So, Versus Threads...Explain Something To Me [Archive]

JBPuffin

2014-04-10, 08:07 PM

I stand by what I said, in spite of your snark.

This crap is precisely what I'm talking about: people getting up in arms because someone said something they didn't like, OR taking it as a personal barb when it's usually just someone being a bit playful. It may just be particular people, but they're usually the most vocal, so I might be a bit misinformed...still, it's a bit ridiculous to get your pants in a knot because your guy in tights can't lift as many cars in someone else's imagination...

Now, if I ever do post a matchup to be debated, it would be to see what evidence exists for either side and make my own judgements. No one wants to be told an idea is right - thanks to the Enlightenment, we want to make our own opinions, and simply get some facts to go off of. That's what these seem like sometimes: someone trying to shove their PoV down someone's throat when that simply doesn't get anything productive done. Anyway, keep it coming - let's see if someone can prove me wrong :smallbiggrin:.

Also, is there some sort of official tiering system for supers? I've heard "mortal, meta, herald" thrown around, where's that coming from?

Edit: Seconding Spider-Man, although the webs might be a bit useless...

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-10, 08:20 PM

Also, is there some sort of official tiering system for supers? I've heard "mortal, meta, herald" thrown around, where's that coming from?

I want to say that KMC is the web community who were originally responsible for creating it, but basically it evolved from some terms used specifically in Marvel comics that can be applied to all fiction:

Human - You're capable of doing what a person is normally capable of.
Street Leveler - This is anyone who's slightly better than a person should be but who is only about as personally powerful, versatile and good at doing things as Spider-man or Wolverine (they're usually held as the ceiling for this tier).
Meta - This is anyone who's between Street Leveler and Herald. Spider-man kind of exists as the bottom of this tier unofficially, with the ceiling usually being some of the weaker Hulks.
Herald - Coined from the Heralds of Galactus. A Herald is usually capable of wrecking planetary destruction easily, capable of busting planets, capable of moving at the high Machs to FTL and tend to have a very versatile and powerful skill set. Guys like Superman are found in this tier, along with DBZ characters (though pre-BoG, they were near the bottom to the middle).
Transcendent - This is anyone who's stronger than a Herald but isn't a Skyfather. They are usually team wreckers and are known for being able to beat Herald tier characters to death. Thanos was in this tier, with Classic Juggernaut, Pre-Crisis Superman and Despero being in this tier. They're capable of casual planet busting, starbusting and possibly affecting things on a solar system level.
Skyfather - Coined from the leaders of Earth's godly pantheons from Marvel. A Skyfather is capable of destroying solar systems on the lower end and capable of destroying galaxies casually and even possible universal feats on the high end. The big daddy of this tier is Odin from Marvel comics; the Guardians from the GL corp are also members of this tier.
Cube Being - Coined from the sapient, humanoid Cosmic Cubes from Marvel. A Cube Being is capable of manipulating reality on a universal level and is able to universe bust as par for the course. A well known Cube Being is The Beyonder (after the retcon).
Elder God - Coined from Marvel comics. An Elder God is anyone more powerful than a Cube Being, but not as powerful as the next tier. This tier came to be because it required the burning out of a Cosmic Cube (which is more powerful than a Cube Being) to even deal with an Elder God. Well known Elder Gods are Cyttorak, Set, Shuma-Gorrath and Agamotto.
Celestial - Coined from the Celestial race from Marvel. A Celestial is capable of multi-universal to multiversal feats.
Abstract - I believe this came from Marvel, but DC uses it too. An Abstract is anything more powerful than a Celestial. They're capable of multiversal to omniversal level feats. Well known Abstracts are Eternity, Death, Galactus (Full Power), The Endless, Lucifer and Michael, 5th Dimensional Imps, Mad Jim Jaspers, The Presence, YHWH, The Living Tribunal, etc.

Edit:

It's not "official" though, it's something the versus debating communities came up with and have more or less used since.

Seconding Spider-Man, although the webs might be a bit useless...

He's made webbing that gave The Hulk a temporary pause before. :smallwink:

Zrak

2014-04-10, 09:06 PM

Yautja have been beaten in hand to hand combat by relatively seasoned human soldiers. How do you expect one to beat a superhuman with precog who was trained by one of his world's greatest martial artists? :smallconfused:

Mostly because the Predator-to-seasoned-soldier ratio is pretty heavily in the former's favor. Yeah, Ahnold and Danny Glover took them out, but they took down an elite mercenary team and a heavily-armed drug cartel, respectively, before then. I'm not sure how much the danger sense is going to help against the shoulder cannon; Spidey may know something's up, but with an invisible assailant and extremely fast moving projectile, he's going to need luck on his side to get out of it.

I'm going on knowledge of the original two Predator movies and knowledge of Spiderman based on, like, '60s comics, though, so I could see fancy new Tony Stark suits and badass decay in the Predator EU making this a totally different ballgame.

EDIT: If "meta" were not already the name of a tier, I'd suggest it is as a sort of side class for the heroes who should be at about street level based on powers, but aren't based on factors outside of that. Like, a "Batman with time to prepare" tier. Maybe "memetic"?

Mx.Silver

2014-04-10, 09:08 PM

I'm curious here: these threads are basically just conversations, right? Why do people go so far, then, with their psychosocial beatdowns on others?
The answer to that question most likely relates to the answer of another one you raised:

So, someone give me the downlow: these are simply friendly debates, correct? Or are people really trying to create a definite, 100% accurate definition of "X is stronger than Y but not Z, therefore...?"
The answer to this question is: both. Or, more specifically, some participants view it as the former others take the latter approach (there is also often a few of people who are arguing out of fanboyism to one of the things being being discussed but most people try to ignore them). It's more the disagreements on this point that, I think, lead to the heat some of these arguments generate, because the issue is not just 'you're interpretation is wrong' but 'your entire mindset/methodology when going into these is wrong', and it's a fairly small step from that to making disparaging comments about someone else's mental abilities.
Simple fatigue may also be a factor, as a lot of these core disagreements have been going on for a while now and a few names seem to crop up at the heart of most of them.

MLai

2014-04-10, 10:12 PM

So, are vs threads pointless? Yup.
IMO, they're not pointless. Because by approaching material from another perspective, fresh information often comes to light that either teaches you something new or helps you enjoy the material in a different way. It's kind of like what makes deconstructions like Watchmen fascinating story premises.

For example, when ppl discuss SW vs WH40K, lots of hard/soft sci-fi space warfare points get discussed which are invaluable for any fledgling sci-fi author.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-10, 10:14 PM

Mostly because the Predator-to-seasoned-soldier ratio is pretty heavily in the former's favor. Yeah, Ahnold and Danny Glover took them out, but they took down an elite mercenary team and a heavily-armed drug cartel, respectively, before then. I'm not sure how much the danger sense is going to help against the shoulder cannon; Spidey may know something's up, but with an invisible assailant and extremely fast moving projectile, he's going to need luck on his side to get out of it.

I'm going on knowledge of the original two Predator movies and knowledge of Spiderman based on, like, '60s comics, though, so I could see fancy new Tony Stark suits and badass decay in the Predator EU making this a totally different ballgame.

More bad ass decay of the race in the EU, especially the AvP movies. They're good, but they're more like Batman or Captain America stat-wise, maybe a smidge better.

EDIT: If "meta" were not already the name of a tier, I'd suggest it is as a sort of side class for the heroes who should be at about street level based on powers, but aren't based on factors outside of that. Like, a "Batman with time to prepare" tier. Maybe "memetic"?

Prep time is usually separate from the character's tier, because of the fact it can seriously skew things.

Zrak

2014-04-10, 10:35 PM

Yeah, I kinda guessed there had been some badass decay when you said "Yautja." It's like with a pig on a farm; as soon as you give it a name it's no longer a terrifying monster known only by the fact that it hunts you and will gladly blow up a few square miles of jungle in the hopes of at least taking you down with it.

I didn't really mean planning, per say. Captain America works along similar lines in Marvel. He should theoretically be street level, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's beaten the crap out of Odin or a similar threat at least once. Wolverine could probably fit in too. Basically, characters with a mix of popularity and personality traits that make them a threat at power levels far above their pay grade. For Batman or Reed "I guess I don't need a stool" Richards, it's their brains; for Captain America it's his heart; for Logan it's his sweet-ass mutton chops; and I'm sure it's something else for other characters I haven't thought of, but they all have something that lets them step in to the deep end of the pool and come out on top.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-10, 10:37 PM

Yeah, I kinda guessed there had been some badass decay when you said "Yautja." It's like with a pig on a farm; as soon as you give it a name it's no longer a terrifying monster known only by the fact that it hunts you and will gladly blow up a few square miles of jungle in the hopes of at least taking you down with it.

Yup.

I didn't really mean planning, per say. Captain America works along similar lines in Marvel. He should theoretically be street level, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's beaten the crap out of Odin or a similar threat at least once. Wolverine could probably fit in too. Basically, characters with a mix of popularity and personality traits that make them a threat at power levels far above their pay grade. For Batman or Reed "I guess I don't need a stool" Richards, it's their brains; for Captain America it's his heart; for Logan it's his sweet-ass mutton chops; and I'm sure it's something else for other characters I haven't thought of, but they all have something that lets them step in to the deep end of the pool and come out on top.

I think you're confusing the "Jobber Aura"/"Plot Shield" with prep time. :smalltongue:

MLai

2014-04-10, 11:38 PM

GoblinArchmage

2014-04-10, 11:42 PM

IMO, they're not pointless. Because by approaching material from another perspective, fresh information often comes to light that either teaches you something new or helps you enjoy the material in a different way. It's kind of like what makes deconstructions like Watchmen fascinating story premises.

Yep. Arguing about who would win in a fight, Superman or Spiderman, is the height of critical analysis. Yessiree, that would be a great thing to write a masters thesis on. It would probably end up being the greatest academic publication in the history of literary analysis.

Edit: Er, that came off sounding kind of mean. Sorry. I still disagree with you, though.

Forum Explorer

2014-04-11, 12:04 AM

BECAUSE I'M RIGHT AND THEY ARE WRONG!!!! :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Okay seriously?

I like to think people come into these conversations looking for some interesting conversation. Maybe they only know one of the characters, maybe they have an opinion that they want to share.

But then they get passionate about the work they love best, or someone's argument (or style of argument) annoys someone and their responses get more emotional as a result leading to a more angry and confrontational discussion.

Legato Endless

2014-04-11, 12:06 AM

It's actually very simple to objectively gauge many different characters from fiction. Whether people accept that is an entirely separate matter.

This is somewhat vague, I'll agree they can be, but they certainly aren't always gaugeable. Parsing a versus fight isn't necessarily simple, assuming the belligerents are in any way comparable, as the analysis is often rather more complicated than various fan circles would like to admit. Among other things, disconnects in metaphysics which force arbitrary compromises muddles the issue irrevocably, ignoring all else. And whatever is decided is indeed a compromise.

The tier listing is useful enough for Marvel and DC, but what a cosmically powerful being can do in other settings can be dicey and is not elegantly parsed to a singular league. Furthermore, even if one can calculate abilities based on evidence and feats, it often as not ignores other factors. Bias will always exist between those yield to power versus wits, tact and improvisation versus baseline skill. (The Batman vs. *insert high powered character here is the most recently iconic)

You can't really cooly distill how much battle intelligence into a neat metric, especially considering what on earth good sense or insight that can mean in one series to another. Genre Savvy is after all, Genre centric. Gritty versus light and frothy. Other tonal discrepancies which imbue the characters to do and be certain things. Then various vague assessments are made based on extant knowledge. Frequently, this is exaggerated into either being all or nothing. A character will be entirely ignorant and make no inferences, or possess a Holmesian deconstruction of the other's abilities and nature.

