really nice. http://cwseed.com/shows/vixen/vixen-season-1/?play=24dac429-d147-4492-bbe9-818188019537 Soar.

So there was one full on ID reveal that lead to yet another ID reveal plus one "we need to have a talk, Joe!" reveals, too. While I think we take it forgranted that Cisco keeps secrets well, he is not often put into such situations as it was there. He almost always calls Flash by his real name anyway. So a momentary lapse in a relatively private setting right after having his life saved seems acceptable. A bit of a "not again!?!" moment but at least it made some situational sense. The further reveal of Oliver Queen's ID I thought was a bit forced, though. Why not have them stay in costume when dealing with them? But C'est la vie. At least this will be a main story hero and not just some b / c line character like the other reporter. Also, I really did like the reveal of Dr. Wells by the officer (forgot her name for the moment). But I am totally blown away by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any security in STAR labs. Seriously, why don't bums just start moving in at this point? I liked the ingenuity put on display, just not the stupid stick that STAR Labs seems to have been beaten to death with. All in all, I enjoyed the episode. I think it will be a great lead in for Legends of Tomorrow. Soar.

Yeah, but just how many stories have dealt with the "I am ultra powerful and live in a world of Tissue" or "I have my one rule for a reason!!!" or "Lois just fell from a building, etc."? I think I just captured 80 percent or more. Soar.

You could just buy Martial Strike, offensive strike, or Killing strike as Martial arts with a weapon element being Brass nuckles, etc. When you buy Martial Arts, you get one free default Weapon element, so make that the nuckles. You could also buy the same M.A. and say the Weapon Element is your fists because he is a boxer. Then buy one or two DC levels of Martial Arts (base four pts a piece) then add on an OIF (obvious inaccessible focus): Brass Knuckles. Thia will let you be a good boxer who can pump out a touch more damage with a weapon. Soar.

Only if you spoiler it for those of us who are faint of heart. Soar.

Go figure: it was the Sherif of Nottingham that was the badguy in that story and the badguy in our real life one. So, where is our man in green tights to start some armed robbery of the police? Soar.

Hey, now! Keep up that kind of talk and you might find your computer seized. Soar.

I generally agree that dropping hints here and there is good and something that I enjoy seeing. But there is a cost to every hint. There are a million and one things that Marvel could hint at in every movie but even if every single one only required 1 second to do, that is still going to be longer than the whole of the movie. And thus picking and choosing which ones are important is vital to the planning and production phase. Add to that that there is a limit to how much you can shoot. Every bit that makes the movie longer is a bit that costs the studio more money - and they want to see a return on investment. And if we are adding in hints that are more or less mystic and unclear and NEVER get cleared up in the movie series, then we are wasting money. After all, these movies are not designed to be advertisers for the comics; if I recall correctly, Marvel hasn't even seen that big of an uptake in readership despite all the movies. No, so adding in cryptic and un-noticeable lines about something that will never be explored is a bad business decision. So, now a days the studio has a stronger vision of what will be coming up and what they can expect to incorporate into the mythos of the MCU. Thus adding in an extra minute of "cryptic" foreshadowing is acceptable. But then again, having one writing team and director incorporate that into one movie that then binds the 'creative talent' of the next team and director is only going to cause contention - afterall, you never know when you will have a turn coat talent like Josh Wheadon show up who just wants to throw out your whole masterful plan. So minimizing stuff like that is probably best from a business perspective. Soar.

I am probably the only person on these boards who is saddened by this possibility. While I understand and accept the value of crossovers, I am always a bit worried. Back with the Arrow - Flash crossovers I got worried about needing to watch Arrow episodes just to keep up with the show I liked. Luckily I don't think anything happened in the Arrow Episodes that I couldn't gleam from the Flash ones nor was it truly plot driving. Hopefully that trend holds true here, too. And also, I really hope they rely on the Flash writing team rather than the folks they have for the Supergirl team. Sheesh. Soar.

