Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Originally posted by MrMind
You are describing ve battles forum right here

It's often in newer communities outside of Versus Battle (like Discord servers, Subreddits, Youtube, and Tiktok) that tend to abuse their terminology while overlooking context and consistency.

A prime example would be taking something like this:

- Astonishing Thor #3

To then suggest that Thor could destroy the Omniverse if he wanted to, while in reality he's never destroyed anything more than a planet (and even those are rare showings). It further dismisses consistency in that Eternity is far beyond Thor, despite only being universal. Some like to brush it off with "comics are inconsistent" but that's an excuse, not an argument.

Originally posted by Astner
For all their faults, credit where credit is due. They're fairly consistent with separating their own established terminology, e.g. the word dimension (informal) doesn't necessarily mean dimension (formal) unless it's made clear by the context, even then there are other factors to consider like whether it makes sense in the grand scheme of things.

It's often in newer communities outside of Versus Battle (like Discord servers, Subreddits, Youtube, and Tiktok) that tend to abuse their terminology while overlooking context and consistency.

A prime example would be taking something like this:

- Astonishing Thor #3

To then suggest that Thor could destroy the Omniverse if he wanted to, while in reality he's never destroyed anything more than a planet (and even those are rare showings). It further dismisses consistency in that Eternity is far beyond Thor, despite only being universal. Some like to brush it off with "comics are inconsistent" but that's an excuse, not an argument.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Disagree, the inconsistency of battlezone fantasist, becomes even more obvious when they try to provide internal continuity to characters in "respect" threads. Both are misnomers.

Different stories/writers can use the same wording at places, but mean different things. So to focus on what's being meant rather than what's being said we rely on an external vocabulary where the terms have a very specific meaning.

Think of it like legal semantics. Unlike a dictionary definitions, which are descriptive, legal definitions are prescriptive. This is so that when a judge looks at a legal document he can deduce what the document is intended to enforce without engaging in excessive speculation.

Originally posted by Astner
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an external vocabulary that's used as the basis for interpretation on versus forums.

Different stories/writers can use the same wording at places, but mean different things. So to focus on what's being meant rather than what's being said we rely on an external vocabulary where the terms have a very specific meaning.

Think of it like legal semantics. Unlike a dictionary definitions, which are descriptive, legal definitions are prescriptive. This is so that when a judge looks at a legal document he can deduce what the document is intended to enforce without engaging in excessive speculation.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I get what you're saying, but isn't it all excessive speculation.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It's one of the reasons I find most comic versus debates hilariously ridiculous. People are arguing about the impossible as though it has any kind of grounding.

While most systems are good enough to objectively determine outcome to one-sided battles, e.g. Spider-man vs Superman, most aren't good enough to objectively determine the outcome to more controversial battles, e.g. Goku versus Superman.

More specifically, there's too much interpretative freedom in how to powerscale these characters. So the discussions devolve into debates where people engage in gish gallop to wear the opposing side down to win the debate, rather than a dialectic where the goal is to reach a sensible conclusion.

A formalized vocabulary is a first step to inducing objectivity into debates by eliminating abusive speculation.

Originally posted by Astner
Some arguments are more speculative than others, but it mostly depends on the community, and how strict the users are with holding debates grounded.

This comes down to the question of whether versus debates are a matter of objectivity or subjectivity. This is trick question since it can be either, and it depends on whether the debating system is sophisticated enough to determine the outcome of a battle objectively.

While most systems are good enough to objectively determine outcome to one-sided battles, e.g. Spider-man vs Superman, most aren't good enough to objectively determine the outcome to more controversial battles, e.g. Goku versus Superman.

More specifically, there's too much interpretative freedom in how to powerscale these characters. So the discussions devolve into debates where people engage in gish gallop to wear the opposing side down to win the debate, rather than a dialectic where the goal is to reach a sensible conclusion.

A formalized vocabulary is a first step to inducing objectivity into debates by eliminating abusive speculation.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I'm not convinced because in a comic characters like Ben Grimm, Spiderman, Wolverine , Captain America, Hawkeye and Batman constantly beat cosmic characters on the fly.

If we were to pit Spider-man against Firelord, the conclusion we'd reach would be that Firelord would win. This in spite of the fact that Spider-man has actually beaten Firelord in the comics. It's not that we'd ignore this piece of evidence exist, it's just that at the present it's just background noise that's drowned out by other evidence that provide a much clearer picture of what these characters are and what they can do.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The ridiculous is commonplace, as for Thor, Superman or Goku, they can pull powers and abilities out of their ass on a writers whim.

