Avatar image for imbroken
Posted by Imbroken (191 posts) 3 years, 8 days ago

Poll: X-Force or X-Factor? (34 votes)

X-Force 56%
X-Factor 44%

Including all incarnations. In general which book did you usually prefer?

X-Force

X-Factor

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for koays
#1 Posted by Koays (11273 posts) - - Show Bio

Factor...there are a lot of bad X-Force runs saying them down, while at worst X-Factor only gets to "meh" levels.

Avatar image for phoenixofthetides
#2 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (4701 posts) - - Show Bio

X-Factor. X-Force has a ton of meh runs before it got anything near good, and suffers from a constant state of '90s-itis.

Avatar image for thunderbolt30
#3 Posted by THUNDERBOLT30 (12608 posts) - - Show Bio

X-Force. More interesting stories and cast.

Avatar image for cattlebattle
#5 Edited by cattlebattle (17682 posts) - - Show Bio

@koays said:

Factor...there are a lot of bad X-Force runs saying them down, while at worst X-Factor only gets to "meh" levels.

Nah. Disagree. The original X-Factor completely torpedoed the X-Men continuity forcing the writers at the time to have to retcon and rework a bunch of things, and X-Factor in the 90s was essentially a low rent X-Men team with no particularly interesting characters. Peter Davids 2011 X-Factor run is great, but, as I have posited before, that series just may have well been his own creation with original characters because a lot of the characters were basically reworked from the character they were before (Madrox, Shatterstar, Layla Miller etc.) and the stories were rarely related to X-Men lore.

X-Force has been almost consistently equally bad but at least in the early 90s they introduced newer characters and ideas that were specific to their title. Then, in the late 90s when Moore and Chueng were on the book, the character interactions and developments was better than the X-Men at the time. Remender and Openas run on X-Force was the sort of tone and storytelling X-fans always pine for. I would say overall X-Force has always been better, not by much though.

Avatar image for koays
#6 Posted by Koays (11273 posts) - - Show Bio

@koays said:

Factor...there are a lot of bad X-Force runs saying them down, while at worst X-Factor only gets to "meh" levels.

Nah. Disagree. The original X-Factor completely torpedoed the X-Men continuity forcing the writers at the time to have to retcon and rework a bunch of things, and X-Factor in the 90s was essentially a low rent X-Men team with no particularly interesting characters. Peter Davids 2011 X-Factor run is great, but, as I have posited before, that series just may have well been his own creation with original characters because a lot of the characters were basically reworked from the character they were before (Madrox, Shatterstar, Layla Miller etc.) and the stories were rarely related to X-Men lore.

X-Force has been almost consistently equally bad but at least in the early 90s they introduced newer characters and ideas that were specific to their title. Then, in the late 90s when Moore and Chueng were on the book, the character interactions and developments was better than the X-Men at the time. Remender and Openas run on X-Force was the sort of tone and storytelling X-fans always pine for. I would say overall X-Force has always been better, not by much though.

Well I'll concede the late 90's X-Force points as well as Davids team having "adapted" the characters to better fit his and the stories needs.

However 90s X-Force (and this is strictly my opinion) is everything wrong with the 90s and is very much a pile of trash. And as much as I HATE to admit that X-Factor is essentially a watered down X-Men book by nature, X-Force is just it's dark 90s reflection except where X-Factor delivered light, casual and self contained stories and was soft handed in it's use of X-Men themes, X-Force took X-Men and boiled it down to where only mutants(sometimes), violence, blood and tension remained.

As wholes, X-Factor has always been about taking unexplored, less explored and unused characters and putting them in the line light. The drama and stories are almost always character driven and always have profound effects on the characters. Their wins and losses give the story, team and roster a well rounded character to them that can take on any form at any moment.

X-Force as a whole tends to consistently feed into it's niche base, where fights are for the sake of fights, resolutions are for setting up the next fight and villains have no goals, reasoning or motives beyond being the enemies of the heroes and those like the heroes. SOmething which is the newbie description of what an X-Man enemy is. It allows for generic Anti-Mutant groups, evil mutant teams/businesses, never before seen Evil Clones/relatives, and random bad guy returns to be presented as simple and easy to identify opponents so the story can focus on the drive (and later the struggle) of the heroes. But it's so one note that it only hits story arcs on two points of the color wheel, red and black. X-23 is a killer, who doesn't want to be a killer, but is good at killing, Psylocke is a hero, who didn't want to be a killer, but ended up killing. Cable is angry, he seems like he's found a reason not to be angry, but now he's angry again.

Honestly it's the early X-Force issues which present the most diverse plot on paper as they would at least present the idea of evolving characters identities and questioning their roles, but even then it becomes "guess what crazy change is about to happen to this character!!!"

To me X-Factor was never out and out trash, It got close...but it always had the fact that even if the villains and enemies were a flop it was the characters arcs who would keep you on the books. X-Force prides it's self only rarely being more then a one trick pony during a given run and even if that trick is cool, i've seen it before.

Avatar image for cattlebattle
#7 Edited by cattlebattle (17682 posts) - - Show Bio

@koays said:

However 90s X-Force (and this is strictly my opinion) is everything wrong with the 90s and is very much a pile of trash. And as much as I HATE to admit that X-Factor is essentially a watered down X-Men book by nature, X-Force is just it's dark 90s reflection except where X-Factor delivered light, casual and self contained stories and was soft handed in it's use of X-Men themes, X-Force took X-Men and boiled it down to where only mutants(sometimes), violence, blood and tension remained.