It is right before the session where they teach you to search for surveillance footage and delete anything that could convict your dirty rotten ass. Soar.

I am not sure if you are a DnD player or even if this is still in the current set of rules, but there used to be an optional "take a 20" rule. This reflected that while in combat the chances of you succeeding at something was low, the chances of you doing a good job while under no stress and expending adequate time (2 minutes or more for that rule) were significantly higher. Sure, you could fail even doing (that 20 was not a 'critical roll'), but it was just understood that you had the best of all chances. Now, while there is no such rule in HERO that I am aware of, there is the option to take time to accomplish any goal. So, while it may be physically possible to write a program for the NSA's new spy satellite's data collection in 1 hour, most people don't do that. Why? Because we intrinsically recognize that taking time to think and double check is more valuable than pure speed. We "take time" to accomplish a set goal. So, if we move that programming challenge down to a few weeks we are going from a 8- to an 11- or 12-. That alone means we are succeeding more than half the time. If we have expert assistance, we can gain another plus one or two, thus sitting at a 12- or 14-. So on an so forth. And that assume we started out with the most basic of skill levels (8 or less). Add in some personal expertise and we can see why most professions only require an 11- in the skill to be truly and completely competent. Going up the skill chart is more about being able to remove your aids (other experts, time, etc) and do things quickly and on your own with a good level of success. Soar.

Or the state declaring one of the biggest legends a target and rupturing the team that was entrusted to keep everyone safe. If this becomes a media spectacle we can easily start to see things go south for the world. All in all, the MCU is small, that is true. But that doesn't always come out as the deciding issue. Most comics and movies are character pieces. We read civil war not to just see super on super violence in large scale but to watch the journey of individuals as they struggle with an oppressive state and rebellious former friends. So the essence of Civil War would most certainly still seem to be there. Soar.

I am glad you enjoyed it. I am currently trying to think of how to do a three person cast for a 20+ minute cast with Hero.Net Harold, The Magical Ms. Maryann, and Gnu Gnews. That would hopefully be a set of 1) hard news 2) interview and celeb dish 3) conspiracy corner and stories. I have a script in place for HNH already, working on the one for MMM's interview of the Art Gallery owner, and have a couple ideas down for how Gnu's Conspiracy Corner will go. I hope to have them out by next weekend. So if you have a few minutes to spare come ThanksGiving weekend, please listen and review. ^^ Soar.

Hyrule Legends is a halfway established product that already has a ton of female leads in it. This isn't a product doomed to suffer because of the inclusion of Linkle anymore than it is destined to succeed because of her. Assuming the creative control groups are playing this as a testing ground, it is a stupid one to do as it will only prove a point if there is absolutely radical acceptance or denial of the character by the masses; this being a situation not likely to occur. Soar.

Re: Markdoc and TheDarkness. Markdoc, it could certainly be that there is some point being made that I am not grasping, but of course I doubt that. At the end of the day, though, I think you are missing the heart of my post: the demands to reskin a character into a female version are not ever going to appease the crowd of individuals demanding such. Reskinning batman into a youngman (Robin) or Superman into a young girl (Supergirl) has a negative outcome. Creating a distinct character inside the establish continuity (Batgirl) also will never work. The only real option is to create a new property (Wonder Woman) but that doesn't answer the original demands to redo an establish male property as a female. Thus the demands are unachievable. TheDarkness, Linkle is most certainly an acquiescence to feminist demands to see a female link. Following the reveal of the upcoming Legend of Zelda property last year, they received a lot of mixed reviews followed by outcries for a female link because the possible title character (it is safe to say the displayed character was link) appeared to be more feminine but was still male. This sparked a large and vocal demand by feminist groups to see a female Link. Low and behold just a year later there is a female version of a Link-esce character: Linkle. And might I add once again, we do NOT know her storyline. We do not know if she is a reincarnation of Link or, if like Impa, just a completely distinct character. Assuming it is safe to say that Linkle will be treated like Zelda and Midna in the upcoming game, she will have a full and independent playable arch just like Link. While Link may deliver the final blow to Gannon (or whoever the enemy happens to be), Linkle will be a necessary, fun, and playable part of the story. And as is relevant to the discussion, the option to simply elevate Zelda to principle character status was nigh universally rejected by feminists at the time of the original controversy. This means the goal isn't to have a positive female character but to take away the sole positive male character and make it female. That isn't a desire to see equality but spite. Soar.