The model will also explain how this is determined. So if you understand the model you can then figure out whether or not these characters are properly powerscaled in that model. If you disagree with the model, then you can suggest an improvement on the model.

But if we assume that the model is fair, and the scaling is correct, then the answer that follows should be unambitious.

This might seem excessive, but it will help us to identify the actual issues from the perceived issues.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes. Because a battle in the comics is determined by the writer. In contrast, battles on versus forums are determined by arguments that are based off the characters's general portrayals in the comics.

If we were to pit Spider-man against Firelord, the conclusion we'd reach would be that Firelord would win. This in spite of the fact that Spider-man has actually beaten Firelord in the comics. It's not that we'd ignore this piece of evidence exist, it's just that at the present it's just background noise that's drowned out by other evidence that provide a much clearer picture of what these characters are and what they can do.

Right. And that's why it's so important to have a precise method of figuring out what they can and can't do if we want to be able to reach a proper conclusion.

The model will also explain how this is determined. So if you understand the model you can then figure out whether or not these characters are properly powerscaled in that model. If you disagree with the model, then you can suggest an improvement on the model.

But if we assume that the model is fair, and the scaling is correct, then the answer that follows should be unambitious.

This might seem excessive, but it will help us to identify the actual issues from the perceived issues.

Astner, personally i think the CBR style method goes too far in the other direction of analysis. Batgirl vs Lady Shiva is a good example, both characters are regularly portrayed as peers in every way, they split wins against one another, yet in forum Batgirl blitzes her because she has multiple bullet dodging feats while Shiva does not.

Ignoring every context for want of a few feats is not good debating imo.

Record of Ragnarok Buddha is hilarious. He's supposed to be the incarnation of abandoning wordly desire yet is constantly binging on chocolates and lollipops that he refuses to share.

DCeased: War of the Undead Gods Has got to be the best series going in DC right now.

Originally posted by Diesldude
DCeased: War of the Undead Gods Has got to be the best series going in DC right now.

Is Jon straight in that one?

Astner, Hanma Yujiro is the perfect example of Vs battle failures.

He allegedly stops an Earthquake with a punch, everyone reps him for it. Yet he was also stopped by tranq guns and a net, most pretend it never happened.

On the average, he's never been pushed by anyone ever, yet he's also had to put some effort against Kaku Kaioh, Miyomoto Mushashi, Baki Hanma, and even Orochi Doppo at.one point. Not one of them has even a single feat close to stopping an earth quake.

A composite of.feats is simply bad at judging fictional matches where many writers simply create scenes they think are "cool", without knowing about the science behind them.

Once upon a time Storm Shadow blocked bullets with a sword because the writer probably thought it looked cool, while Snake Eyes at the time had no bullet time feats to speak of (This may have changed since). In comic Snake Eyes is superior to Storm Shadow, while on CBR Storm Shadow walks all over Snake Eyes.

It's dumb.

According to the Ragnarok by law, both sides pick 13 people, and have a tournament.

It doesn't say anything else about it. Contestants can be subbed in, apparently, and it also says nothing about needing to actually exterminate humanity if they lose, only says they get a 1000 year stay of execution if they win.

I wonder if the humans end up losing and Zeus goes "You know what, they really showed us something. Lets do this again in 1000 years, Ragnarok is hereby called pff!"

Oh no, Fables is getting revived!

It really became a shit series after the Geppetto war.

Just an awful aimless slog, who the **** cares about Bibgy's pathetic kids or the Lady of the Lake or Prince Brandish or the godawful Jack.

Woke garbage.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
but vs boards use characters whose abilities have been defined and redefined by writers. Remember all the powers are ridiculous and impossible, add to that the constant revision in personality and power in plot etc. Remember the only constant in comics is the lack of reference point.

IMO, it's best to go by highest portrayal of feats, that way it leaves out some of the biased interpretation.

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, it's best to go by highest portrayal of feats, that way it leaves out some of the biased interpretation.

That's called "cherry picking".

And I'm an Iron Fist fan. No one ever accepts his highs.

But then you need to accept Spidey beating Firelord and Wolverine stabbing Surfer.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is Jon straight in that one?

Originally posted by Diesldude
not sure but that’s not why I read comics. I just want a lot of action and great stories.

Just curious, I read the first mini and they didn't seem to go there. It's an alt Jon so I kind of think it would be pandering but wouldn't care too much about it.