zslane

I'd say that U.S. "values" are all over the place right now, and that you can't really paint the entire country with a single ideological brush. Half of the country is well-meaning but politically estranged, and the other half isn't evil (ala Hydra), it's just ignorant and afraid.

The difference is that the first two Spideys weren't part of a decade-long cinematic franchise with unprecedented levels of continuity sharing between films, televisions shows, and video games. There was no ongoing continuity to preserve at Sony, so audiences never gave it a second thought when each Spider-Man reboot started anew (with a different actor). With the (rare) exception of Banner and Rhodey, both of whom only appeared in one movie before having the portraying actor replaced, each MCU character has been depicted by only one actor, and I am pretty confident that Feige intends to keep it that way.

If you are producing your product exclusively through vehicles like Kickstarter, then that means you are operating independent of an established publisher, and that is the very definition of "indie" (i.e., indie being short for independent). The nature/style of your game design is orthogonal to your publishing stratum.
 
By this definition, most RPG "publishers" out there are indie, yes.

Well, Champions started out as an "indie" game, and then grew to become a major product brand (mostly thanks to I.C.E.). Post-4th edition, however, it shrunk back down to indie status, and now it is more of a community project than a legitimate, fully commercial product line, at least in my view.

I see plenty of hand-wringing over the fear of monopolies and pearl-clutching over the evils of giant corporations scattered throughout the Internet, but I guess I can't be bothered to fret over this stuff. So far, Disney's acquisition strategy has failed to have any meaningfully negative impact on my life. Sure, the latest Star Wars movies are a mixed bag overall, but George Lucas had completely lost it when it came to competent storytelling and wasn't doing his franchise any favors either, so I don't see that as having gone anywhere but up despite the recent stumbling. Disney may have more power in the entertainment space than any one company has ever enjoyed--something that clearly scares some folks--but the opportunity to bring the Fantastic Four and all the mutants back home is worth it to me.
 

"Hatin'" has become the catchword for any kind of negative criticism that gains momentum in the media, social or otherwise. I understand where Old Man is coming from when he leans on that word to describe the sort of backlash the MCU's success (unsurprisingly) attracts. It isn't hate in its truest form, but a kind of snide discounting of all the praiseworthy qualities of the MCU movies while focusing on their flaws, all in service to appearing smarter than the "fanboys".
 
Now, I'm not saying that's what Vondy is doing, not by a long shot. But entities like CinemaSins are cultivating and nurturing an entire generation of unthinking followers who don't know the difference between lame, snarky "jokes" and legitimate film criticism. Their success breeds others like them, and before long you have ignorant "hatin'" as its own form of mass entertainment. Welcome to the 21st century Internet.

After enduring decades of Hollywood misunderstanding and screwing up superhero films, I’m still thrilled to have the MCU. And I continue to wonder at the lengths to which people will go to find something to hate about them. OMG this film had a sad ending! OMG that film had a plot hole! And someone’s costume is too dark! By any objective measure the MCU is the greatest pop culture victory for the superhero genre in at least thirty years. I intend to enjoy it while it lasts. 

Well, Champions started out as an "indie" game, and then grew to become a major product brand (mostly thanks to I.C.E.). Post-4th edition, however, it shrunk back down to indie status, and now it is more of a community project than a legitimate, fully commercial product line, at least in my view.

Well, Champions started out as an "indie" game, and then grew to become a major product brand (mostly thanks to I.C.E.). Post-4th edition, however, it shrunk back down to indie status, and now it is more of a community project than a legitimate, fully commercial product line, at least in my view.

A Thornado, you mean?

If you are producing your product exclusively through vehicles like Kickstarter, then that means you are operating independent of an established publisher, and that is the very definition of "indie" (i.e., indie being short for independent). The nature/style of your game design is orthogonal to your publishing stratum.
 
By this definition, most RPG "publishers" out there are indie, yes.

Well, Champions started out as an "indie" game, and then grew to become a major product brand (mostly thanks to I.C.E.). Post-4th edition, however, it shrunk back down to indie status, and now it is more of a community project than a legitimate, fully commercial product line, at least in my view.

The way I see it, there are far bigger problems with show business than the rise of media conglomerates. For instance, the fact that an IP holder can legally sign over their creations in such a way that it is nearly impossible to get them back short of totally consuming the licensee (as we are seeing with Fox). The movie business in general is completely bonkers and profoundly flawed as a business model. I think the future of entertainment would benefit far more from a complete overhaul/reform of the way movies are financed, made, and distributed than by pressing the government to knock companies like Disney off their acquisition tracks.