If there is some clear indication that the mage's magic armor is still up despite not currently encanting and there is some general way to recognize the source (wand is visibly glowing and humming with power) and there is no dictate that the power require actions thoughout, I would allow it to be tucked away. But simply putting in a bag wouldn't be enough to obscure it. The bag would likely glow as if a flashlight were in it and hum as if a vibrating cell phone was going off. And of course the field of protection would be noticeable. And of course putting it into a vulnerable bag is just going to make it vulnerable. Player's choice. Soar.

Overwatch has been in a 'Closed' Testing Beta for sometime. If you go to Twitch you can watch people play Overwatch a lot. Countless hours of professionals have been played. Soar.

Re: TheDarkness post 1982. I am glad you and I agree on the Pacman and Mrs. Pacman issue. I think your citing of the Batgirl and Supergirl examples are not as clear cut as you would want them to be. While I can not claim any particularly strong knowledge of the origins of those characters (I am not old enough to have witnessed their respective births nor interested enough in them to have invested time to memorize them), I can claim a stronger set of knowledge of the modern characters. And since we are talking about Modern Feminists discussing modern issues, having modern claims I think is only advisable, if not mandatory. So, lets look at Barbara Gordon - Batgirl (Pre-Killing Joke). Is she a less effective version of Batman? Well, only in so much as the Robins are less effective versions of Batman. And even less so than the first two Robins. We have a young woman who, of her own volition, decides to don a costume and fight for her city. She comes from a healthy family (or as healthy a Gotham family can be) with loving parents. That is fairly different from Batman. She is intelligent and independent - eschewing any desires to seek her father's approval or most any man or woman's approval. She is a capable fighter, too. While I can't in good conscious say she is as hyper-capable as Batman, I can't say in good conscious that ANY DC character is - even Superman! So if we are setting the gold standard as her needing to match up exactly with Batman, then we are asking too much, I think. But if we set it so that she parallels other male characters in her category (Bat-family members), she is just as capable and impactful as any of the Robins. Comparing apples to apples, I think the issue falls apart. Essentially what I am saying here is that when we look at the character critically and not through pre-conceived notions of narrative, we see a strong young woman who made an active and personal choice to become a hero. A woman who originally did show without the input of Batman and without the approval of her other male role model. It would be tough to say that she is somehow not a good role model for women everywhere; even if she doesn't punch as hard as Bruce. Following the Killing Joke events, she becomes an even stronger role model and diverges a lot from the original Batman knockoff. We get a character who is instrumental to the Bat-family, a woman who has overcome extreme anguish to be an even more effective warrior, someone who commands respect and someone who actively controls her own destiny. There are occasions she when directly disagrees with others (Gordon and Bruce specifically) and forges her own path that works out well for her. She, as much as Nightwing and perhaps more so, broke out of the Batman-sidekick role. That is a powerful role-model for anyone - girls most certainly included. So again, I find the narrative that diminishes Ms. Gordon just because she isn't punching in Superman's league, much less The Bat's (cause his is higher) to be missing the whole point. Such rhetoric is too self obsessed with its pre-established talking points to see what is in front of them. The Supergirl bits I know far less about (that is saying a lot since I don't know THAT much about Barbara, either). But I have seen Supergirl do incredible feats. And compared to her name-sake, Clark, she only lacks in one area: experience. But is that a bad thing? It lets us tell a fresh and new tale; a more relatable tale. And lets not forget that Supergirl is a character that has done things that even superman hasn't like removing a Red Lantern Ring from herself and surviving the ordeal. There is the follow up point that we can ignore all of my above points by driving home the idea that the above are "knockoff [characters] never intended to compete with the original." And it is here that I say we are trying to have our cake and eat it, too / that there exists no solution to the modern Feminist demand here. Why