811326 You summed up everything nicely and I can agree with this.

811194
811326

In terms of Western comics being a blight on storytelling in general, I don't read enough of them to comment on the "99%" figure. But I've read enough of Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and Bill Willingham to know that it would be foolhardy to discount their value to literature without first taking a peek.

I too, have read Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman. And TMNT. And Carl Barks. And just about every important storyline from the Marvel and DC universes. My derision of comics is not chosen at random, it's from trying hard to find a single aspect of the medium that makes it worthwhile, and failing time and time again.

I'll admit a lot of my criticisms of the medium could be lodged at most media (especially television, and moreso television animation). But as for them being universal.... well, there lies some room for debate.

I think it's important we draw distinctions though. First and foremost, this topic is for people who are concerned their characters are too powerful, or "Mary Sues", and want to know how to fix that or mitigate it. The last thing these people need to hear is "make them allergic to pickelbarrel cumquats," and the last thing they want to hear is "after all, your character is overpowered anyway, so giving them a stupid drawback is no different than giving them a smart one. You've already screwed up."

Besides, different things are, well, different. A lightbulb emits heat and illuminates the surroundings, but nobody would say the sun is just a really big lightbulb. And there is a reason different things work differently.

Part of why an organic drawback (like still being weak against gut-punches) works is because those are real, those actually exist. Therefore, they're something the reader immediately understands. The thing with a lot of powerful characters is that they are, in a way, extensions of reality. We exercise to become strong and healthy, so Goku does SUPER exercises to become SUPER strong and healthy. It's an extension that most people understand.

If Goku became weak due to Kryptonite, it would be a disconnect for the reader, because nobody in the real world loses their strength just because a magic rock is near them (if you want to stretch, you could claim its similar to cigarettes... but that's a connection perhaps too subtle for most people to make).

Negaima's right in Superman's case--he's just Space Alien Heracles, his powers really are pretty artificial because they're not something he had to work for (Goku is an alien too, but he still had to work for what he has), so in his case, yes, one weakness is as contrived as any other. That's a large part of why I'm harsh on comics though--they tend to have this vacuous free-for-all/anything goes nature. That's fine if you're a little kid playing make-believe, but I expect more from stories that I, as an adult, am supposed to take seriously and find some sort of meaning in.

(That being said, I actually liked a lot of the earlier Superman stories, where he would go undercover to demonstrate dangerous mining conditions or expose abusive orphanages. In these cases, Superman himself wasn't the focus--it was the crime and corruption itself, which slanted the situation and made you want Superman to show up and put an end to it. That's another way to deal with an overpowered character. Food for thought)

Goku still had to work for what he has? You do realize that he was considered strong enough to destroy the Earth, on his own, as a baby, right? Sure, he needs to work to play with the big boys, but he's drastically superior to a human warrior just by virtue of being an alien. He's not a good example at all if you want to say that a character needs to work for what they have to be interesting.

I like the Authority as a great example for a stupidly overpowered character not needing a stupid weakness to be vulnerable; the series is all about the action, so you wouldn't have the defense for boring fights that a Superman fan might use ("Well of course Superman is boring if you write a story about fighting him! His best stories are about ideas."). In their first story, they defeat a terrorist organization that's churning out supers by the hundreds. In their second, they wipe out an alien invasion force (most spectacularly, the leader of the group takes out the bulk of their fleet with just one of her electrical storms).

Who gets the best of them first? A rogue scientist puts out some ads in muscle magazines, makes the respondents into supers, and sends them to beat them up. He throws thousands of these guys at them, eventually, and they're forced to call in extra-planar support until eventually they talk him down from the world-wide war he initiated against them.

The second time, the government spends $60 billion to make an assassin to go and straight up crush them.

Overpowered character? Fine. Just give them equally overpowered enemies, and their power level is suddenly appropriate. Of course Superman is boring if he's fighting crooks with guns and knives. Give him enemies that are a credible threat to him, and there's no such thing as "overpowered".

I will admit, though, there's something cool about characters like Heath Huston: the type who can cleave through the entire Dressite empire given enough time, ammunition, and whiskey based on no powers but grit and anger.

815876

Goku still had to work for what he has? You do realize that he was considered strong enough to destroy the Earth, on his own, as a baby, right? Sure, he needs to work to play with the big boys, but he's drastically superior to a human warrior just by virtue of being an alien. He's not a good example at all if you want to say that a character needs to work for what they have to be interesting.

"Drastically superior to a human warrior?" Tenshinhan and Taopaipai are both human and they beat Goku in their first encounters. Goku even struggled with Yajirobe, who is a rank coward.

To the Saiyan culture's credit, things might've gone differently if not for that headbump, but I still doubt they expected Goku to decimate the planet in less than a decade.

Overpowered character? Fine. Just give them equally overpowered enemies, and their power level is suddenly appropriate.

That's the best way of looking at it. Whose to say the hero is overpowered if everyone else is on the same level, or higher?

Another solution (once that MLP itself is an example of) is just, make their power irrelevent. A lot of people say Twilight Sparkle is too powerful because her magic seems to have literally no limits... but then, how many times does she have a problem that can actually BE solved with magic?

To me, the bottom line has always been that people like to see "overpowered" where it really isn't. I was telling a friend yesterday: If I described Ryu from Street Fighter to you, and you didn't know anything about him other than what I tell you, he would probably sound like he should just walk all over everyone who opposes him. But when you play the game, and see him in action... all the sudden, he doesn't seem that tough.

I tend to find this is the problem, more often than not--people just overlook the basic things, but the basic things are the most important. Yeah, that nuclear missile can dominate entire countries... hope its radiation doesn't leak, and I hope you can stand nuclear winter, etc...

To make things easier, I've developed an Overpowered Checklist:

Does your character have a special ability or set of abilities that

1. They can use at any time
2. Without any repercussions
3. To instantly solve everything, without fail?

If you said "Yes" to all three, then you're overpowered.