Most fights also ignore terrain considerations, despite this being sort of paramount to a great deal of combat in real life. Ambushes in fiction are highly polar, usually irrelevant. Rocket Tag versus Padded Sumo. And of course, as Barristan Selmy notes, in real life the wet dew of the grass can decide a joust. Such irregularities are absent in fiction.

So yes, versus fights are like everything on this site. Fun. Like all role playing, that is all the justification it needs.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 12:19 AM

Predator as he is now, would not be able to defeat Spiderman. If Spiderman fought a current-day Predator, he'd basically be fighting a Cap. America with "Grimdark Batman" gadgets. It is scary, but not to Spiderman.

But the reason an ideal Predator would be able to win above his weight class, is because he is a hunter, not a warrior. Big game hunters do not try to fight hand-to-hand with an elephant; he brings a bigass rifle and takes the beast upwind at 2500m. There is no "honor" or "fairness" involved. Imagine a Predator with Cap. America skills and reflexes, packing space-age tech, here to assassinate you not fight you.

I don't see a Yautja being more of a threat than Kraven the Hunter, sorry. Or any of Spider-man's other rogues gallery.

This is somewhat vague, I'll agree they can be, but they certainly aren't always gaugeable. Parsing a versus fight isn't necessarily simple, assuming the belligerents are in any way comparable, as the analysis is often rather more complicated than various fan circles would like to admit. Among other things, disconnects in metaphysics which force arbitrary compromises muddles the issue irrevocably, ignoring all else. And whatever is decided is indeed a compromise.

Yes, because "LolReiatsu Crush" and "LolNen Baptism" and "LolAvada Kedevra" and "LolOnly a Uchiha" make for riveting discussion.

The tier listing is useful enough for Marvel and DC, but what a cosmically powerful being can do in other settings can be dicey and is not elegantly parsed to a singular league. Furthermore, even if one can calculate abilities based on evidence and feats, it often as not ignores other factors. Bias will always exist between those yield to power versus wits, tact and improvisation versus baseline skill. (The Batman vs. *insert high powered character here is the most recently iconic)

The tier system is pretty much applicable to all of fiction. You might find a few exceptions, because that's life, but it's disingenuous to say it only applies to two comic companies.

You can't really cooly distill how much battle intelligence into a neat metric, especially considering what on earth good sense or insight that can mean in one series to another. Genre Savvy is after all, Genre centric. Gritty versus light and frothy. Other tonal discrepancies which imbue the characters to do and be certain things. Then various vague assessments are made based on extant knowledge. Frequently, this is exaggerated into either being all or nothing. A character will be entirely ignorant and make no inferences, or possess a Holmesian deconstruction of the other's abilities and nature.

You can easily account for battle competence and measure character behavior. But at the end of the day, power is power and all of the tactics and power of friendship and indomitable will in the world can't bridge the gap outside of power of plot guiding the way.

And once you strip away a character's plot related limitations and look at their core personality, intellect and power set, it's hardly a stretch to infer that they could figure someone out who has an obvious schtick. Or fail completely to discern it because there aren't sufficient inferences to be made or the opponent isn't kind enough to telegraph their powers either through dialogue or poor tactics.

Most fights also ignore terrain considerations, despite this being sort of paramount to a great deal of combat in real life. Ambushes in fiction are highly polar, usually irrelevant. Rocket Tag versus Padded Sumo. And of course, as Barristan Selmy notes, in real life the wet dew of the grass can decide a joust. Such irregularities are absent in fiction.

Depends on the series and the versus fights in question. I've seen plenty of close fights go one way or the other specifically because of the battleground that was selected.

So yes, versus fights are like everything on this site. Fun. Like all role playing, that is all the justification it needs.

No one is roleplaying. :smallconfused:

jere7my

2014-04-11, 12:30 AM

The tier system is pretty much applicable to all of fiction. You might find a few exceptions, because that's life, but it's disingenuous to say it only applies to two comic companies.

The answer to every versus thread is: "Could X defeat Y? Yes. Could Y defeat X? Yes. It depends on who's writing the story."

There. I just saved you, like, eight years of writing posts.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 12:39 AM

The answer to every versus thread is: "Could X defeat Y? Yes. Could Y defeat X? Yes. It depends on who's writing the story."

There. I just saved you, like, eight years of writing posts.

Cute.

Authorial intent means jack diddly squat in a versus debate if it clearly contradicts what was actually portrayed.

Ninjadeadbeard

2014-04-11, 12:41 AM

So yes, versus fights are like everything on this site. Fun. Like all role playing, that is all the justification it needs.

By Odin's beard, why did it take so long for the Right Answer to pop up?!

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 12:45 AM

By Odin's beard, why did it take so long for the Right Answer to pop up?!

Because the lessons of "your fun is not everyone else's fun" and "there are more kinds of fun than just yours" are being eternally taught? :smalltongue:

jere7my

2014-04-11, 12:52 AM

Cute.

Authorial intent means jack diddly squat in a versus debate if it clearly contradicts what was actually portrayed.

But that's what every versus thread is—it's a joint storytelling endeavor. At the end of it, you've bodged together a fanfic narrative in which one character defeats another character. If that's fun for you, great, but it doesn't have any universal applicability outside that narrative.

Could a sufficiently skilled writer develop a believeable narrative in which R2-D2 defeats Cthulhu? Sure, trivially. And the opposite, too. Any given "R2-D2 versus Cthulhu" thread just works its way toward one of those two possible results. Sure, they offer a pretense of neutrality, but there are always hidden assumptions, hidden biases. There's no such thing as a neutral setting; fiction always encodes authorial assumptions.

If versus threads have any value, it's in the implied story they create. They don't settle anything, because there's nothing to be settled—fictional construct A can always defeat fictional construct B, if it's construct A's story.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-11, 12:53 AM

Cute.

Authorial intent means jack diddly squat in a versus debate if it clearly contradicts what was actually portrayed.

ok. if you believe in canon then....

The Story of Lord Raziere
Lord Raziere Wins At Everything. The End.

see, canonical things like that often boil down to the stupidest most overpowered garbage written, therefore the most badly written. and accepted because its canonical, no matter how bad the writing is.

is that story badly written? yes.
is that story egocentric? yes.
is is completely childish? yes.
is it a blatant self insert? yes.
is it completely stupid? yes.

is it completely valid and canonical according to your method? ALSO YES.

I, Lord Raziere win at all Vs threads forever. which is why I prescribe to authorial opinion rather than canon, because then you get what I just wrote. I only want good writing to influence any potential VS thread, not whatever is canonical because some idiot decided to give the character an in-story power boost for no reason.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 12:55 AM

But that's what every versus thread is—it's a joint storytelling endeavor.

It's your prerogative to view it that way, just as it's mine to not. We'll agree to disagree in that endeavor, yes?

ok. if you believe in canon then....

Get it published then.

jere7my

2014-04-11, 01:01 AM

Get it published then.

She did! It's published on the internet, which makes it just as published as Dr. Horrible, XKCD, and all kinds of other good stuff.

GoblinArchmage

2014-04-11, 01:02 AM

It's your prerogative to view it that way, just as it's mine to not. We'll agree to disagree in that endeavor, yes?

Versus Threads are serious business, you guys!

Kitten Champion

2014-04-11, 01:03 AM

I know people are passionate about objectively trivial things, as am I, however, the fervour under which one might defend their position on something is less relevant than the methods they use to do so.

I've argued people who have - in my perspective - detestable positions on things I'm far more passionate about than my choices of media, and yet still present their position devoid of the needlessly aggressive confrontational tone or miscellaneous douchebaggery one might witness in a YouTube comment section. Even if I don't respect their position, I can take pleasure in the discourse.

Whereas some trivial arguments over things I barely understand and care even less about become needlessly heated due to... well, personality clashes. It's not particularly a matter of believing you're right or they're wrong, just that the way they're presenting their side of things and themselves in general is irritating you into a response... and once that tone has been set it tends to spiral downwards into pages-long acrimony, condescension, bitterness, and thread locking.

Versus threads are arguments by nature, and tend to draw competitive people, so it can drop into BS fairly quickly, that's all.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-11, 01:04 AM

Get it published then.

I just did. With that post. :smallcool:

An original story is still a story, no matter what the medium. and legally, its my idea. since when does money have to do with this? I could go over to the fan comics forum, pick a character from the fan comics there, like say, Emperor Ing's God Emperor of Mankind or Rand'teh, and have them fight whoever I want in a Vs. Thread, like say Batman, and it would be a valid VS. Thread.

so me, just writing that, counts as me writing an original story with its own canon, regardless of how much money I've made off of it, which includes zero cents.

I win at all VS. Threads, by your logic. and all it took me was two lines of text.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 01:04 AM

She did! It's published on the internet, which makes it just as published as Dr. Horrible, XKCD, and all kinds of other good stuff.

I think the creators of those series would be honestly offended if you compared what's basically cliff notes for a character to their work.

So I reiterate: Raz can go publish it.

Edit:

And step two is to find someone who'd honestly care enough to make a versus thread with it. And then find people who'd care enough to debate in that thread.

jere7my

2014-04-11, 01:15 AM

I think the creators of those series would be honestly offended if you compared what's basically cliff notes for a character to their work.

So I reiterate: Raz can go publish it.

Doesn't matter. Publication is publication, regardless of the value or complexity of what's published. I think it's insulting to compare Twilight to Perdido Street Station, but they're still both published. A story, however vestigial, is published the moment you hit "Post." (Most publishers consider internet release to be first publication, in fact.)

And step two is to find someone who'd honestly care enough to make a versus thread with it. And then find people who'd care enough to debate in that thread.

Uh, you realize that this is that thread and you, apparently, are that person, right?

GoblinArchmage

2014-04-11, 01:16 AM

And step two is to find someone who'd honestly care enough to make a versus thread with it.

I'm seriously considering doing this.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 01:17 AM

Doesn't matter. Publication is publication, regardless of the value or complexity of what's published. I think it's insulting to compare Twilight to Perdido Street Station, but they're still both published. A story, however vestigial, is published the moment you hit "Post." (Most publishers consider internet release to be first publication, in fact.)

Uh, you realize that this is that thread and you, apparently, are that person, right?

I'm not discussing his concept or character beyond the fact that I recognize that he wants it to be acknowledged.

Edit:

I'm seriously considering doing this.

Then go do it.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-11, 01:19 AM

I think the creators of those series would be honestly offended if you compared what's basically cliff notes for a character to their work.

So I reiterate: Raz can go publish it.

Edit:

And step two is to find someone who'd honestly care enough to make a versus thread with it. And then find people who'd care enough to debate in that thread.

I have, and we are debating it. Its Lord Raziere Vs. All Vs Threads Ever. I win. Whether they're offended or not does not matter. By your logic, I might be offended by say, Superman beating Goku, because I like Goku, but I can't do anything about that, because canonically Superman is more powerful. If how offended I am changed canonicity, then Goku would be the winner of that contest, alas, I do not live in a universe where my emotions change reality. So, by your logic, I win, offense has nothing to do with the outcome.

Forum Explorer

2014-04-11, 01:20 AM

I just did. With that post. :smallcool:

An original story is still a story, no matter what the medium. and legally, its my idea. since when does money have to do with this? I could go over to the fan comics forum, pick a character from the fan comics there, like say, Emperor Ing's God Emperor of Mankind or Rand'teh, and have them fight whoever I want in a Vs. Thread, like say Batman, and it would be a valid VS. Thread.

so me, just writing that, counts as me writing an original story with its own canon, regardless of how much money I've made off of it, which includes zero cents.

