The cards themselves aren't related to the storyline and simply act as an abstraction of the act of photography. But the reason why you are photographing all these superheroes in skimpy clothing will become quite clear already in the first version of the full game.
- Nov 14, 2017
- 60,066
- 30,065
- Aug 28, 2018
- 1,087
- 655
It is kinda weird for someone doing a thing in the superhero genre to not know who Jimmy Olsen is. Superman is the original, archetypal superhero; the oldest and most well-known. Jimmy Olsen is one of his most prominent supporting characters, so it kinda makes it seem like someone isn't very familiar with the most popular superhero of all time (and perhaps by extension, the superhero genre in general) when they don't know who Jimmy Olsen is.
But, I'll give Belle the benefit of the doubt that they were thrown off by the "jenny/jimmy" part, because I'm choosing to stay positive about this game.
But, I'll give Belle the benefit of the doubt that they were thrown off by the "jenny/jimmy" part, because I'm choosing to stay positive about this game.
I'm aware of Jimmy Olsen but have never really given him much thought since Superman is to me, as a non-American, as uninteresting as comics can get. Honestly, I'm not a superhero comic fan and have never been. I like to read graphic novels that handle the topic with some gravitas, but they too often get bogged down in silly nonsense in my opinion. For example, I greatly enjoy stuff like Batman Year One, The Killing Joke, Watchmen, Sandman, The Mask, and Hellboy. I did not enjoy stuff like Batman by Grant Morrison, the Superman Omnibus, and most random superhero comic books (not graphic novels) I've picked up over the years.
My problems with typical comic book stories are many, but the biggest one is that I find it impossible to get invested in a medium where nothing ever matters because another author will step in and retcon it tomorrow, so why should I care when a so-called "major event" happens in the story? There's also a lot of focus on the absolutely worst aspects of science fiction written by people who understand fiction (barely) but haven't got even the most rudimentary grasp on science. Villains rarely have more complicated goals than "POWER!" or "I want to rule everything!", though I greatly appreciate it in those rare cases where they are written with human (or human-like) motivations or, the very least, as interesting characters (hello Joker!).
Supermodel: Defenders of Desire is not a celebration of superhero comic books and never has been. This is a story more in the vein of something like Watchmen: a more down-to-earth deconstruction of comic books and a grounded (yet fantastical) take on something that is both supernatural and superhuman. Supermodel doesn't follow conventional comic logic. If it does, it's because I want to make a statement. This is a story that is written more in line with a novel than a comic book, focused on grander topics than showdowns between superheroes and villains (though that does happen already in the first version) and more interested in making observations about human nature and the meaning of our existence.
Don't go into Supermodel and expect a reverent worship of comic books. It is absolutely not that. Expect to see something that takes itself and its subject material a little more seriously. I want you to finish Supermodel and think: "damn, that was a great story" rather than "oh boy, I want more adventures of Anna Morgenstern and Michael Sharpe!".
If I don't recognize Jimmy Olsen at first glance, it's because he is primarily featured in a medium that has little interest to me. Heck, I've read comics where he features as a central character and yet have almost completely filtered him out because of how little they resonated with me.
I hope that clears things up. If you read superhero comic books and love them, then more power to you and I'm happy that you enjoy them when I can't. They're just not for me. To be clear, I do enjoy the concept of superheroes outside the comic medium. Movie adaptions of this subject appeal to me, for example, even if they still fall into some of the same pitfalls (but avoid the most important one: they rarely retcon anything).
And honestly, anyone who has played Long Live the Princess should know by now that I'm not one to dive into genre tropes without good reason.
My problems with typical comic book stories are many, but the biggest one is that I find it impossible to get invested in a medium where nothing ever matters because another author will step in and retcon it tomorrow, so why should I care when a so-called "major event" happens in the story? There's also a lot of focus on the absolutely worst aspects of science fiction written by people who understand fiction (barely) but haven't got even the most rudimentary grasp on science. Villains rarely have more complicated goals than "POWER!" or "I want to rule everything!", though I greatly appreciate it in those rare cases where they are written with human (or human-like) motivations or, the very least, as interesting characters (hello Joker!).
Supermodel: Defenders of Desire is not a celebration of superhero comic books and never has been. This is a story more in the vein of something like Watchmen: a more down-to-earth deconstruction of comic books and a grounded (yet fantastical) take on something that is both supernatural and superhuman. Supermodel doesn't follow conventional comic logic. If it does, it's because I want to make a statement. This is a story that is written more in line with a novel than a comic book, focused on grander topics than showdowns between superheroes and villains (though that does happen already in the first version) and more interested in making observations about human nature and the meaning of our existence.
Don't go into Supermodel and expect a reverent worship of comic books. It is absolutely not that. Expect to see something that takes itself and its subject material a little more seriously. I want you to finish Supermodel and think: "damn, that was a great story" rather than "oh boy, I want more adventures of Anna Morgenstern and Michael Sharpe!".
If I don't recognize Jimmy Olsen at first glance, it's because he is primarily featured in a medium that has little interest to me. Heck, I've read comics where he features as a central character and yet have almost completely filtered him out because of how little they resonated with me.
I hope that clears things up. If you read superhero comic books and love them, then more power to you and I'm happy that you enjoy them when I can't. They're just not for me. To be clear, I do enjoy the concept of superheroes outside the comic medium. Movie adaptions of this subject appeal to me, for example, even if they still fall into some of the same pitfalls (but avoid the most important one: they rarely retcon anything).
And honestly, anyone who has played Long Live the Princess should know by now that I'm not one to dive into genre tropes without good reason.
- Aug 25, 2017
- 2,680
- 4,076
What? He may be the most iconic superhero but he's certainly not the oldest, and certainly not the "original". Stories about supernatural, powerful men doing heroic deeds are as old as mythology. Even if we're going by the medium of comic books, he's still not the oldest.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but Superman's popularity has dropped off a lot in the past couple decades. Based on the number of games, shows, movies, and other spin-offs, compared to Superman, I'm pretty sure Batman's the current DC favorite. But even then, I'm sure a good majority of people don't remember how many Robins there's been, let alone their names. Why would they remember Jimmy?