I didn't say it wasn't a good idea I just said it holds very little appeal to me personally. The more options to debate the better but I bet it'll have very little traffic.
That would be interesting to argue all those video games characters not allowed in the video game vs. That would be nice but I'm just saying I'd like an all vs. but I doubt that's going to happen since it might take away from the specific rooms.
I guess too we could make Dante's Inferno the entire game vs. God of war the entire game since most enemies aren't allowed in the vs. section board.
Ok, I'm a lot more interested now if this pans out.
Every other board I have basically been to has had one all vs. section so it'd be ok with me but I know it's a major change that likely wouldn't see the light of day.
I do think this is much better than just a cross medium thing and still would support it either way just because it let's others debate topics they have always wanted to. I am just making my opinion known that I believe all vs. matchups is what I ultimately want in terms of traffic and getting outside opinion other an the regulars in each sub forum.
If we allowed movie vs movie/comic vs comic/game vs game/etc in an All Versus Forum, the existing forums for genre specifric matches would be redundant. Cross genre matches should only be allowed in an AVF due to the fact, also, that many, many, many dupe threads would be created thus creating a splendiferous clusterf*ck. Were it to be not cross genre only, I would have no interest whatsoever to mod such a place as it would be a terrible strain.
Indeed, it would cause a strain on whomever mods if we were to allow it to encompass all the other mediums instead of just being cross genre. That said, what is your opinion on letting threads that can't be made in other forums(Zeus from God of War vs Sora example) be allowed? It's the only thing I can think of that has a chance at pleasing everyone but you're the one planning to mod so it is ultimately your decision. Well, if it gets made that is.
Not to mention the modding expertise required to effectively mod such a forum would be monumental. Part of the reason I think each of the current vs. forums do so well is due to the modding expertise from each of the primary mods.
I think that this new AVF, even assuming cross-only matches, will still require asking other mods to clarify or assist in some of the threads. We may end up in a situation where we have to ask -Pr- and Peach to provide their expertise for ruling on a comic book character vs. a video game character, for example.
I can see why the mods groaned at this original idea. It's probably because the don't want this place to fall to shit which means they genuinely care about the quality.
'1. This forum is Video Game Versus. Therefore, all characters in the match must originate in a video game - simply appearing in one is not good enough! If you are unsure if a character originates in a game, do a little research first. Wikipedia and Google are your friends!'
All the characters have to originate in games. It really is effective at keeping order but a lot of posters there are obviously annoyed at it. I was contemplating that this AVF would be able to rectify that, though it does pose the problem of taking attention away from the VGV and putting a strain on the mods here.
Edit: He asked ME Neph! God, why must you try to steal my thunder!? :'(
Well, in my opinion, if the character is actually in a video game, but is not deemed okay for the Video Game Versus, or any other versus forum on the board, then it seems like a viable match for the All Versus Forum.
After all, that's the whole point of making this proposed forum, right?
Maybe Peach and GK know something I don't.........
Heh, I don't think it is them knowing something but them considering something that is not that surprising.
There are a ton of video games that feature unoriginal characters. Star Wars games, Superhero games, games that deal with Mythology, etc. Allowing all those games would put an incredible strain on them, especially if people started using different kinds of canon as evidence. So I can perfectly understand the need to get strict.
That said, I'm nervous that that might happen here and that it might draw attention away from the VGV, which wouldn't be a good thing.
GK has said that the VGV is relatively dead nowadays.
As far as canon for video game characters that originated outside of a VG, I feel obliged to use my golden rule about on screen feats as the only canon source, much like I do in the MVF. God of War's Zeus, for example, would only be able to draw his abilities and powers from what is seen on screen in the GoW series as opposed to the countless tales from Greek mythology.
VGV isn't really dead; it's just that we'll run into random spurts of creativity where people will create a ton of different types of matches, and then other periods of time where everything is just the same argument rehashed over and over, and certain threads just overpower everything else. Right now it's in one of those latter stages. It won't stay that way; I've been watching it cycle like that for six years now.
Not too sure it would work, comic match-ups work better on their own (same universe, more or less same rules) and so do games (I'm not sure how they work to begin with, I mean the character is only as good as the player) in my opinion.
Movie vs tv should have really been allowed ages ago because they mesh well and are not so different. Not to mention easy to reference with appropiate videos of feats.
Books would be incredibly difficult and you'd have to be assuming that many others have even read the books of where you're bringing the characters from, and if nobody has you can't generate discussion. Take the Deathstalker books, 9 in total, each 500 - 600+ pages long, how can you possibly present feats from sagas like these? Its way too much content to get through!
Good point, but still there's the risk of revealing something about a character that you haven't read about yet. Spoilers would of course help but there might be a lot of open talk.
Say a thread opens with a book character vs a movie character, feats from books 1-4 included. I may have read 1 and 4 but not 2 and 3 but I'm a fan of the character and I want to participate. I 've got to find the books, read them and by the time I've done that the thread would have probably died. I wouldn't want to read feats out of context either for obvious reasons.
Plus its very different taking a book character and pitting him against a movie character, a movie character is more flamboyant and does a lot of impressive feats merely for show - also movies operate with 'out there' interpretations of physics and general ignorance e.g. a gunshot explodes C4 explosives. A book would not do that, at least I haven't read one that has and I read a lot of military fiction.
This is why you don't click on a thread that has a character you don't want to know about, yet.
It happens all the time in the MVF: a movie will be out (illegally, or regionally) and most have not seen it. Sometimes, threads are created before the film comes out.
What do you do?
Don't click on the thread unless you want spoilers.
What if you don't know that it has spoilers and it's about something else? Too bad: you don't enter a versus thread match if you wanted to read/watch something about one of the characters.
That's true of any versus forum everywhere. If you want to participate but don't want to have information spoiled, then it is up to you to decide if you want to spoil the story or exercise patience.
And the opposite is also true: sometimes, movie characters are less powerful/awesome than their book counterparts. In fact, that's true the majority of the time. What does this mean? It means you can pick and choose which characters you like, specify that version, and have fun!
Also, I see crap for science in books, all the time. It's up to the thread starter, just the same as it is now in all the vs. threads, to specify the thread conditions.
You concerns are concerns that you'd have about any vs Forum: not just an AVF.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 7th, 2011 06:20 AM