I win at all VS. Threads, by your logic. and all it took me was two lines of text.

Okay. And if someone actually decided to make a vs thread of Lord Raziere vs Forum Explorer for example then the answer would be clear. By your established abilities you'd win. It'd be a boring and stupid thread that'd last a single post or two but it's a valid thread still.

And it does happen. Sometimes you create a complete mismatch in a vs thread and no one simply cares at all as a result. But generally you see people try and choose contests where there is some doubt at least.

jere7my

2014-04-11, 01:20 AM

I'm not discussing his concept or character beyond the fact that I recognize that he wants it to be acknowledged.

You're trying to demonstrate that Lord Raz doesn't win all versus threads by winning one against her! That's, like, her character's whole schtick!

So meta.

GoblinArchmage

2014-04-11, 01:20 AM

Then go do it.

Lord Raziere, do I have your permission to make a versus thread about you?

Lord Raziere

2014-04-11, 01:21 AM

Lord Raziere, do I have your permission to make a versus thread about you?

Yes, yes you do. :smallsmile:

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 01:22 AM

Okay. And if someone actually decided to make a vs thread of Lord Raziere vs Forum Explorer for example then the answer would be clear. By your established abilities you'd win. It'd be a boring and stupid thread that'd last a single post or two but it's a valid thread still.

And it does happen. Sometimes you create a complete mismatch in a vs thread and no one simply cares at all as a result. But generally you see people try and choose contests where there is some doubt at least.

Forum, the literal answer, while playing into this whole farce, would be to devolve this into a game of "Pow, I shot you!" and just make up a character who's more powerful than Raz's character.

Lord Raziere

2014-04-11, 01:26 AM

Forum, the literal answer, while playing into this whole farce, would be to devolve this into a game of "Pow, I shot you!" and just make up a character who's more powerful than Raz's character.

yes, it would be completely ridiculous and stupid.

much like all Vs Threads ever.

kind of what I'm trying to point out.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 01:28 AM

yes, it would be completely ridiculous and stupid.

much like all Vs Threads ever.

kind of what I'm trying to point out.

Your personal opinion is noted Raz and has been noted in the past. Anything else you want to add?

Lord Raziere

2014-04-11, 01:32 AM

Your personal opinion is noted Raz and has been noted in the past. Anything else you want to add?

Yes, I will poke whoever challenges me so that they explode into cookies, delicious cookies that then rain down upon the universe, people eat them because yay cookies, gain great power and destroy the universe through infighting using cookie-granted powers, but I am merciful and restore the universe to normal, but with an improvement so that smoking doesn't exist anymore, I also decide to switch the positions of red and blue on the color spectrum, just to see how reality would look like if it was done so. I will call this action....Tuesday.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 01:33 AM

Yes, I will poke whoever challenges me so that they explode into cookies, delicious cookies that then rain down upon the universe, people eat them because yay cookies, gain great power and destroy the universe through infighting using cookie-granted powers, but I am merciful and restore the universe to normal, but with an improvement so that smoking doesn't exist anymore, I also decide to switch the positions of red and blue on the color spectrum, just to see how reality would look like if it was done so. I will call this action....Tuesday.

You have fun with that.

GoblinArchmage

2014-04-11, 01:43 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?340848-Lord-Raziere-vs-Everybody

Get in before the lock!

Legato Endless

2014-04-11, 01:50 AM

Yes, because "LolReiatsu Crush" and "LolNen Baptism" and "LolAvada Kedevra" and "LolOnly a Uchiha" make for riveting discussion.

I meant paradox. Someone whose power's rely on levitation, and someone who comes from a world where nothing flies must be adjuticated. And there's no need to be snide.

The tier system is pretty much applicable to all of fiction. You might find a few exceptions, because that's life, but it's disingenuous to say it only applies to two comic companies.

I don't think disingenous is the word you mean, since I (believe anyway) clearly elucidated why I held my opinion fairly straight forwardly.

You can easily account for battle competence and measure character behavior.

You can easily give a simplistic reductions. The upsets in fighting tournaments, disagreements by historians about various battles, or the existence of whole fields which deal in such particulars leaves me dubious there's always such a down pat answer.

But at the end of the day, power is power and all of the tactics and power of friendship and indomitable will in the world can't bridge the gap outside of power of plot guiding the way.

Superior tactics have such a potential effect in real life. Fiction ought to mirror that, occasionally. I am not speaking of Batman against Superman absurdity. But fanboys do rage over "obvious mismatches" when really, the outcome was far from predetermined.

And once you strip away a character's plot related limitations and look at their core personality, intellect and power set, it's hardly a stretch to infer that they could figure someone out who has an obvious schtick. Or fail completely to discern it because there aren't sufficient inferences to be made or the opponent isn't kind enough to telegraph their powers either through dialogue or poor tactics.

Yes, but there's a gray area between those two poles. It's existence is the root of this contention. I'm perfectly fine with speculation, but I disagree with the down pat answer which is often come to in some niggling circumstances. Not so much because of the outcome, but the arm chair hubris that ignores all manner of variables. Not a conclusion against you personally, but we are arguing the field no?

Depends on the series and the versus fights in question. I've seen plenty of close fights go one way or the other specifically because of the battleground that was selected.

You have better fare than the typical then.

ben-zayb

2014-04-11, 01:53 AM

The Story of Lord Raziere
Lord Raziere Wins At Everything. The End.Probably not in this forum, but you'll actually find someone who'll contest that claim that you'll win in every VS thread even with that ability/premise.1. some dude makes a "VS Thread Admin" personification and BFRs you outside in all VS threads, so there's no VS to win
2. some dude makes a "Nothing" personification and beats you, because everything isn't nothing
3. some dude makes a "Bigger Picture" personification and beats you, because by him winning you also win
4. some dude explains Dark Tower universe to you, because apparently you only thought you always win (it was Gan's decision after all!:smallsigh:)
5. dozens or more creative meta stuff that I can't think of...:smallbiggrin:Other than that, I don't really see the problem specifically with Lord Raziere canonically winning all VS threads that Lord Raziere is competing in. Of course, you better ask Rawhide first if your literature counts as valid to be considered Media-related lest you risk having a thread lock/delete (or probably an infraction?).

Most problems I see in VS threads are snowballed arguments generally caused by the OP not reading and following the suggested guidelines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?70661-Concerning-vs-Threads), but that's just my 2 cp. (guidelines being just guidelines after all). It's all fun and games, until someone is offended (reasonably or not). And it goes downhill from there.:smallcool:

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 02:01 AM

I meant paradox. Someone whose power's rely on levitation, and someone who comes from a world where nothing flies must be adjuticated.

Why? That sounds like pointless hairsplitting over something that shouldn't be an issue. So what if a concept doesn't exist in one verse and exists in the other? Unless its something that would literally invalidate the fight happening (like only those with Reiatsu being able to see and affect spiritual bodies), it's immaterial to the thread.

I don't think disingenous is the word you mean, since I (believe anyway) clearly elucidated why I held my opinion fairly straight forwardly.

It is the word I meant, since it doesn't have to describe your intent but simply the reality of what you said. It is a synonym for false after all.

You can easily give a simplistic reductions. The upsets in fighting tournaments, disagreements by historians about various battles, or the existence of whole fields which deal in such particulars leaves me dubious there's always such a down pat answer.

None of those benefit from being an omniscient viewer from the outside looking in.

Superior tactics have such a potential effect in real life. Fiction ought to mirror that, occasionally. I am not speaking of Batman against Superman absurdity. But fanboys do rage over "obvious mismatches" when really, the outcome was far from predetermined.

Like Batman vs. Captain America? Because that's definitely a fight where tactics matter heavily before things fall into the inevitably of stamina being a major player.

Yes, but there's a gray area between those two poles. It's existence is the root of this contention. I'm perfectly fine with speculation, but I disagree with the down pat answer which is often come to in some niggling circumstances. Not so much because of the outcome, but the arm chair hubris that ignores all manner of variables. Not a conclusion against you personally, but we are arguing the field no?

I definitely agree with you there. Unless the thread is a massive mismatch, things usually fall into the gray area and there are cases where a character wins a majority but not every time. I don't care for people being Sith and dealing in absolutes on either side of the aisle, as it were. A character is more than just the sum of their feats, but sadly you tend to get individuals who either see them as feat piles or as feats being some anathema to the entire exercise.

It doesn't help though that people have a bad habit of not including variables into the original premise of the thread. If two people essentially are facing off on a featureless plane, what can you really argue other than on-paper statistics?

You have better fare than the typical then.

Eh, for every 1 I read or participate in, there are 10 that are nothing of the kind, I assure you. Most people post mismatches when it comes to this hobby and they only stretch on because one side refuses to admit that, under the context of the thread, that their side could even potentially lose 1/10, let alone a majority.

Legato Endless

2014-04-11, 02:23 AM

[QUOTE=Tanuki Tales;17287653]Like Batman vs. Captain America? Because that's definitely a fight where tactics matter heavily before things fall into the inevitably of stamina being a major player.

I definitely agree with you there. Unless the thread is a massive mismatch, things usually fall into the gray area and there are cases where a character wins a majority but not every time. I don't care for people being Sith and dealing in absolutes on either side of the aisle, as it were. A character is more than just the sum of their feats, but sadly you tend to get individuals who either see them as feat piles or as feats being some anathema to the entire exercise.

It doesn't help though that people have a bad habit of not including variables into the original premise of the thread. If two people essentially are facing off on a featureless plane, what can you really argue other than on-paper statistics?
QUOTE]

Indeed We are in general agreement, as that was my basic point.

[QUOTE]It is the word I meant, since it doesn't have to describe your intent but simply the reality of what you said. It is a synonym for false after all.
[QUOTE]

You might want to google that. According to the four online dictionaries I checked, it means either lacking candor/sincerity, or not straightforward. Current usage is also allowing small minority of acceptance for naive, but it's not yet a synonym for incorrect. It's a synanym for false as in dishonest.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 02:26 AM

You might want to google that. According to the four online dictionaries I checked, it means either lacking candor/sincerity, or not straightforward. Current usage is also allowing small minority of acceptance for naive, but it's not yet a synonym for incorrect. It's a synanym for false as in dishonest.

I've seen it used interchangeably as of late, but fair enough. It's just semantics at this point, since we're both fully aware of what each other meant.

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-11, 08:12 AM

The answer to every versus thread is: "Could X defeat Y? Yes. Could Y defeat X? Yes. It depends on who's writing the story."

This is false, because it lumps all types of stories into one and pretends they're all the same.

If writing a simulation, which is one kind of story, then the results should be consistent from writer to writer, provided all writers have sufficient information. And this is what all respectable versus-threads are about: trying to simulate how an encounter between characters would go based on their presented abilities.

Statements like yours originate from misunderstanding either what is being simulated, or what presented abilities actually means. In the former case, you are under the misconception that versus-threads are about simulating a genre or an entertainment, which is not always so. A versus-thread with a detective character and an alien probably isn't trying to simulate how a genre-typical story of such an encounter would go - indeed, the whole point can be to match characters that would never meet under the constraints of their respective genres. In such cases, it is entirely pointless to try to rely on rules of drama or genre - those assumptions must by necessity be thrown out, because otherwise the encounter could not happen.