so? Well, we can look at every character who has in-universe 'clones'. This would be Batman with his Robins and Batgirl, etc. and Superman with the various other Kryptonians (Kara, Krypto, etc). These characters are not normally designed to "compete" with the original character. But is that because they are female or because they are not the original character? I think it is deeply flawed to assume the former and ignore the latter. None of the Robins were designed to compete with Batman. But we don't claim any level of issue with that. But the critique, if applied to the other male characters would mean that Tim Drake should have replaced the Batman or that if he was given a spinoff, it should have been designed to somehow "compete" with the original title. Sure we could cite the fact that a lot of these characters are given their own spinoffs that do "compete" with the original titles and that it is true for male and female characters, but that never seems to be enough. So, what is the demand? And how exactly is Batgirl not meeting them? In the case of Linkle specifically, we have a new and unique Female character. She is one of many female heroes (Impa, Sheik, Lana, Zelda, Ruto, Agitha, Midna, Fi). I believe all of them are fully playable with their own story arcs - I know for sure half of them are in the original title. So, she is joining a field full of unique and dynamic female heroes. But there is only one male hero in the original and three in the follow up assuming Toon Link and King Hyrule get an independent playable story arc. So, I repeat again that we have a game series that is not lacking for really positive female appearance - indeed, it is extremely weighted in favor of positive female roles. But that isn't enough? No, the sole positive male role must also be taken away? Is that not a bit extreme to ask of a game series that is positive and empowering? As to the exact role of Linkle, is she part of the Link Continuum (my words)? I don't know. Nor does the author of that page. We do not know the plot of the series yet. But assuming it runs like the original, there will be some baddy who is such a threat or does something extremely stupid and forces all these distinct characters from different timelines to be mashed together (Not all the Heroes are from the same game - despite being from the same franchise - and most games take place generations apart from each other). It could be that Linkle, Toon Link, and H.W. Link are all independent reincarnations of the Link Continuum. But lets assume she is not part of the Link Continuum and just an independent character: why is that a bad thing? We have a character who is unique, independent and, if done like the other female characters, fully capable. She will also be a character, who if done like the other female characters, will be playable and whose independent quests are needed to save the day and complete the game. Is she the title character? Well, no. But neither is Link ^^. All that said, could Link be a female character in the main franchise? Yeah. I have little issue with this. It would be different. But if we are simply doing it to be different are we actually achieving feminist goals? "The newest Link is exactly the same as all the old ones but sans the penis! Enjoy" is exactly just a reskinning of the character. It isn't empowering to just penis chop a character cuz rezonz. And your argument in all of post 1982 I think reflects that when we talk about how simply doing a gender swap isn't good enough - there needs to be something more. What is that something more? That something more is having a character who is independent of the title character. So independent that she stands on her own without referent because once there is referent there is naturally going to exist some stupid pissing contest. No, there can't be a referent. Thus the real ideal isn't that we reskin a character but create new ones; ones like Wonder Woman. Female leads who are leads because that is their normal and natural state. Ones who never have to worry about being less than "--man" because there is not comparison to draw. It is in this regard that I think Linkle falls apart. My real criticism of Linkle is that the character was created simply to appease a group of people who can't be appeased. And the real solution was simply to make an already existing female character a bigger part of the series. Zelda, for example. She is the Title character in the series for a reason. But of course when (counter) requests were made to just elevate Zelda, self described feminist railed against that too. There is no happy medium and there is no possible solution that doesn't breed more into this misguided attempt to put disempowered-woman-narrative ahead of the truth. Soar

