Then this and many other fictional versus forums are nothing more then a joke. But then I don’t think, to many of us seek enlighten through fanatical what if matches.
And I come here, to fully submerge myself into nerd rage. Its more entertaining then watching MTV. But how else, are members suppose to wage the winner and loser over said characters other then comparing feats?
In the interest of saving myself some typing, I'll just quote a chap from another board:
How To Debate Comics The Shuruku Demon Way…
( 1 ) When it comes to gauging relative strength levels between characters, considerably more importance should be placed on how they seemed to compare in any direct fights/contests, than who lifted or smashed the biggest object (I will refer to such feats as 'power feats' from this point forward). Especially when those power feats have taken place under different writers, who may well have different views on how powerful certain characters are to begin with. Direct meetings tend to give a far more consistent picture than power feats, precisely because there is usually only one author involved in any such comparison. Moreover, they are also clearly intended as comparisons, whereas random power feats usually only give us a benchmark for a single character.
( 2 ) If two characters have never actually met or been directly compared in any way, then the next port of call should be so-called 'ABC' comparisons… ie, looking at how they fared against the same, or similar opponents. This is not usually as ideal as a direct comparison (unless it all happened in the same issue, in which case it's almost as good), however, it is still more reliable than comparing random power feats by different writers. Obviously common sense should be used as well. Just because one character succeeded where another failed, it does not automatically mean they were stronger or more powerful. The specific nature of the showing/s must be taken into account.
( 3 ) The more appearances a character has had, the more power feats they are likely to have performed. And the more likely it is that those feats will vary in magnitude, leading to higher highs, and lower lows. With this in mind, the top or bottom-end feats of a character with relatively few appearances, should be considered more representative of their typical power level, than such feats would be for a character that has appeared hundreds of times.
( 4 ) Villains generally do not have as many power feats as equivalent heroes; nor are their very best power feats usually as impressive as those of equivalent heroes. They should therefore be given the 'benefit of the doubt' to some extent, when comparing their power feat record to that of heroes. This also ties in to rules #1 and #3, since power feats aren’t the most reliable basis for comparison to begin with, and individual villains typically don't appear as often as heroes either.
( 5 ) Resistance to injury in comics is not a cut-and-dried affair. A character may be highly resistant to blunt force attacks for example, but much less so to being cut by blades or claws. On the flip side, a few characters may be more resistant to being cut than they are to just plain being punched in the face. Therefore, different aspects of durability should be gauged separately, without the presumption that if a character appears tougher than another in one area, they are necessarily tougher in all others as well. Wherever possible, durability showings should be compared like for like (blunt force showings compared to other blunt force showings, heat to heat, and so on).
( 6 ) Generally speaking, a writer's foremost priority in a comic is to entertain; to deliver a product that will entice readers to come back for more. As a result, fights will often not play out the way they arguably should on paper, because in many cases that would not lead to the most entertaining results (although, what is entertaining to begin with is of course entirely subjective) -- or serve the plot to the greatest effect. This particularly applies to fights between opponents at contrasting levels of power. Where in theory, such battles should often be over rather quickly, all things being equal (and occasionally they are), many times a writer will choose to draw the match out somewhat, or otherwise make things seem more competitive than one might think warranted. And if that requires 'dumbing down' certain characters, or incorporating various deus ex machina, then that’s a sacrifice many writers will be willing to make for the increased entertainment value and plot-service gained in return. Which isn't always a bad thing, IMO.
( 7 ) The more teammates or allies a character has in a fight, the less intelligently they will generally fight, especially if they’re facing a single opponent. This ties into rule #6, but is worth mentioning in its own right.
( 8 ) Super-speed is one of the most unrealistically handled powers in comics; probably because it’s one of the most difficult to write in a truly plausible fashion. Sometimes you’ll see a speedster perform feats that require amazing levels of super-speed perception on their part… other times, stick a random object in their path and they'll career straight into it like a total klutz. Again, this ties into rule #6, because writers have few qualms about dumbing certain characters down, if it makes a fight more competitive and entertaining as a result.
( 9 ) Super-fast flight capabilities are not by any means indicative of bodily or muscular super-speed. Which isn't to say a character can't have both, but just because a given character may be able to fly at insane speeds, it does not automatically follow that their innate muscular speed is at anywhere near the same level. In many cases, it clearly is not. Even comic book characters don’t actually use their muscles to fly, after all; it's a separate power.
( 10 ) It does not necessarily require super-speed to tag a being that has super-speed. Many a time, I’ve heard someone suggest that because character 'X' managed to hit character 'Y' (who has been known to demonstrate super-speed), that means that character 'X' must have moved at some degree of super-speed in order to do so. In most such cases though, the second character ('Y') is someone like Superman, Gladiator, Hyperion, or the Silver Surfer… people who are not known to employ particularly high levels of speed during close-quarters combat all that often. Even in cases where character 'Y' is a full-time speedster like the Flash or Quicksilver, rule #8 still often comes into play to some extent.