The latter case manifests in two ways: either extrapolating character abilities vastly beyond what they've actually shown (AKA no-limits fallacy), or inventing new elements to help an underdog character. An example from this thread was R2D2 vs. Cthulhu - yes, a skilled writer might be able to come up with a plausible scenario where the former can defeat the latter, but how many factors besides these two characters would need to be introduced for it to be possible? A whole lot, quite likely, and that's the problem: once you start spinning a whole story to justify certain interactions, you are no longer comparing the characters. It's no longer X versus Y, it's something else, like "the amazing tale of how X met Z and Å on his journey to avenge his long lost brother whom Y slew".

Nerd-o-rama

2014-04-11, 08:24 AM

It's because everyone is emotionally invested in My Side beating Your Side, no matter how the "sides" are divided or how inane the contest.

It's an evolutionary adaptation of primates, just one that human nerds take to silly extremes.

MLai

2014-04-11, 08:50 AM

It's because everyone is emotionally invested in My Side beating Your Side, no matter how the "sides" are divided or how inane the contest..
Someone already mentioned this, but I don't think most here is truly that invested in fictional characters. The emotions run high when one person doesn't like the tone or language used by another person during the argument.

Also, I see Tanuki Tales has lost the versus argument to Lord Raziere. It is canon.

Aotrs Commander

2014-04-11, 08:56 AM

Someone already mentioned this, but I don't think most here is truly that invested in fictional characters. The emotions run high when one person doesn't like the tone or language used by another person during the argument.

I think that there's still a lot of what Frozen-Feet said in it, though. When it reaches that stage, though it's frequently become about who wins the argument, not what the arguement is actually about - it becomes "I don't like that person and that person is wrong" which is basically the same thing with a different skin.

Selrahc

2014-04-11, 09:41 AM

Versus threads are an opportunity for fun discussions and closer analysis of fictional settings. They are an interesting way to pass the time.

The tier system is pretty much applicable to all of fiction. You might find a few exceptions, because that's life, but it's disingenuous to say it only applies to two comic companies.

The tier list is fine, up until Skyfather at which point it becomes complete nonsense. The entire thing has a weakness in that it conflates power with area of impact, but that can be ignored for the most part with the lower rankings. A guy who can smash a city almost certainly can beat a guy who can only smash a car. When it comes to omnipotent and semi omnipotent beings though, it tries to define power in terms of Omniversal, Multiversal, Multi-universal changes which are metafictional concepts. No omnipotent character ever written has had their powers considered in that way by the author, and almost all such characters will have struggles that notional or symbolic rather than about who hits harder. The tier ranking sort of works for Marvel, doesn't really work for DC and completely collapses when you consider almost any other work that tries to meaningfully handle the power of gods and similarly puissant individuals.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 09:58 AM

The tier list is fine, up until Skyfather at which point it becomes complete nonsense. The entire thing has a weakness in that it conflates power with area of impact, but that can be ignored for the most part with the lower rankings. A guy who can smash a city almost certainly can beat a guy who can only smash a car. When it comes to omnipotent and semi omnipotent beings though, it tries to define power in terms of Omniversal, Multiversal, Multi-universal changes which are metafictional concepts. No omnipotent character ever written has had their powers considered in that way by the author, and almost all such characters will have struggles that notional or symbolic rather than about who hits harder. The tier ranking sort of works for Marvel, doesn't really work for DC and completely collapses when you consider almost any other work that tries to meaningfully handle the power of gods and similarly puissant individuals.

Just because you don't like the system Selrahc doesn't mean it's inapplicable outside of Marvel. The rest of the internet versus communities have no issues applying it and there are cases in fiction where Cube Being and up characters have fought and the more powerful entity ultimately won. It's more like a game of chess than a conventional "let's you and me fight!" kind of deal.

Unless you're going to tell me that something that can destroy a single universe wouldn't get its face metaphorically smashed in by something casually capable of erasing multiverses. And I find it serious insulting that you're trying to set some kind of objective maturity and quality barrier to the application of the system.

Kitten Champion

2014-04-11, 10:14 AM

An example from this thread was R2D2 vs. Cthulhu - yes, a skilled writer might be able to come up with a plausible scenario where the former can defeat the latter, but how many factors besides these two characters would need to be introduced for it to be possible?

Eh? Artoo just needs an early 20th century steamship and some gumption, unless Cthulhu's madness can effect service droids it's not much of a problem.

Cthulhu kinda sucks.

It's because everyone is emotionally invested in My Side beating Your Side, no matter how the "sides" are divided or how inane the contest.

It's an evolutionary adaptation of primates, just one that human nerds take to silly extremes.

That was the whole significance of the monolith, to get us to the point where we can be thoroughly exhausted with how OP Superman is as a species. It was the only way for us to be emotionally prepared for dealing with the incomprehensible god-like starfish aliens on the other side of the universe. Without versus threads, who knows what would've happened in 2001.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 10:17 AM

That was the whole significance of the monolith, to get us to the point where we can be thoroughly exhausted with how OP Superman is as a species. It was the only way for us to be emotionally prepared for dealing with the incomprehensible god-like starfish aliens on the other side of the universe. Without versus threads, who knows what would've happened in 2001.

So Superman prepared us for Starro the Star Conqueror? :smalltongue:

jere7my

2014-04-11, 11:24 AM

In such cases, it is entirely pointless to try to rely on rules of drama or genre - those assumptions must by necessity be thrown out, because otherwise the encounter could not happen.

And there you neatly sum up why versus threads are fundamentally and ultimately pointless. Fictional characters are inextricably linked with the rules of drama and of their genre; throwing them out means you're no longer actually discussing the characters. You're discussing stat blocks that don't offer any insight.

Characters have no existence outside of the rules of drama. They're not real. Set aside the rules of drama to make them compete and you fundamentally miss the point of fiction. And, of course, you can never really set aside the rules; you can only replace them with new rules that you think are neutral but actually encode your worldview.

Pointless, but have fun!

Selrahc

2014-04-11, 11:27 AM

Unless you're going to tell me that something that can destroy a single universe wouldn't get its face metaphorically smashed in by something casually capable of erasing multiverses.

Sure, if they're from different fictional universes. Because there is no meaningful distinction between those two feats in a real world context, and almost all fictional settings don't address it within their own cosmologies. How much harder is it to destroy a Multiverse than a Universe? It is literally impossible to say.

And I find it serious insulting that you're trying to set some kind of objective maturity and quality barrier to the application of the system.

I never mentioned maturity. I read and enjoy comics, and some of them are pretty fantastic. Quality and maturity isn't why it fits one medium better than another. Although I would also say that Superhero comic depictions of puissant beings are almost always less nuanced.

Marvel and DC it fits for because they work in the sphere of Multiversal and Omniversal as meaningful terms of distinction which is incredibly rare. But DC has a more screwed up cosmology thanks to all of its Vertigo shenanigans, so it doesn't really fit properly.

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 11:28 AM

And there you neatly sum up why versus threads are fundamentally and ultimately pointless.

And that's your own, personal opinion.

Edit:

Just to prove that Marvel and DC aren't the only verse with above Skyfathers:

Doctor Who
Slayers
Earthbound
Bionicle
Transformers
Digimon
Bastard!!
Sonic the Hedgehog
Tengen Toppen Gurren Lagan (I know I probably misspelled that).
Pokemon
Final Fantasy
Tenchi Muyo
Star Trek

Just a small sample.

jere7my

2014-04-11, 11:32 AM

And that's your own, personal opinion.

Whoa. Are you, like, psychic? How could you possibly have known that?

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-04-11, 11:33 AM

Shinken

2014-04-11, 12:15 PM

Also, I see Tanuki Tales has lost the versus argument to Lord Raziere. It is canon.
This is so funny I have no words to explain it.

Selrahc

2014-04-11, 12:23 PM

Just to prove that Marvel and DC aren't the only verse with above Skyfathers:

This isn't a sentence that proves your point.
It is a reaffirmation that you think the system is applicable.

Primary question: Does the system above Skyfather work if Universal, Multiversal and Omniversal aren't proper terms?
I think the answer to that is clearly not.

Related questions: What is the real world distinction between Universal and Multiversal? How is that then further distinguished from Omniversal? What makes you think this distinction would stay the same between different fictional universes?

Tanuki Tales

2014-04-11, 12:30 PM

This isn't a sentence that proves your point.
It is a reaffirmation that you think the system is applicable.

Primary question: Does the system above Skyfather work if Universal, Multiversal and Omniversal aren't proper terms?
I think the answer to that is clearly not.

Related questions: What is the real world distinction between Universal and Multiversal? How is that then further distinguished from Omniversal? What makes you think this distinction would stay the same between different fictional universes?

I don't understand why you're bogging this down into adhering to some arbitrary metrics from the real world. It's like trying to bring physics into a discussion to point out why someone can't fly and thus you shouldn't even be talking about them.

I get it that you don't like the tier system, but your personal dislike does not invalidate it. Nor will it stop myself or anyone else who accepts it from using it.

Regardless; In the community:

Universal: One single universe and any attached dimensions.
Multi-universal: A small collection of singular universes. There's no hard limit, but it's probably somewhere between three and twenty.
Multiversal: A collection of dozens upon dozens, hundreds upon hundreds, thousands upon thousands of universes.
Omniversal: A collection of multiverses.

Shinken

2014-04-11, 12:39 PM

I feel like versus threads would benefit immensely from understanding the difference between "X could win" and "X would win". Both sides often seem intent on proving that their side would always win in the given scenario, from which point it turns into a "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" based on scattered narrative feats assembled from a wide range of sources.

There was an article on CBR explaining why anyone that thinks "X character wins 100% of the time" lacks a lot of imagination. It included write ups for fights between Batman, Superman, Thor and Captain America. Pretty good stuff.

Selrahc

2014-04-11, 01:07 PM

Universal: One single universe and any attached dimensions.
Multi-universal: A small collection of singular universes. There's no hard limit, but it's probably somewhere between three and twenty.
Multiversal: A collection of dozens upon dozens, hundreds upon hundreds, thousands upon thousands of universes.
Omniversal: A collection of multiverses.

And what makes affecting 2 universes easier than 4? Or 4 billion? How is this at all related to power? Where is the meaning? And how do you tell if stays the same from fiction to fiction?

The term universe is a deeply ambiguous one, even before you get into infinity+1 territory with the add ons. And in a fictional world where you have an astral plane or a dreamscape or a heaven, wholly unconnected to the physical world things plunge outside the aegis of the sane.

I get it that you don't like the tier system, but your personal dislike does not invalidate it. Nor will itstop myself or anyone else who accepts it from using it.

It irritates me when you bring it up in every thread and try and get people to adhere to it. It is a tool that doesn't work, that somebody keeps presenting in threads I read.
It is alienating jargon that doesn't help discussion. I don't want to bring it up in a thread and derail something that people wanted to discuss, but this is a thread about vs threads, so it seems germane.

Legato Endless

2014-04-11, 01:39 PM

And there you neatly sum up why versus threads are fundamentally and ultimately pointless. Fictional characters are inextricably linked with the rules of drama and of their genre; throwing them out means you're no longer actually discussing the characters. You're discussing stat blocks that don't offer any insight.

Some are. Not all. Pull up a written narrative/battelog of a PVP game, and you have a fight that was in no way decided to drama. Historical fiction would also be except. The characters were certainly affected by drama probably, but not the fictional rule bounds of a fantasy.

Characters have no existence outside of the rules of drama. They're not real. Set aside the rules of drama to make them compete and you fundamentally miss the point of fiction. And, of course, you can never really set aside the rules; you can only replace them with new rules that you think are neutral but actually encode your worldview.
Pointless, but have fun!

I agree that versus threads can miss the wide horizon of what fiction can be. That fiction has a singular monolithic point I would disagree ardently with. Furthermore, just because something does not have a knowable objective conclusion does not make the discourse pointless.