Why is Champions used as a measuring stick in the first place? You realize that they are fundementally different products. If not, why not complain that Friends and HERO are not compatible. Or how Pixels and HERO are not compatible. You are stating that they aren't compatible (A point which I think I did a good job at refuting) without addressing the greater point of "why even compare the completely distinct products?" That is like: A - "The Great Spaghetti monster in space is real!" B - "Why do you think that?" A - "Because I think The Great Spaghetti monster in space is real!!" B - "Why?" A - "Because..." At some point you need to actually address the basic question that is being asked: why compare HERO system to The Flash? Would it be equally okay to compare Monsters and Masterminds? How about Gurps? Would DnD Modern be okay? BESM? Fate? Are all of them reasonable? What do we do when BESM can account for something but DnD can't? Why do you assume Grodd will never be able to use his MC? He has already shown that he can. The whole set up for that episode was him getting away with his MC. Even against a member of the team. Cisco created a device to stop his MC but can't give an absolute protection against mental blasts, disorientation, and giant ape fists. So Grodd is still a rival. He is just one that doesn't have an "Auto-win" vs the Hero. And to put this in HERO terms for you since you seem to insist on it: Any GM who builds an NPC with an Auto-win and doesn't allow the PCs to negate that is a terrible GM. Any villain that can out power my Character Physically, Mentally, and is prevented from being neutered is a villain that is wholly uninteresting and the GM is terrible for using it. Are you suggesting that we should have terrible GMs in Champions? ^-^; Lets also address the fact that your point is stupid - yes, absolutely stupid. In the first encounter with the Mental Defense device, the Flash gets knocked about and the device ends up malfunctioning. Thus, his ability to strictly resit Grodd is predicated on him not taking a big hit to the face. And Grodd, while not as fast as The Flash is still able to anticipate his movements to a degree and beat the ever living crap out of him - thus making him vulnerable to the most Game-Overy attack available: a full on Mental Domination via Mind Control. Lastly, lets address your complete disregard for the source material: Heroes always find ways to narrowly beat out their opponents. It is not an exception to the rule that a Hero with some level of gadgetry or with helpers with some level of gadgetry manage to build a device to stop an opponent. No, it is not the exception; indeed, it is quite the opposite. How many times has Tony Stark made adjustments to his suit to defeat foes? How many times has Batman just remembered to bring McGruffin X in his utility belt in order to win? How many times has Ant-Man or Mr. Fantastic create some program or device to win a battle or find a baddy? These are not uncommon. These are expected. If Cisco, Kaitlin, Wells, and Barry were not doing this we would all call them idiots for not exploiting their best tools. And for someone who has complained so strongly that these characters suffer from Dumb Streaks to be demanding that they suffer from Genre destroying dumb streaks is peculiar at best. I get it. Flash isn't doing exactly what you would do if you were the Flash. Too bad. Get over it. But making up excuses to be salty at a show is just mind boggling. And if you are really struggling to watch a show, just quit. I made my two (three?) complaint posts about Supergirl in the Supergirl thread and ended it there. There are people in that thread who like the show. They don't need me going in there explaining and complaining about how terrible a show that is every week. And quite frankly, I don't need that. It is just best to accept such as the way of the world and move onto greener pastures that make you happy. Soar. PS: We have also given a rather clear and obvious work around for Grodd's MC power. You can't protect everyone all the time from Grodd. And it only takes one civilian being captured to rendered The Flash incapable of something.

