>
>
> > You dont have reference points in Superman, or Hulk over the top feats either.
> >
>
> Thats not true. 99% of the comicbook feats are performed in "midgard" standard if you will.
|
And that standart tells you what, in factual terms?
Nothing. But what was the point of showing it? Crystal clear. To ilustrate an over the top feat.
> So hulk lifting a truck is sujected to the same opposition from the universal laws as thing would when in the same conditions. The point is whatever has been done by hulk and failed by thing, for example, are directly usable because they had sets of rules we can rather easily refer to.
|
And thats the only thing these feats matter about, in an argument like this. To give someone the edge over the other who doenst have them.
If one character like the Hulk is more consistantly written as able to perform absurd feats, than Thing, who does not, what does that tells you?
> If Thor would come over and tried what herc did and failed in the same context NOW you would have a reference point even tho the conditions were different. We know what Thor is capable of and we would now know that at the very least Herc is stronger. The problem is for all we know an asgardian troll might do it because on Olympus the sky is 10 x 4 hollywood backgroud depicting a stary night. I exagerate of course but you get the idea... I hope.
|
Then you should disregard every single major feat done by Superman and Hulk, on the same basis.
"no one else did it".
And sure i get the idea. This is only the 5th time i said this doesnt make Hercules automatically stronger than everybody based in just one feat. I dont do that to any character.
I just find amusing how this feat is being fougth by a few, when others remain.."oh well, its comic book"
>
> > I get why people wonder about he factual number, but that is irrevelant. What matters is what a feat like this represents. Likewise for Hulk punching a time storm and the like.
> >
>
> Hulk punching a time storm tells me what? No really? It tells me he punched a time storm... thats it.
|
yeah, it tells you he is a fictional character capable of bending the rules of physics even inside the context of the Marvel universe.
And thats an important equation of what the character is about. Likewise for pre crisis Superman. Now, its perfectly fine coming up and say "for all we know, Rick Jones would be able to do it", but we all know that is..bull.
> But as a comparative value what does it bring? Nada. It's cool no problem there but it got 0 comparative value. Thats my sole point. The feat is real cool but hard to use to say herc > thor for example. It might not be important to you but since comparison is the bread and butter of this board...
|
And this would be the 6th time.
> > The one thing that is simple to see, is, the more over the top feats a character does, the more the gap will be if compared against someone who doesnt. At least, that is, when the discussion is about strength.
>
> I don't agree. If the feats are executed in the same context there are no reasons you can't use it. Whatever X does in a given context that Y failed to do in the same context is extremely valuable if you try to get who is stronger or whatever. It's when the context is not the same or innapropriate that things get complex.
|
And lets forget the context behind the creative team or company in having a character to be able to pull out those. What would be the point, if not to ilustrate something about the character itself?
Again, since im not making anyone stronger than every other character based on one feat alone, lets agree to disagree. You dont see any validation on a feat like this being showed, whereas i do.