Eh? Artoo just needs an early 20th century steamship and some gumption, unless Cthulhu's madness can effect service droids it's not much of a problem.

Cthulhu kinda sucks.

I made this argument some time ago, about getting its ass handed by a steamboat, but the reply was that it wasn't actually affected at all, everyone was doomed, and no one survived. In short, I was totally wrong, and Cthulhu would easily take say, the United States military. Can we get a third party on this? This thread doesn't have enough illustrating demonstrations.

Someone already mentioned this, but I don't think most here is truly that invested in fictional characters. The emotions run high when one person doesn't like the tone or language used by another person during the argument.

Maybe not here, but it certainly happens in general. It also goes part and parcel with the bizarre notion who would win means anything, as though power or combat prowess meant one character or setting were superior to another, or implied…something about a story itself.

I feel like versus threads would benefit immensely from understanding the difference between "X could win" and "X would win". Both sides often seem intent on proving that their side would always win in the given scenario, from which point it turns into a "Nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!" based on scattered narrative feats assembled from a wide range of sources.

Pretty much. A lot of times many of the participants think in the simplest of terms. Which is finding a good group for anything involving the hypothetical can be irksome.

There was an article on CBR explaining why anyone that thinks "X character wins 100% of the time" lacks a lot of imagination. It included write ups for fights between Batman, Superman, Thor and Captain America. Pretty good stuff.

Link?

tyckspoon

2014-04-11, 02:15 PM

I made this argument some time ago, about getting its ass handed by a steamboat, but the reply was that it wasn't actually affected at all, everyone was doomed, and no one survived. In short, I was totally wrong, and Cthulhu would easily take say, the United States military. Can we get a third party on this? This thread doesn't have enough illustrating demonstrations.

My understanding is that Cthulhu was not *supposed* to awaken at that time - he'd essentially been crank-called by some cultists. The steamboat didn't do meaningful damage to him; it just occupied him for long enough to stop him from doing much damage in the timespan it took him to realize that the Stars were Not Right, grumble, and go back to bed. Had the time been correct for him to rise again and do ..whatever the heck it is Cthulhu is waiting for.. the steamboat would have been a grand and futile gesture. (I can't speak to how he would deal with modern weaponry, but based on Lovecraft's worldview it probably would be just as pointless in the end. Many super/supra/meta-powered fictions, on the other hand, would have no significant problem punking Cthulu, because he's not really all that special when you get into places where Big Scary Eldritch Thingy is a weekly occurrence.)

comicshorse

2014-04-11, 02:18 PM

[QUOTE=Legato Endless;17289884
I made this argument some time ago, about getting its ass handed by a steamboat, but the reply was that it wasn't actually affected at all, everyone was doomed, and no one survived. In short, I was totally wrong, and Cthulhu would easily take say, the United States military. Can we get a third party on this? This thread doesn't have enough illustrating demonstrations.
TE]

It had an effect, just not much of one. Cthulhu reforms so all it really did was occupy it for a few seconds (and probably piss it off). Also Cthulhu was around at the wrong time, this wasn't when 'the stars are right' hence it buggering off back to R'Yleh. Odds are its not really on form when its not supposed to be awake

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-04-11, 02:23 PM

There was an article on CBR explaining why anyone that thinks "X character wins 100% of the time" lacks a lot of imagination. It included write ups for fights between Batman, Superman, Thor and Captain America. Pretty good stuff.
It might be fun to see a VS thread in two parts.

Part 1: people submit short fictional depictions of the suggested battle to a thread.
Part 2: you have a thread where people vote on which depictions they liked the best.

Selrahc

2014-04-11, 02:25 PM

It might be fun to see a VS thread in two parts.

Part 1: people submit short fictional depictions of the suggested battle to a thread.
Part 2: you have a thread where people vote on which depictions they liked the best.

That would be pretty cool.

It sort of sounds more like an assignment for a creative writing class than a versus thread though.

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-04-11, 02:30 PM

You'd be surprised at what they get up to in the Arts and Crafts forum.

Kitten Champion

2014-04-11, 02:37 PM

It had an effect, just not much of one. Cthulhu reforms so all it really did was occupy it for a few seconds (and probably piss it off). Also Cthulhu was around at the wrong time, this wasn't when 'the stars are right' hence it buggering off back to R'Yleh. Odds are its not really on form when its not supposed to be awake

All that stands between us and certain doom is a strong cup of coffee?

I guess that point stands to reason, Cthulhu is Herald tier after all. Artoo might need three or four antiquated steamships when the time calls for it.

Shinken

2014-04-11, 02:41 PM

Link?

Found it (http://dogfoodforchairs.blogspot.com.br/2011/04/why-little-jeff-is-sad-when-dc-and.html). Turns out it's not from CBR exactly. There is a part two (http://dogfoodforchairs.blogspot.com.br/2014/04/when-dc-and-marvel-fight-round-two.html), which I didn't know about. Highlight:

The same people who say, "We've seen Batman beat Superman." Also say, "There's no way Batman can beat Thor." Even though, per JLA/Avengers we've seen Superman beat Thor. I guess the venn diagram of people who argue about the fights of imaginary musclemen in funny pajamas, and people who've taken "Logic 101" has a tiny cross section.

It might be fun to see a VS thread in two parts.

Part 1: people submit short fictional depictions of the suggested battle to a thread.
Part 2: you have a thread where people vote on which depictions they liked the best.
That's a very good idea. I'd be willing to try it.

Zrak

2014-04-11, 02:41 PM

I think you're confusing the "Jobber Aura"/"Plot Shield" with prep time. :smalltongue:

I intended to refer generally to the "Jobber Aura"/"Plot Shield" idea the whole time, I just chose a bad initial example to give. Basically, I meant a category specifically for characters whose plot powers are acknowledged and even loosely explained in-universe.

I think there are a lot of opportunities to be outside of the tier system, actually. Rick from Rick and Morty is another example, since his power level isn't really comparable to his sphere of influence; he can and routinely does influence events on a multiversal scale, but physically he's an ordinary mortal.

I think the creators of those series would be honestly offended if you compared what's basically cliff notes for a character to their work.
Eh, if I wrote XKCD, I'd be flattered by the comparison.
Heeeyyyyoooooo. Pew pew!

Why? That sounds like pointless hairsplitting over something that shouldn't be an issue. So what if a concept doesn't exist in one verse and exists in the other? Unless its something that would literally invalidate the fight happening (like only those with Reiatsu being able to see and affect spiritual bodies), it's immaterial to the thread.
I think a lot of things can pretty easily run into unstoppable force immovable object territory in any universe that contains certain absolutes that might be contradictory; X can cut through anything, Y is indestructible; X ignores spell resistance, Y is immune to magic; and so on. They don't invalidate the fight, but they definitely complicate matters.

comicshorse

2014-04-11, 03:19 PM

All that stands between us and certain doom is a strong cup of coffee?

I guess that point stands to reason, Cthulhu is Herald tier after all. Artoo might need three or four antiquated steamships when the time calls for it.

Well I don't know about you but if I haven't had my full 8 Eons I'm useless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DsgZ4JXXB8

Math_Mage

2014-04-11, 03:30 PM

And of course, as Barristan Selmy notes, in real life the wet dew of the grass can decide a joust. Such irregularities are absent in fiction.
I'd just like to note that these two sentences are both contradictory and hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-04-11, 03:53 PM

I'd just like to note that these two sentences are both contradictory and hilarious. :smallbiggrin:
And really--doesn't that sort of thing come up all the time in fiction? Or maybe just some fiction.

Legato Endless

2014-04-11, 04:06 PM

Found it (http://dogfoodforchairs.blogspot.com.br/2011/04/why-little-jeff-is-sad-when-dc-and.html). Turns out it's not from CBR exactly. There is a part two (http://dogfoodforchairs.blogspot.com.br/2014/04/when-dc-and-marvel-fight-round-two.html), which I didn't know about. Highlight:

A few of those examples were amusing. Also, so after this many decades, has it never been stated what precisely it takes to be declared worthy by Thor's hammer?

I think a lot of things can pretty easily run into unstoppable force immovable object territory in any universe that contains certain absolutes that might be contradictory; X can cut through anything, Y is indestructible; X ignores spell resistance, Y is immune to magic; and so on. They don't invalidate the fight, but they definitely complicate matters.

Yes exactly.

I'd just like to note that these two sentences are both contradictory and hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

Thanks. I do try. Perhaps too hard on occasion, but still.

Zrak

2014-04-11, 04:46 PM

A few of those examples were amusing. Also, so after this many decades, has it never been stated what precisely it takes to be declared worthy by Thor's hammer?

I think they try to keep it ambiguous both to avoid nitpicky continuity issues and to keep people guessing about what it means when a guy like, say, Dr. Doom is able to lift it.

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-12, 05:18 AM

Eh? Artoo just needs an early 20th century steamship and some gumption, unless Cthulhu's madness can effect service droids it's not much of a problem.

Cthulhu kinda sucks.

Question: how do you think Artoo would navigate an early 20th century steamship? :smallamused:

And there you neatly sum up why versus threads are fundamentally and ultimately pointless. Fictional characters are inextricably linked with the rules of drama and of their genre; throwing them out means you're no longer actually discussing the characters. You're discussing stat blocks that don't offer any insight.

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the field of speculative fiction. A lot of them started as "hey, what if a person could do X"? The whole rest of the story was spun around application and implications of that X. The field even has it's own term for these X: novum. The "stat blocks" do, in fact, "offer insight" and inform how stories are made and written.

Characters have no existence outside of the rules of drama. They're not real. Set aside the rules of drama to make them compete and you fundamentally miss the point of fiction. And, of course, you can never really set aside the rules; you can only replace them with new rules that you think are neutral but actually encode your worldview.

Pointless, but have fun!

You fail a basic reading comprehension test.

Recall what I said: "simulation, which is one kind of story".

Not all stories follow rules of drama. More to the point, different genres have different rules. To get a meangingful simulation, a meaningful story, a meaningful piece of fiction, contradicting rules must be annulled.

I never claimed simulations are neutral. Just that they don't follow rules of drama, which is often true. If you can't find meaning in a simulation, then it's you who's missing the point, not me. You are arbitrarily claiming only stories that follow them are worthy fiction. You are also assuming false equivalence of worldviews. Some worldviews are, indeed, more neutral than others; Some rulesets are fairer than others. If you can't agree with that, we have nothing to discuss.

You also seem unable to detach personalities and powers from a specific ruleset. It's perfectly possible to take a character's personality and their powers, and place them in a story that follows different or no rules of drama. Again, this in one of the point of Vs. threads. It's also how multiple authors can write different stories belonging to different genres using the same characters. This has happened to most superheroes, as well as famous characters of pop culture like Sherlock Holmes. Your whole statement of characters "having no existence outside the rules of drama" is false. They have no existence outside their mediums, but those mediums don't have to obey rules of drama. A character profile written on a sheet of paper is not, in itself, a story (or at least, it doesn't have to be). It doesn't have to fit demands of any one (or just one) genre or ruleset. From there, the character can then be placed into various dramas or stories, but it's obvious the character does, in fact, exists separate from any given story or drama.

Kitten Champion

2014-04-12, 01:35 PM

Question: how do you think Artoo would navigate an early 20th century steamship? :smallamused:

He's a sonic screwdriver!

jere7my

2014-04-12, 06:28 PM

You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the field of speculative fiction. A lot of them started as "hey, what if a person could do X"? The whole rest of the story was spun around application and implications of that X. The field even has it's own term for these X: novum. The "stat blocks" do, in fact, "offer insight" and inform how stories are made and written.