Re: Grodd's Mental attack It makes perfect cinematic sense for Grodd to use a mind control attack and when he realize it doesn't work for him to overdo it. This overdoing of his MC is just the special effect of his Mental Blast. Why is that a difficult concept to grasp in a cinematic and champion's sense? Grodd attempts a MC or Telepathy. When he sees he doesn't achieve his desired effects, he simply goes for a Mind Blast. There, it is now mechanically consistent with HERO system. Option two: the Mental Defense is bought perhaps with "only versus Mind Control and Telepathy" and certainly a severe side effect "Mind Control and Telepathy DCs used on this subject are transferred into DCs of Mind Blast" or other such wording to produce a mentally damaging effect upon use of the Mental Defense power. There, it is now mechanically consistent with HERO system. So, we can show that the cinematic experience we enjoyed is consistent with HERO system rules. This is true even though it was not developed with the intent of being consistent with the HERO system rules. It is like getting upset that The Flash isn't consistent with DnD or Vampire: The Masquerade. It has no need to be. It isn't part of those products. And if it just happens to be, that is a weird coincidence. What matters more is that it is internally consistent. For example, I do not care if HERO system is consistent with DnD, I only care that the rules of HERO system are compatible and consistent with the rules of HERO system. Soar.

re: Grodd's mind control. If they don't solve for it in some way there would be no stopping him in continuity yet. He would just be a big dark game over button. But you also over estimate his depowering. Cant he still push it so that The Flash and others are mentally hurt, just not MC? Or am I misremembering. Besides, they cant have enough to save a crowd of people and they dont magically make him physically weaker. Indeed, The Flash struggles to touch Grogg even while protected. Soar.

The most recent episode was good. I really enjoyed watching Grodd coming back into the fray. And the ending was perfect. I really want to know more about E-2. All the bits they have dropped so far make it seem really great. I wonder if maybe the little bits they drop here and there are ways of prepping the audience and / or testing the waters with the audience to see what will fly. I would enjoy seeing more of an E-2 brought up. Maybe Flash could settle things with Garrik and Zoom there. But in doing so gets trapped for a few episodes. Just enough to help get the feel for the place and then come back. I think that would be great for seeing if I really want to see a show set in 'that' kind of world. All in all, a good episode with lots of interesting bits. The Cisco side story especially was good. Dat kiss, yo! Soar.

The way I always thought of the order of operations was: 1 - Determine if the attack hit or missed. 2 - Determine how many dice of effect can be rolled 3 - Determine if there is any Damage Negation. If so, reduce the Dice of Effect from above 4 - Roll the dice to determine the effect. 5 - Apply all the standard static (single number) defenses (PD, ED, PwrD, etc). 6 - Determine carry over past defenses 7 - Apply any percentage reductions that are relevant (Damage Reduction). 8 - Determine final effect and apply against the relevant stats (STUN, Body, END, CON, etc). 9 - Determine if the defender has become "STUNNED" 10 - Finished. Things like "Teamwork" and possibly "Autofire" can affect this a bit. So, if I was applying POWER DEFENSE against a DRAIN attack, I would apply it at stage 5. If there was a Damage Negation against Drain, I would apply that at stage 3. If there is any Damage Reduction, I would apply that at stage 7. Soar.