The way I see it, there are far bigger problems with show business than the rise of media conglomerates. For instance, the fact that an IP holder can legally sign over their creations in such a way that it is nearly impossible to get them back short of totally consuming the licensee (as we are seeing with Fox). The movie business in general is completely bonkers and profoundly flawed as a business model. I think the future of entertainment would benefit far more from a complete overhaul/reform of the way movies are financed, made, and distributed than by pressing the government to knock companies like Disney off their acquisition tracks.

Check out 6E2 pg 24, Velocity-Based DCV.

Marvel only gets close to the comic versions of costumes if the character was originally covered in technology. If they wore colorful spandex, then chances are they won't have anything like that in the MCU. Spider-Man, Vision and Avengers-1 Cap are about the only cases where they got real close to the spandex look. Even the Asgardian costumes, while nicely designed, don't look much like their comic versions, IMO; rather, they more look like something out of Peter Jackson's LotR movies. I am, however, impressed with just how much MCU Dr. Strange looks like his comics counterpart.

New io9 headline: DC's Heroes in Crisis Is a Story About the Psychological Trauma of Being a Superhero.
 
This would be like Disney releasing an animated feature all about the psychological trauma of being Mickey Mouse. Seems to me that someone over at DC has drunk all of Snyder's dark, angsty Kool-Aid, and has decided to regurgitate it all over the pages of this mini-series. No wonder DC is in shambles.

New io9 headline: DC's Heroes in Crisis Is a Story About the Psychological Trauma of Being a Superhero.
 
This would be like Disney releasing an animated feature all about the psychological trauma of being Mickey Mouse. Seems to me that someone over at DC has drunk all of Snyder's dark, angsty Kool-Aid, and has decided to regurgitate it all over the pages of this mini-series. No wonder DC is in shambles.

That's a condemnation, in my book, not a justification. The movie turned out well (overall) despite the lack of planning, writing, or careful development that movies deserve, and everyone involved has surely breathed a heavy sigh of relief at having gotten away with it. Usually when you wing it like that, you end up with something more akin to Justice League. We should all hope and pray Marvel doesn't do it that way ever again.

Sure is. And those danged kids can get off my lawn while they're at it.

His Celestial powers died when Ego died. GotG2 made it clear that without Ego, Peter would not have the powers of a Celestial anymore.

His Celestial powers died when Ego died. GotG2 made it clear that without Ego, Peter would not have the powers of a Celestial anymore.

Yeah, and by that I mean that from the writer's perspective, Quill is a Hero who is every bit as much on a Hero's Journey as any character from myth or literature. The fact that he shares that spotlight with other Heroes doesn't change the storytelling template he fits into. Fallibility is a useful trait in a Hero (it makes him more relatable), but it must be used with great care by any writer, and it can't be used to justify a poor writing decision, which is what is going on here in my view. In this particular case, Quill "losing it" did not feel like the plausible reaction of a Hero (who knew the full scope of the stakes involved) in a moment of stress, but rather it felt like a highly contrived reaction forced on the Hero (by the writer) in order to propel the plot to the next required point in the narrative.

I don't think it is reasonable to compare the situation Quill was in to the typical situations real people find themselves in when they make bad decisions on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but when the fate of half of the sentient universe is at stake, that excuse simply doesn't hold water. Heroes who find themselves in such epic situations are expected to rise to a much higher standard than ordinary humans. When they don't, they become tragic failures who, IMO, deserve all the cultural scorn and derision that gets hurled at them.

Based on the above statement, I assume the OP wants to mitigate lethality.
 
Frankly, the only thing that makes KAs lethal is their ability to bypass non-resistant defenses. The potential to do a lot of STUN may be annoying, but it won't kill a character, and as such, I don't consider the STUN lotto to be what makes an attack a "killing" attack. So if I were to remove KAs in order to reduce lethality in a campaign, the STUN mechanics wouldn't be a major consideration. Instead, I would just remove KAs and Resistant defense powers. Armor would just be built as normal PD/ED through a Focus. Force Fields would be Hardened by default instead of being Resistant. Likewise, physical objects would have Hardened instead of Resistant DEF. Why? Because if I wanted to add back in some of the "defeats defenses" component of KAs, I'd turn to Armor Piercing for that.