Heh. Okay. I guarantee you that the term "novum" is not in wide use among professional writers of speculative fiction—it was put forth by a couple of critics in the 70s, but never caught on—but I certainly agree that "What if?" questions are a basic building block of SF. That doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying, though.

You fail a basic reading comprehension test.

Recall what I said: "simulation, which is one kind of story".

Not all stories follow rules of drama. More to the point, different genres have different rules. To get a meangingful simulation, a meaningful story, a meaningful piece of fiction, contradicting rules must be annulled.

I never claimed simulations are neutral. Just that they don't follow rules of drama, which is often true. If you can't find meaning in a simulation, then it's you who's missing the point, not me. You are arbitrarily claiming only stories that follow them are worthy fiction. You are also assuming false equivalence of worldviews. Some worldviews are, indeed, more neutral than others; Some rulesets are fairer than others. If you can't agree with that, we have nothing to discuss.

You also seem unable to detach personalities and powers from a specific ruleset. It's perfectly possible to take a character's personality and their powers, and place them in a story that follows different or no rules of drama. Again, this in one of the point of Vs. threads. It's also how multiple authors can write different stories belonging to different genres using the same characters. This has happened to most superheroes, as well as famous characters of pop culture like Sherlock Holmes. Your whole statement of characters "having no existence outside the rules of drama" is false. They have no existence outside their mediums, but those mediums don't have to obey rules of drama. A character profile written on a sheet of paper is not, in itself, a story (or at least, it doesn't have to be). It doesn't have to fit demands of any one (or just one) genre or ruleset. From there, the character can then be placed into various dramas or stories, but it's obvious the character does, in fact, exists separate from any given story or drama.

You seem to be responding to about three posts I didn't write. I'll see if I can be clearer.

All characters are shaped by the stories and settings they appear in. Those stories reflect what the author is trying to say—the settings and complications are chosen to emphasize certain aspects of the character. The setting might be different in various obvious ways from the real world, but even if the author is trying to mirror the real world exactly their biases and assumptions are going to creep into their setting, which is going to affect their characters. Someone writing straight-up military fiction is going to have opinions about which particular tactics and strategies lead to success, and their characters who are successful in achieving their goals are going to reflect that. Another writer of military fiction might make different assumptions, and their characters will reflect that. And then a writer of Warner Brothers cartoons is going to have a wildly different set of rules for what constitutes success.

If you take the characters out of their settings and try to compare them—say, if you pit Bugs Bunny against Jack Ryan—you're going to have to make your own third set of assumptions about what characteristics permit characters to succeed: will Bugs's sly tricksterism make Ryan look like a fool, or will Tom Clancy's hard-bitten realism undermine Bugs's chutzpah? You can't write the story (or the versus thread) without making some kind of assumptions. Even if you set it in the "real world" you're still dealing with your own authorial biases, whether or not you're conscious of it. There's no such thing as "simulation"; there's only writing stories with your own assumptions. And those assumptions in a "versus thread" are, necessarily, arbitrary, because they don't follow naturally from the characters' settings and stories. They can't—two different settings/stories always produce different sets of assumptions. You can't stay true to both characters.

More importantly, you hobble your study of the characters by extracting them from their settings. Bugs Bunny only means what he means in the context of his own universe; looking at him anywhere else means you're looking at a different character. There's nothing wrong with doing that; you can produce humor or satire or even real insight by examining a character against a different backdrop. But what you cannot do is determine what they're "really like", or come to any kind of meaningful conclusion about how they would fare against some opponent you've also extracted from their context. A character in the heroic mode is going to act the way they do because their story exists in the heroic mode; putting them into some kind of "simulation" or supposedly "neutral" setting means they either have to betray their own character or act in a way that doesn't make sense in the new setting. Neither produces an objective evaluation.

So, if it's fun for you to write crossovers, then have at it. If it gives you personal satisfaction, that's great. Just keep in mind that 1) when you look at a character divorced from their setting and story, you're not really looking at the same character, and 2) you're not going to end up with any kind of settled truths about who would beat who in a fight, as someone claimed early in this thread. You're going to end up with a story featuring characters that resemble characters from other works, doing things and achieving results that reflect your own biases and assumptions. Have fun!

BeerMug Paladin

2014-04-12, 07:17 PM

I pretty much agree with jere7my here. My only contribution is to point out that characters with social skills, placed in a versus setting, are going to have the usefulness of those abilities fully determined by the context of the versus match. This includes characters who are wealthy or have political power. Those abilities could be either completely ignored or taken to give them an extraordinary level of power.

To demonstrate what I mean, could Batman in a sci-fi setting have access to purchasable technology in the confines of the 'opposed' setting? If he can't, then he's arbitrarily restricted from using his wealth advantage to get what the other setting might consider basic tech. And that's arguably not Batman anymore.

If he can, well spaceships and robots aren't Batman things, so if he had those in a versus match against someone who did have such technology in their universe then he's not really doing the Batman thing anymore, since he's relying on things that have nothing to do with what he normally does.

Either way you go, there's an argument to be had that the character would be violated and broken by the context of the versus match. And this is the sort of thing one has to decide for every character with diplomatic, political, wealth, or other social abilities. And it's rare for a character not to have social abilities, even if they are not the character's primary source of power.

There's just a ton of things that the writer has to arbitrarily assume once a character leaves their native setting. That's not even getting into characters with magic or technobabble powers, which has the same problem, since there's no clear rules by which they would operate outside their own specific setting.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 07:27 PM

So, if it's fun for you to write crossovers, then have at it. If it gives you personal satisfaction, that's great. Just keep in mind that 1) when you look at a character divorced from their setting and story, you're not really looking at the same character, and 2) you're not going to end up with any kind of settled truths about who would beat who in a fight, as someone claimed early in this thread. You're going to end up with a story featuring characters that resemble characters from other works, doing things and achieving results that reflect your own biases and assumptions. Have fun!

Here's a straightforward example of what I'm talking about: AT-ATs.

Any objective analysis of AT-ATs is going to turn up a lot of flaws, mostly centered on their long, spindly legs. The joints offer a bunch of failure modes; they can be tripped, unlike a tracked vehicle; they'd have trouble on uneven terrain; etc. Any "AT-AT versus X" thread worth its salt is going to expose these flaws, and the participants are going to come to the conclusion that the AT-AT is a terrible design for a ground assault vehicle.

So what does this tell you about AT-ATs in the Star Wars universe? Nothing. The Empire conquered the galaxy on the feet of AT-ATs; they strike terror into the hearts of the cowering native populations of a hundred planets. AT-ATs are the top-of-the-line murder ponies of a Star Wars evil commander's wet dreams, because the Star Wars movies follow the dictates of the pulp aesthetic. Looking cool trumps engineering smarts every time. That's a truth of the Star Wars universe, and any meaningful analysis of AT-ATs needs to take that rule into account.

Looked at on their own, in the context of a versus thread, AT-ATs are ungainly and slow and waiting to be kneecapped by an OGRE or something. Looked at in the context of their setting, they're terrifying, potent symbols of oppression. If a versus thread strips away the power of that pulp aesthetic, you end up with a skewed view of what AT-ATs really signify.

Tiki Snakes

2014-04-12, 08:06 PM

Here's a straightforward example of what I'm talking about: AT-ATs.

Any objective analysis of AT-ATs is going to turn up a lot of flaws, mostly centered on their long, spindly legs. The joints offer a bunch of failure modes; they can be tripped, unlike a tracked vehicle; they'd have trouble on uneven terrain; etc. Any "AT-AT versus X" thread worth its salt is going to expose these flaws, and the participants are going to come to the conclusion that the AT-AT is a terrible design for a ground assault vehicle.

So what does this tell you about AT-ATs in the Star Wars universe? Nothing. The Empire conquered the galaxy on the feet of AT-ATs; they strike terror into the hearts of the cowering native populations of a hundred planets. AT-ATs are the top-of-the-line murder ponies of a Star Wars evil commander's wet dreams, because the Star Wars movies follow the dictates of the pulp aesthetic. Looking cool trumps engineering smarts every time. That's a truth of the Star Wars universe, and any meaningful analysis of AT-ATs needs to take that rule into account.

Looked at on their own, in the context of a versus thread, AT-ATs are ungainly and slow and waiting to be kneecapped by an OGRE or something. Looked at in the context of their setting, they're terrifying, potent symbols of oppression. If a versus thread strips away the power of that pulp aesthetic, you end up with a skewed view of what AT-ATs really signify.

That's a good example of the problem with this approach as well, however.
Because those exact problems come up in the actual films and are the main way that AT-ATs actually get taken out. So, you know. There's that to consider. They're still potent symbols of aggression, but they are also easily tripped, slow moving targets and they get thoroughly dealt with using these facts in their very first appearance.

Prime32

2014-04-12, 08:28 PM

To demonstrate what I mean, could Batman in a sci-fi setting have access to purchasable technology in the confines of the 'opposed' setting? If he can't, then he's arbitrarily restricted from using his wealth advantage to get what the other setting might consider basic tech. And that's arguably not Batman anymore.

If he can, well spaceships and robots aren't Batman things, so if he had those in a versus match against someone who did have such technology in their universe then he's not really doing the Batman thing anymore, since he's relying on things that have nothing to do with what he normally does.There was an argument made that Spider-Man could beat Batman (http://www.screwattack.com/shows/originals/death-battle/death-battle-batman-vs-spider-man) due to his spider-sense countering Batman's reliance on the element of surprise. I agree... but only because that fight took place in a weird vacuum. If Batman and Spider-Man ever existed in the same setting then it would be trivial for Bats to accquire or invent a device that jams spider-sense, given that it's been done by multiple Marvel characters with fewer resources than him. And you just know that if he had a way to short out Spidey's powers he'd carry it on his person at all times, even if he doesn't think he'll ever need it. Because he's Batman.

Legato Endless

2014-04-12, 08:37 PM

There was an argument made that Spider-Man could beat Batman (http://www.screwattack.com/shows/originals/death-battle/death-battle-batman-vs-spider-man) due to his spider-sense countering Batman's reliance on the element of surprise. I agree... but only because that fight took place in a weird vacuum. If Batman and Spider-Man ever existed in the same setting then it would be trivial for Bats to accquire or invent a device that jams spider-sense, given that it's been done by multiple Marvel characters with fewer resources than him. And you just know that if he had a way to counter Spidey's powers he'd carry it on his person at all times, even if he doesn't think he'll ever need it. Because he's Batman.

While I don't care to comment on the result, I was notably confused when they state that preparation time would change nothing since Spider-man is a genius. Yes, he is. But while Spider-man has defeated an opponent on occasion with his technological preparations, like melting off Rhino's armor, it's staggeringly less frequent and several orders of magnitude less effective than Bruce "Give me a week and I'll find a way to punch out God" Wayne.

The fight between Goku and Superman is interesting to note here. Because their argument for Superman winning rests on a dark inversion of jere7my's essential point.

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-12, 09:37 PM

@BeerMug Paladin: What you're doing is just enumerating possible problems a simulation might face. The issue is that you're implying they're unsolvable, or that meaningful results can't be derived from the recontextualization. Neither are true.

Again: some rulesets are fairer than others. If you're worrying about them being arbitrary, you ought to take a look at the etymology of it and the verb arbitrate. Some lines have to be drawn in sand just so a discussion can begin. Think of SI units for a concrete, scientific example. At a point, a kilogram was just however much a chunk of platinum happened to weigh - a completely arbitrary choice. But once that choice had been made, all other objects could be measured to a common standard, and a better definition could be sought for the kilogram.