Before delving into this let me state that I am going to be approaching two separate points. The first is to respond to a legitimate criticism you have about my criticism. It is a fair point and deserves its own response. Flowing from that I want to get back to my original point which I don't think was captured in your post but I think will make more sense after clearing up your first point. "Putting a dress on a popular male character and calling that equivalent investment to the amount of work into making the male character compelling has a very poor history. There is 'has equivalent powers, and is thus equal' and 'the company has actually invested themselves to develop compelling female characters that hold the central role'." <snip> "Putting a dress onto a character and giving them weapons just like every other character in the series is not the same level of investment, which tends to be what feminists would like to see." This is a good point. There is a difference between creating an independent female character and re-skinning a male character... sometimes. And it is that qualification that is the crux of the matter here. What in-depth story points, character arcs, etc. is Ms. Pacman missing that Pacman has? Unless I have manage to go 30 years without ever becoming aware of some well known and elaborate mythos about Pacman, I feel it is safe to say he has none. And certainly nothing that was more painstaking than "He likes dots. He likes Fruits. He likes blue Ghosts. Other Ghosts are scary and kill him." So by simply reskinning him and adding a bow, Ms. Pacman has garnered the same amount of backstory and character development as her male counterpart. But if that was enough for modern feminists we wouldn't have to hear about the Ms. Pacman problem. No. Despite claims to the contrary, there is a vocal group who wants both a reskin but also MORE than the original character. At some point when does it become fair to claim that they aren't actually consistent? At what point do we have to sit down and say "No, what you want is a new character for a new game that isn't really the same as the previous one"? This goes exactly the same for Linkle. While there is a lot of mythos around the character of "the hero" who happens to be "Link", there isn't much character development for the kid. Indeed, he was designed to be a largely blank-slate character from the start. That way everyone playing the game could impose upon the character their own views. Is he kind and virtuous? Is he a bit of a sociopath who likes violence? Does he prefer tea or coffee? While the former are a bit more instructive than the latter, we have about the same amount of information about both. It wasn't until the much later games that we started to get some more glimpses into Link's personality and his personal journey. Even then it is limited. And it is so precisely because the creators wanted Link to be a rather blank slate. The "Hero" of Hyrule could have been anyone. Even more reason why you have always been allowed to change Link's name. It could even be you! But when we look at the female characters we see there is a bit of a different story. They tend (especially in the latter games) to be more set. Personality and motives are more on display. Character arcs actually occur. We have seen a variety of Zelda's come into being and display what kind of person they are in a way that Link never has. We have seen the character arcs for the principle badguys put onto display (to a lesser degree). Indeed, when it comes to lush character development, being Link is a bad idea. So, when there is a complaint about a reskin of Link to Linkle that references "backstory" or any other such issues, I can't help but laugh. It is coming from people who vastly over-estimate what the male character has going for him. Partly because of the success of the design - his personality and backstory is YOUR personality and backstory. Thus it is as lush as you want it to be. How is Linkle lacking compared to Link? Actually, lets address a very salient point right here: absolutely no one who is complaining knows the background and personality of Linkle - not unless they somehow happened to have worked on the project. But given that the Hyrule Warriors game introduces a new plot that explains the personality and motivations of all these time and dimension displaced characters, I fully expect Linkle to have her own story. And for that story to depict a personality - and likely do it in a way equal to or better than Link's own. --- Moving onto my next point which was my original point when discussing the Ms. Pacman issue: Modern Feminism seems to be heavily driven by narrative more than anything else. The original example I gave of the Ms. Pacman dichotomy being a prime one. Using the same "facts" that there existed a Pacman and then Ms. Pacman with the stated 'story' and abilities, we can arrive at two wildly different interpretations. The only deciding factor is what biases we brought in beforehand. Do I want to see this as empowering or disempowering? And if that is all that it takes to define one's take, then there is no point to having any facts - You aren't actually hinging yourself or your argument to them. Narrative driven critiques are not subject to Falsifiablity. I can't tell you empirically or otherwise that Ms. Pacman is empowering to women or disempowering. And subsequently, neither can any feminist who would claim otherwise. Having a movement that is, in the case of this topic of video games media, so stringtly disconnected from logical progression in argumentation leads me to not give a damn. And the rather strong levels of attacks those in that movement give based on their self imposed narrative leads me to tune out even more. Hence why I read that quoted text and the quoted text alone in the original post. Why waste my time on more narrative based twistings of reason? --- Lastly, I find it hard to reconcile the desire to see the same character gender-swapped while complaining that the character was gender swapped. The plea to see a new character (New story arc with new and unique abilities) while demanding the old (Why doesn't Linkle have the master sword!!!). There exists no achievable medium that wouldn't rendered the character unrecognizable. Soar.

Why? Everything in that scene seemed to encourage a continuity of action. Otherwise we have to assume that her sister, the baddies, her boss, and James all just waited around for a month without a story relevant peep about supergirl. And since it is drawing heavily from the clothing change trope, which uses a continuity of action as part of its set up, we have have every reason to assume that happens in one day at the longest. So what convinced you otherwise on that? Soar.