- 165,203
- 72,181
Even as a loyal longtime fan, I think that this wiki to a degree has been inappropriately lenient when evaluating Marvel and DC characters in comparison to other franchises.
US superhero comics characters have frequently had a much easier time to get higher rankings than manga characters, due to power scaling them to each other.
The problem is that going by my extensive experience with both franchises, power scaling doesn't seem to work for Marvel and DC in particular, since their writers tend to be completely uninterested in internal story logic regarding relative power levels, mostly tend to use personal favouritism and plot convenience to decide the outcome of confrontations, are often completely inconsistent even within their own stories, and obviously far more so between different writers and decades who generally heavily contradict each other.
If we use cumulative power scaling for Marvel characters, in terms of that that one character defeated or stood up to an objectively far more powerful character, who did the same to an objectively far more powerful character, who did the same to an objectively far more powerful character applied to all of Marvel's history, we would likely eventually end up with Captain America powerscaled to the Beyonders, or similar.
I am considering that we should only go by individual feats, reliable definitions, and to a degree handbook rankings that clarify their official levels relative to each other, to classify Marvel and DC characters.
We can still continue to use it for more internally consistent franchises helmed by a single or unified creative voice who cares about it, but even Marvel's executive editor Tom Brevoort, who is in charge of Marvel continuity, including the official handbooks, responded to the inconsistency of Starbrand beating a Beyonder that beat the Living Tribunal, with that knowing the outcome of a fight from reading the statistics would take away the surprises of the story, whereas Stan Lee has stated that whoever wins in a fight is simply whoever the writer likes best.
What do the rest of you think?
US superhero comics characters have frequently had a much easier time to get higher rankings than manga characters, due to power scaling them to each other.
The problem is that going by my extensive experience with both franchises, power scaling doesn't seem to work for Marvel and DC in particular, since their writers tend to be completely uninterested in internal story logic regarding relative power levels, mostly tend to use personal favouritism and plot convenience to decide the outcome of confrontations, are often completely inconsistent even within their own stories, and obviously far more so between different writers and decades who generally heavily contradict each other.
If we use cumulative power scaling for Marvel characters, in terms of that that one character defeated or stood up to an objectively far more powerful character, who did the same to an objectively far more powerful character, who did the same to an objectively far more powerful character applied to all of Marvel's history, we would likely eventually end up with Captain America powerscaled to the Beyonders, or similar.
I am considering that we should only go by individual feats, reliable definitions, and to a degree handbook rankings that clarify their official levels relative to each other, to classify Marvel and DC characters.
We can still continue to use it for more internally consistent franchises helmed by a single or unified creative voice who cares about it, but even Marvel's executive editor Tom Brevoort, who is in charge of Marvel continuity, including the official handbooks, responded to the inconsistency of Starbrand beating a Beyonder that beat the Living Tribunal, with that knowing the outcome of a fight from reading the statistics would take away the surprises of the story, whereas Stan Lee has stated that whoever wins in a fight is simply whoever the writer likes best.
What do the rest of you think?