The example might seem far-fetched, but common standards like that also allow for deeper examination of fiction. When a character in a story invokes SI units and says something weighs this or that in kilograms, we immediately have a comparison point in real life, outside that specific story - which allows us to judge if the artistic representation corresponds to what really should happen etc.

@jere7my: Both of your posts basically just read to me as "I don't like deconstructive analysis of fiction".

You're not refuting what I've said - in fact, you are pretty much paraphrasing me at points. What you don't see is the contradiction in your own viewpoint. It's most glaringly apparent in this paragraph:

More importantly, you hobble your study of the characters by extracting them from their settings. Bugs Bunny only means what he means in the context of his own universe; looking at him anywhere else means you're looking at a different character. There's nothing wrong with doing that; you can produce humor or satire or even real insight by examining a character against a different backdrop. But what you cannot do is determine what they're "really like", or come to any kind of meaningful conclusion about how they would fare against some opponent you've also extracted from their context. A character in the heroic mode is going to act the way they do because their story exists in the heroic mode; putting them into some kind of "simulation" or supposedly "neutral" setting means they either have to betray their own character or act in a way that doesn't make sense in the new setting. Neither produces an objective evaluation.

Here's a few questions: how can you determine a character is "really like" themselves in one context, but not in another? How can you determine one story exists in "heroic mode", as opposed to some other kind of mode?

It's because you, as an outside observer, can compare that context to other contexts, one story to another story, fiction to reality. When perusing a story existing in "heroic mode", your brain compares it to the real world and you near-intuitively realize something aren't going like they should, thus identifying the "heroic mode" for what it is and understading there are other, unheroic models to complement and contrast it. You have isolated (or extracted) and identified pieces of the narratives and through contrast realized they don't match, thus learning something of both of the stories.

Yet somehow, when we try to apply this principle on the finer levels of character personality or powers, doing away with extraneous tropes like plot-induced stupidity, we are suddenly making them "betray their characters".

Tiki Snake's rebuttal to your point about AT-ATs highlights the problem in that. You can't say the observable flaws in AT-AT design tells us nothing about them in-universe, because in-universe those same flaws are observed and exploited. Your argument rests on willfull denial of there being any shared or overlapping context, when that's not true. Objectivity is a concern only so far as finding a common benchmark, like kilograms above. Saying Vs. threads can't tell us anything about what characters are "really like" can only true if there is no benchmark to compare to.

The way you try to spin the whole endeavor as being fruitless because different or skewed opinions just undermines your own point. If you do not believe some viewpoints are more meaningful, more correct, more objective or better in any other sense, then why waste your time arguing with me? If you think no shared comparison point or framework can be found between various pieces of fiction, what makes any other discussion different?

jere7my

2014-04-12, 09:52 PM

That's a good example of the problem with this approach as well, however.
Because those exact problems come up in the actual films and are the main way that AT-ATs actually get taken out. So, you know. There's that to consider. They're still potent symbols of aggression, but they are also easily tripped, slow moving targets and they get thoroughly dealt with using these facts in their very first appearance.

Well...sort of. The Rebels do still lose that encounter. More importantly, the few AT-ATs that are taken down aren't taken down because the Rebels were the first to attempt these fairly obvious tactics; they were taken down because they ran afoul of another Star Wars rule: obvious heroic tactics only work for the heroes.

Just looking at AT-ATs in the context of a versus thread would lead us to conclude that the Empire should never have built them. Yet they were an extremely successful design for situations not involving Skywalkers.

MLai

2014-04-12, 10:07 PM

Man, I love Frozen_Feet in this thread. He just consistently wins this entire thread with every new post. :smallredface:

Just looking at AT-ATs in the context of a versus thread would lead us to conclude that the Empire should never have built them. Yet they were an extremely successful design for situations not involving Skywalkers.
That's the entire point of VS threads. To strip away the genre context of the character/object in question, and display how stupid or awesome the thing is if placed in a different arbitrary context. Because often we get so immersed in genre conventions we become blind to new perspectives.
Your AT-AT example showcases that nicely. It's why we DO vs threads, not why we DON'T.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 10:12 PM

Yet somehow, when we try to apply this principle on the finer levels of character personality or powers, doing away with extraneous tropes like plot-induced stupidity, we are suddenly making them "betray their characters".

Correct. I'm glad we agree! When you pull a character out of its milieu, only two things can happen: 1) it will keep behaving the way it normally would, and its behavior will no longer make sense in the new milieu, or 2) it will change its behavior to fit the new milieu, and it will no longer be the same character. Setting and story and authorial intent are so deeply embedded in character that moving characters to a pseudo-neutral arena misses the point of fiction entirely. Simple as that.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 10:13 PM

That's the entire point of VS threads. To strip away the genre context of the character/object in question, and display how stupid or awesome the thing is if placed in a different arbitrary context.

That...is why you fail.

The Glyphstone

2014-04-12, 10:15 PM

Correct. I'm glad we agree! When you pull a character out of its milieu, only two things can happen: 1) it will keep behaving the way it normally would, and its behavior will no longer make sense in the new milieu, or 2) it will change its behavior to fit the new milieu, and it will no longer be the same character. Setting and story and authorial intent are so deeply embedded in character that moving characters to a pseudo-neutral arena misses the point of fiction entirely. Simple as that.

On the other hand, comics have a strong and historied tradition of elseworlds/alternate universes/What-If stories featuring characters in unusual settings/situations...so there is precedent in a way. It's not the same character, but if it's written/played reasonably faithful to how the original character would behave in said changed circumstances, it's effectively an Elseworlds version of that character, allowing the theoretical matchup to proceed.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 10:19 PM

On the other hand, comics have a strong and historied tradition of elseworlds/alternate universes/What-If stories featuring characters in unusual settings/situations...so there is precedent in a way. It's not the same character, but if it's written/played reasonably faithful to how the original character would behave in said changed circumstances, it's effectively an Elseworlds version of that character, allowing the theoretical matchup to proceed.

Yes! And then you end up with crossover fiction, with a new author interpreting the character in a new setting. That can be very cool, and upthread I said that was the one potential benefit of versus threads: shared storytelling. What you don't end up with is an objective, settled truth about whether Aquaman could beat Zaphod Beeblebrox, because it's just one author telling a new story, not some kind of simulation.

MLai

2014-04-12, 10:24 PM

That...is why you fail.
Fail what? In winning a bar brawl with a character I don't own the copyright to, anyways?
Only kids care about that crap. Or you, I guess?
I care only about whether or not I learned something (or taught something) via the deconstruction thought exercise. Sometimes I learn very interesting things like SCIENCE!

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-12, 10:29 PM

Correct. I'm glad we agree! When you pull a character out of its milieu, only two things can happen: 1) it will keep behaving the way it normally would, and its behavior will no longer make sense in the new milieu, or 2) it will change its behavior to fit the new milieu, and it will no longer be the same character. Setting and story and authorial intent are so deeply embedded in character that moving characters to a pseudo-neutral arena misses the point of fiction entirely. Simple as that.

False dichtomy. You are missing the obvious third option: it will keep behaving the way it normally would, and it's behaviour still makes sense in the new milieu. Your dichtomy only holds if you define "behaviour that makes sense" as "behaviour that is exactly the same", which is absurd.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 10:33 PM

Fail what? In winning a bar brawl with a character I don't own the copyright to, anyways?
Only kids care about that crap. Or you, I guess?
I care only about whether or not I learned something (or taught something) via the deconstruction thought exercise. Sometimes I learn very interesting things like SCIENCE!

I was kinda quoting a relevant small green Jedi.

But the point is, coming to the conclusion that a machine designed by artists for a pulp SF movie is not something the real military would ever deploy is not particularly surprising. That's the expected result: that something in a fantasy movie wouldn't actually work the way it's shown to work.

Sure, it can be a fun teaching aid, in a "What can Godzilla teach us about the square-cube law?" kind of way. But I really, really don't see the point of then pitting Godzilla against Superman in that adolescent bar brawl you mention and saying, "Pssh, Godzilla would totally collapse under his own weight. Lame!" The square-cube law doesn't apply to kaiju; military sense doesn't apply to Star Wars; the Blues Brothers are on a mission from God. Ignoring those genre tags in order to make a point about real-world matchups just seems to miss the point by a country mile.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 10:36 PM

False dichtomy. You are missing the obvious third option: it will keep behaving the way it normally would, and it's behaviour still makes sense in the new milieu. Your dichtomy only holds if you define "behaviour that makes sense" as "behaviour that is exactly the same", which is absurd.

Can't happen. Once you take a character out of the story it's in, it's in a new story, and it's no longer the same character. You've immediately begun making assumptions about how it would act if you were writing the story. That might be fun, but it sure isn't objective.

Going back to the AT-ATs: If you put them into a pseudo-neutral simulation, and you find that they lose to anyone with trench-digging technology, then the Empire can't keep behaving the same way in the new milieu and still make sense. Suddenly, you're like, "Hey, why are these evil overlords sending machines that can be defeated by WWI technology?" The Empire would have to make some changes in order to be a credible threat, and suddenly you're not talking about the Empire we know and love at all. You're talking about some milSF version of the Empire that makes sensible (and anti-pulp) military decisions. And you might be able to write a fun story about that—but you can't say you're talking about an objective evaluation of what we saw in ESB anymore.

I glanced at the "Captain America vs. Jedi" thread, as an experiment, and saw someone trying to draw tactical conclusions from the fact that the Jedi fighting style is more showy than it should be, which means Obi-Wan leaves himself open to attack (and not just against Vader). The correct question to ask there is not "What does this imply about Jedi combat readiness that they leave holes in their defenses?" The correct question is "Why did Lucas choose to show lightsaber duels that looked pretty but weren't tactically sound?" I think the answer to that question is obvious—pulp aesthetic!—and drawing any conclusions at all about how they would fare against non-Star-Wars opponents based on their showy fighting style is just such a swing and a miss.

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-12, 11:13 PM

Let's take a gun from a 1st person shooter, which we know can't shoot through metal walls.

Next, let's take an adamantium wall from Marvel. We know adamantium is metal, and can't be harmed by small arms.

When we make our simulation, the gun shoots at the wall, and the projectile bouncess off without leaving a scratch.

How are the assumptions made in this story violating the original premises these characters were based on? How is the gun's behaviour no longer making sense, when it's behaving exactly like in the games it's been in? How is the walls behaviour no longer making sense, when it's behaving exactly like in the comics it's been in?

Once more, your insistence on objectivity misses the point. You are perfectly correct f. ex. the wall is not the same as in the comics on the grounds that it might be programmed instead of drawn (or vice verse for the gun), in that it is a physically separate entity; but the same is equally true for the wall in different comic panels. They are all different drawings, after all. But if you approach the story from this point of view, you are forgetting the spirit of the exercise: simulation. The what if, the imagined continuity from panel to panel.

If you can't make the mental leap of considering a wall of similar proportions and make-up to be the same wall in successive appearances, I'm not sure why you bother with fiction at all. There is no fundamental difference between story-to-story continuity and panel-to-panel, or page-to-page, or frame-to-frame continuity. If you can in your mind create link between successive pictures (etc.) and consider them a story, while simultaneously isolating and considering that story distinct from all other stories, then you can do the same with character traits across stories.

After that, it's just a matter of agreeing on a framework. A framework doesn't have to be objective to create consistent results, it only has to be logical. As long as premises are shared and accepted, all users of the framework will end up with the same results. Your counter-argument boils down to "but it doesn't happen, because people disagree". But in truth, it happens all the time. They say every person looks at the world through their own eyes, but it's easily demonstrable people's eyes are still largely the same. Overlap of experience is what's "objective" in the realm of fiction.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 11:23 PM

How are the assumptions made in this story violating the original premises these characters were based on?

