LogFAQs > #907471200

Zeus posted...

Same wavelength. I guess geek minds truly do think alike.

It probably helps in my case that I used to have an Akashic martial artist character in Mage named Burning Lotus, and another named Iron Princess.

Though I almost named her Iron Butterfly first...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIVe-rZBcm4" data-time="



Zeus posted...

Which, again, is what I see as the nuance between a villain and a supervillain, especially since your concept degrades the concept of a supervillain to a morally ambiguous businessman or politician which, to some extent, might not even qualify for a villain

Very few people would hesitate to call Lex Luthor a supervillain, yet apart from the occasional moments of lapsed judgement when he puts on kyrptonite powered armor suits and tried to out-punch Superman, he's very rarely overt in his villainy. He's certainly never felt the need to establish a "code name", and most of the time, he covers his tracks enough to be beloved of the general population. In a few cases, enough so to actually become President of the US.

Feel free to insert any and all Trump jokes here.

I'd argue that the difference between villain and supervillain isn't one of how ostentatious you are, but what your goals are, and what methods you use to carry them out.

Rob a bank with guns and maybe explosives? Villain. Rob a bank with freeze lasers or strange electrical powers? Supervillain. Try to kill your noisy neighbor with a tire iron? Villain. Try to defeat or kill a superhero? Supervillain.

If anything, that's why people get into quibbling about the lower-tier characters in Marvel or DC, and whether or not someone like Punisher falls into the SUPERhero category because he's just a normal dude with guns (though in his case, there's also a lot of quibbling over the HERO part as well). Do you need world-breaking powers and ridiculously mismatched spandex to be a superhero? Or just the ability to play the game at a higher level than most normal humans could ever dream?



Zeus posted...

How, though? If the matches play out the same, the opponents can at least be considered title contenders which is more prestigious than just a guy fighting another guy.

For one thing, as long as he has the belt, they're more inclined to only feed him top-level talent in one-one matches rather than potentially using him in other feuds or occasionally throwing him jobbers to crush.

Plus, after months of him constantly ranting about how Brock is an absentee champion and how if Roman had the belt he'd defend it on Raw every week, they can't really give him too many off-weeks (like they used to occasionally do) or tag matches with no overt pay-off. They've basically painted themselves into a corner where he needs to devalue more opponents than he did without the belt.

And "contenders for the belt" doesn't really mean much if almost no one respects the belt in the first place. It's a terrible looking belt with a terrible name that was somewhat devalued by Brock never being around and which is now devalued by Roman holding it, so no one's going to go "Oh man, Finn's really made it now because they gave him a shot at that worthless title!"

If anything, I'd say we're closer to how things were at times in the past, when most fans almost view the IC title as being more indicative of whether or not a wrestler is worth caring about more than the world title (which often happened when they put the world title on a stinker of a wrestler).


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family