( 11 ) Experience is very much overrated when it comes to gauging comparative skill levels. It is often argued that if character 'X' has been an active combatant for decades, centuries, or even millenia longer than character 'Y', that character 'X' must therefore be much more skillful. It's simply not true. There are examples where characters like Captain America and Superman have fought wars in other dimensions that spanned decades or centuries... and yet returned no more obviously skillful than they were previously. Characters in the higher strength classes also tend to come across as being significantly less skillful than the cream of the so-called 'street-level', irrespective of the difference in lifespan or active experience. That isn't to say experience is entirely meaningless, but after a certain point (probably less than an average human lifetime), most characters seemingly hit a plateau and pretty much stay there, regardless of how much longer they remain alive.
( 12 ) The more powers a character has, the less likely it is that they will exploit any of those powers to their full potential. Also, the greater the magnitude of a given power, the less likely it is that its full potential will ever be realised. Essentially, the less a character has to work with, the more they're likely to get out of it, proportionately speaking. Ties in to rule #6.
( 13 ) So-called 'flying bricks' -- especially those who regularly travel the stars -- are inherently likely to have more impressive power feats than Earthbound bricks. This is in large part due to the fact that it is much more difficult to have the Earth itself moved or significantly damaged, plot-wise, than some unnamed planet or moon way out in deep space. Also, the power of flight is usually requisite for moving planetary bodies anyway. Hence for those who cannot fly (or indeed those who rarely venture beyond the Earth's atmosphere), there is very little likelihood that they will ever move or lift anything bigger than an island -- not for a lack of raw musclepower necessarily, but because that is pretty much the heaviest distinct mass you will find sitting on the Earth's surface. This should be taken into account when comparing power feats between such characters.
( 14 ) Mind-control or possession is not cut-and-dried in comics. Sometimes mind-control/possession will hinder a characters performance; sometimes it will make little difference; and occasionally, it can actually enhance a characters performance (since they may use their powers more aggressively than they would normally). There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to mind-control, hence each instance should be weighed on a case by case basis.
( 15 ) This is an extension of rules #1 and #6. Even if a character consistently lifts objects thousands, millions, or billions of times heavier than another, that straight numerical difference will rarely be so apparent if they actually meet in combat. For example, those heroes who are broadly considered 'human-level' will often appear surprisingly close in strength to those who can heft cars or tanks, in situations where they actually come to blows. Likewise, those who max out with cars or tanks will often be able to hang with those who can lift mountains or cruise-liners. And those who max out with mountains or cruise-liners will often be able to hang with those who have moved whole planets, or even greater masses. Put simply, the theoretical gaps between the varying strength classes are often much reduced within the context of a fight.
( 16 ) Skill matters more than strength, in fights between low-level characters. Conversely, strength matters more than skill, in fights between high-level characters. This may be because approximate human-level fighters are considered genuinely more skillful than those with greater raw power at their disposal. Alternately, it may be because characters that have both high levels of power and theoretical skill need to be dumbed down in order to keep fights competitive (Thor, for example, has appeared more skillful without powers than he does normally). Either way, this rule does apply more often than not.
That should get you well on your way to learning how to apply the powers of reason to comic book analysis beyond the simplistic approach often used here.
The gentleman asked me to describe how one might possibly judge a battle between comic characters without the simple-minded tradition of comparing feats.
The posted list describes several tenets of a more nuanced method of analysis.
It's not simple-minded if it's consistently the most reliable method, is canon (as opposed to our logic, which may be sound but isn't canon), and allows us to pool the entirety of a character into an approximate assessment of their power. ABC logic is terrible, btw. Go to my profile and search my recent threads....a similarly titled thread will give you all the evidence anyone would ever need that ABC logic is a last resort, not a best option.
Power levels are largely subjective, so a strictly objective basis is impossible. Writing long-winded speeches might break down various aspects of analysis, but it makes it no less subjective, thus defeating the purpose.
Also, most of the post didn't even address the central concern. Beyond the flawed ABC proposal, it was merely breaking down various definitions (brunt force vs. piercing damage, writer intentions, etc.) that do nothing to bringing us closer to an actual method of analysis. Talking about the specifics of character power doesn't make one qualified to speak about difference between characters.
Many of your points, however, actually are taken into account when using feats. For how are we to determine how much a writer's need for story affects a character if we don't go to the stories and feats themselves? Or what kind of damage a character is resistent to? Or when PIS intervenes and can negate a showing? You disprove your own point, because to analyze using your method, one can only use feats.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 19th, 2008 03:20 AM