Guns and walls are not, usually, characters. (There are exceptions.) For very simple questions, like "Which is taller? Darth Vader or the representatives of the Lollipop Guild?" sure, you can probably come to an objective conclusion. As soon as you introduce motivation, decisions, character—anything that has the tethers of setting/genre/authorial intent tied to it—you are off the rails of objectivity and into the wooly wilderness of crossover fanfic.

(Incidentally, you have a tendency to impugn my mental capacity in this thread. I don't care for it.)

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-12, 11:36 PM

The only difference between the gun vs. wall and Batman vs. Superman is in degree of complexity.

The fact that most Vs. threads happen to be cross-over fanfics as well is entirely incidental - it doesn't tell anything about their objectivity or quality or worth as simulations. Even if I wrote a perfectly objective Batman Vs. Phantom story tomorrow, it would still be a cross-over fanfic. If anything, the way you use "cross-over fanfiction" as antithesis to objectivity underlines your own bias against certain types of stories and storytellers.

jere7my

2014-04-12, 11:47 PM

The only difference between the gun vs. wall and Batman vs. Superman is in degree of complexity.

The only difference between a petunia and the London Philharmonic is in degree of complexity. It is the added complexity that makes any claim of objectivity in the comparison impossible. Guns and walls do not usually come with setting-specific and story-specific and genre-specific implications, as Batman and Superman and all other sentient characters do. That said, if the gun or the wall have genre-based hooks—if it is a gun from a bad 70s TV show that never runs out of bullets, for instance, or a wall in a Warner Brothers cartoon that someone has painted a tunnel on—then comparison in a pseudo-neutral simulation will quickly become impossible.

The reason fanfic is not and cannot be objective is because it is a story. Story cannot exist without authorial choice. Authorial choice is by its nature subjective. Character choice cannot happen without authorial choice. Freeyow.

MLai

2014-04-12, 11:55 PM

@ Frozen_Feet:
m(_)m

Jeremy: I glanced at the "Captain America vs. Jedi" thread, as an experiment, and saw someone trying to draw tactical conclusions from the fact that the Jedi fighting style is more showy than it should be, which means Obi-Wan leaves himself open to attack (and not just against Vader). The correct question to ask there is not "What does this imply about Jedi combat readiness that they leave holes in their defenses?" The correct question is "Why did Lucas choose to show lightsaber duels that looked pretty but weren't tactically sound?" I think the answer to that question is obvious—pulp aesthetic!—and drawing any conclusions at all about how they would fare against non-Star-Wars opponents based on their showy fighting style is just such a swing and a miss.
Do you know why a lot of other ppl do not subscribe to that path of reasoning, even though it's pretty obvious? Because that's not the point.

The reasoning of "Why so srs? It's all fake/ showboating/ choreography/ genre-incompatible, doncha know?" is a dismissive reasoning, wholly unsatisfactory to those who would engage in this thought exercise in the first place. You might as well say that there's no point to reason it out, A Wizard Did It.

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-12, 11:59 PM

The reason fanfic is not and cannot be objective is because it is a story.

If you think a story can't be objective, you are using either a very narrow definition of story, or very narrow definition of objective.

For the record, I do see the spirit of your statement. Stories take place in the audience's minds - and are thus by definition subjective. The joke is, that definition of subjective is not an antonym to all definitions of objective.

Story cannot exist without authorial choice. Authorial choice is by its nature subjective. Character choice cannot happen without authorial choice. Freeyow.

The walls I make for a living can't exists without me making a choice to make them. My choice to make them is by its nature subjective - it originates from and exists in my mind.

Does this mean the walls I make are not objective?

jere7my

2014-04-13, 12:16 AM

Do you know why a lot of other ppl do not subscribe to that path of reasoning, even though it's pretty obvious? Because that's not the point.

Or it is the point. To me, at least, it's much more interesting to examine authorial intent and allusion and context than to invent extra-textual in-universe explanations for things that have obvious real-world explanations. You're more likely to reach something true and meaningful going down my road.

The reasoning of "Why so srs? It's all fake/ showboating/ choreography/ genre-incompatible, doncha know?" is a dismissive reasoning, wholly unsatisfactory to those who would engage in this thought exercise in the first place.

Certainly I would be surprised if the people who engaged in this pointless exercise agreed with me that it was pointless.

You might as well say that there's no point to reason it out, A Wizard Did It.

I would say that—if a wizard did it.

Legato Endless

2014-04-13, 12:21 AM

I glanced at the "Captain America vs. Jedi" thread, as an experiment, and saw someone trying to draw tactical conclusions from the fact that the Jedi fighting style is more showy than it should be, which means Obi-Wan leaves himself open to attack (and not just against Vader). The correct question to ask there is not "What does this imply about Jedi combat readiness that they leave holes in their defenses?" The correct question is "Why did Lucas choose to show lightsaber duels that looked pretty but weren't tactically sound?" I think the answer to that question is obvious—pulp aesthetic!—and drawing any conclusions at all about how they would fare against non-Star-Wars opponents based on their showy fighting style is just such a swing and a miss.

But that's just it, Lucas' intentions were not born out in fighting styles of the original trilogy. The reason the first fight in episode IV looks the way it does is because the props were incredibly fragile, one actor was old, and the other was half blind. When the new trilogy came out, Lucas wanted to abandon the kendo feeling of the original trilogy. The original scene with the wampa attack in Empire is very artistic, the creature is barely seen and everything is incredibly moody. Then Lucas gained the funds and technology to make a realistic creature, and he altered the scenes ambiance. Considering a pair of authors can disagree about the reasons, implications, or context of elements within a work, it does not reasonably follow we consider a work soley from just intentionality. And since other things, like practicality can also be formative, then such considerations may be important, but they are not nearly ad definitive as you make them sound.

jere7my

2014-04-13, 12:24 AM

If you think a story can't be objective, you are using either a very narrow definition of story, or very narrow definition of objective.

I think a story cannot exist without the author making choices. The existence of choices implies the existence of valid alternatives. The existence of valid alternatives implies that another author might choose them. No story is objective—not even the dinnertime story of what you did at work that day.

For the record, I do see the spirit of your statement. Stories take place in the audience's minds - and are thus by definition subjective. The joke is, that definition of subjective is not an antonym to all definitions of objective.

I appreciate the concession, but I'm talking about authors, not audiences.

The walls I make for a living can't exists without me making a choice to make them. My choice to make them is by its nature subjective - it originates from and exists in my mind.

Does this mean the walls I make are not objective?

Their placement, their height, their structure, the materials you use to build them—they all reflect your skill, experience, and choices. Though I am sure you operate within the constraints of building code and client desire, another would not build exactly the walls you build.

jere7my

2014-04-13, 12:37 AM

But that's just it, Lucas' intentions were not born out in fighting styles of the original trilogy. The reason the first fight in episode IV looks the way it does is because the props were incredibly fragile, one actor was old, and the other was half blind. When the new trilogy came out, Lucas wanted to abandon the kendo feeling of the original trilogy. The original scene with the wampa attack in Empire is very artistic, the creature is barely seen and everything is incredibly moody. Then Lucas gained the funds and technology to make a realistic creature, and he altered the scenes ambiance. Considering a pair of authors can disagree about the reasons, implications, or context of elements within a work, it does not reasonably follow we consider a work soley from just intentionality. And since other things, like practicality can also be formative, then such considerations may be important, but they are not nearly ad definitive as you make them sound.

I agree with everything you say, but if we want to analyze lightsaber fights (and who doesn't!) we should stick to elements that have some bearing on lightsaber fights. Directorial intent, practical effects, in-universe justification—those are all tools we can turn to to figure out why a fight happened the way it did. Stripping all of that context away to look at the Jedi as Generic Fighting People, and holding up as flaws in their fighting ability the very things that give them their unique visual style, all in order to figure out whether or not a character in another universe would beat them in a fight, seems to be missing the point. Those excessive spins might not work in our world, but in the Star Wars universe they are, by observation, very effective; we can't transplant the spins to our world, where they don't work, and judge their fighting ability based on the way they're depicted. It'd be like watching a junior high production of West Side Story and concluding that the Jets were wusses because they were all skinny 13-year-olds.

Edit: Anyway, it has been a hoot, but I'm beginning to repeat myself, and I've spent too much time on this thread already. Don't let me stop y'all from continuing the discussion, but I am out. Ciao!

BeerMug Paladin

2014-04-13, 05:23 AM

Shinken

2014-04-13, 06:48 AM

While I don't care to comment on the result, I was notably confused when they state that preparation time would change nothing since Spider-man is a genius. Yes, he is. But while Spider-man has defeated an opponent on occasion with his technological preparations, like melting off Rhino's armor, it's staggeringly less frequent and several orders of magnitude less effective than Bruce "Give me a week and I'll find a way to punch out God" Wayne.
Sorry, this is just wrong. In the comics, designing a gizmo to defeat the villain is Spider-man's main MO. That's how he defeated the Vulture the first time (by cooking up in his garage a gizmo that canceled freaking magnetism). That's how he defeated Electro when he got powered up. That's how he defeated basically all of the villains he fought in the Dan Slott run.

Also, of course Batman could defeat Spider-man - he could, for example, set up an ambush with lots of explosives, blackmail Spidey into going there and blowing it up (he could even calculate precisely how many explosives he would need to incapacitate Peter, but not kill him). It's just that Spider-man is a lot more likely to win - he is as smart as Batman, as experienced as Batman and he has freaking superpowers as well (in the bomb scenario, he could be wearing armor underneath his costume or he could set up some kind of force field or he could send a robot instead of himself). EDIT: Actually, in their current continuities, Spider-man is a lot more experienced than Batman. While Batman has been active for 5 years, Spider-man has been active for at least 15.

Batman doesn't do the preparations thing as often as Spidey does, even. Most of the time, Batman is up against average guys with weird gimmicks - he just needs to punch them in the face. He only needs preparations against foes with superpowers, which doesn't happen very often in the bat books. "Crazy prepared Batman" is more of a gimmick to keep him relevant in the Justice League than anything else, while inventor Spider-man is a central aspect to his character.

MLai

2014-04-13, 06:54 AM

Sorry, this is just wrong..
See, look at that. I just learned something.
VS threads, yo.

DJ Yung Crunk

2014-04-13, 10:59 AM

OP opened a door. I suggest we close it while we can.

Frozen_Feet

2014-04-14, 01:06 AM

I think a story cannot exist without the author making choices. The existence of choices implies the existence of valid alternatives. The existence of valid alternatives implies that another author might choose them. No story is objective—not even the dinnertime story of what you did at work that day.

"Existence of valid alternatives" does not imply unobjectivity. It implies all valid alternatives are objective. It also implies there are invalid alternatives.

Congratulations, you've finally admitted some stories, and hence some simulations, can be more objective than others. Which incidentally means simulations that omit parts of a story can and do have a point.

I'm not sure why you use the word simulation. When I think of simulations, I usually think of something fairly concrete and numbers-driven. I don't think of hypothetical language-driven universes which operate by general consensus. Unless you're referring to the fact that in most versus matchups, one purposefully avoids tropes associated with characters like plot armor and generally treat them as real as possible with limits normal for people of their respective sources.

You ought to look up what simulation means. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/simulation) Being number or consensus driven isn't a requisite, those are just traits of simulation aiming to be accurate, because those happen to the best means to achieve accuracy.

And hypothetical universes do infact operate by general consensus, because language does.