I agree, in terms of the artwork, it is everything that was wrong with the 90s, overly ornamented costumes (this wasn't just restricted to X-Force though) big guns, ridiculous physiques etc. However, after Liefeld leaves X-Force after only about 10 or so issues to go to Image, Fabian Nicieza writes the book in the same manner he wrote the X-Men, with soap operatic melodrama. Stuff like Syrins alcoholosim, Cannonball balancing his duty between being the future leader of mutantkind and helping his family, Warpath realizing he is the last of his tribe.....I'm saying, despite popular opinion of it just being an action driven series, it did have lots of character drama. Not saying it was good character drama, but it was there.

The unique thing about the early to mid 90s X-Force was that they were a large team with 8 kids as members and two "mentors" with Cable and Domino and constantly featured guest stars like G.W Bridge and Moonstar, so basically, with this large cast of a dozen characters, there would be several sub plots running through issues that only features two or so characters at a time, then the whole cast would reconvene for a larger story arc and it would feel rewarding. It kept things interesting.

@koays said:

As wholes, X-Factor has always been about taking unexplored, less explored and unused characters and putting them in the line light. The drama and stories are almost always character driven and always have profound effects on the characters. Their wins and losses give the story, team and roster a well rounded character to them that can take on any form at any moment.

Not really. The original 5 X-Men weren't exactly "unexplored" and when the 90s X-Factor team was formed the only characters on that team that were largely unknown were Strong Guy and Multiple Man. The book in the 80s was a pale imitation of what the X-Men product was at the time and in the 90s, it wasn't really any less or more character driven than X-Force or X-Men. In the late 90s, I would actually say it became more action driven when Moore wrote it and Wild Child was on the team. It sounds like you are overlooking all the X-Factor series and just talking about the David 2011 run, in which I agree with you.

@koays said:

X-Force as a whole tends to consistently feed into it's niche base, where fights are for the sake of fights, resolutions are for setting up the next fight and villains have no goals, reasoning or motives beyond being the enemies of the heroes and those like the heroes. SOmething which is the newbie description of what an X-Man enemy is. It allows for generic Anti-Mutant groups, evil mutant teams/businesses, never before seen Evil Clones/relatives, and random bad guy returns to be presented as simple and easy to identify opponents so the story can focus on the drive (and later the struggle) of the heroes. But it's so one note that it only hits story arcs on two points of the color wheel, red and black. X-23 is a killer, who doesn't want to be a killer, but is good at killing, Psylocke is a hero, who didn't want to be a killer, but ended up killing. Cable is angry, he seems like he's found a reason not to be angry, but now he's angry again.

It sounds like you are predominantly describing the Yost and Kyle run, which was pretty much about those things. As for the rest of the cliches you mentioned...I am pretty sure you could say that all these things were pretty common and standard in all the X-Men books. I feel like your argument is predicated on using Peter Davids X-Factor run from 2011 as the defining example of what X-Factor is....when I am speaking of most of the series since its inception. Most incarnations were the same as any other X-book masked by claiming it had a different "direction", in which most times it didn't. It was just X-Men characters, being the X-Men, while working for the government.
I just want to make it clear that I don't either spin off has a legacy of being good. I am just saying that if I was forced to read one or the other I would choose X-Force because outside of the Peter David Invstigations run, X-Factor is largely really boring and just seems like a hand me down X-Men team that worked for the government that didn't really create any new ideas or villains or anything. X-Force was about young kids who were constantly in upheaval and moving around and changing the motivation behind their team. The Yost and Kyle stuff was a bit silly but the Remender run is definitely a good read.
I kind of find it interesting that you propose that the X-Force title was guilty of having generic mutant hate groups when the very first Anti Mutant group funded by an evil businessman, which was "The Right" turns up in X-Factor.....also, lets not pretend like X-Factor was devoid of ridiculous looking and "EXTREME" 90's, Mountain Dew fueled characters. After all, this guy did make his debut in an X-Factor comic and joined the team......
No Caption Provided
Avatar image for hopesummersforthefuture
#9 Posted by HopesummersFORtheFUTURE (9297 posts) - - Show Bio

x-factor had no name talent lmao

Avatar image for tec2030
#10 Posted by tec2030 (92 posts) - - Show Bio

@hopesummersforthefuture: What are you talking about? Louise Simonson? Peter David? I wouldn't call them anything near "no name talent"

Avatar image for hopesummersforthefuture
#11 Posted by HopesummersFORtheFUTURE (9297 posts) - - Show Bio

@tec2030 said:

@hopesummersforthefuture: What are you talking about? Louise Simonson? Peter David? I wouldn't call them anything near "no name talent"

the characters

Avatar image for tec2030
#12 Posted by tec2030 (92 posts) - - Show Bio

@hopesummersforthefuture: Jean Grey? Cyclops? Beast? Angel (and the creation of Archangel)? Iceman? Gambit? Havok? Polaris? Madrox? Wolfsbane? Quicksilver? Mystique? Sabertooth? Monet? Danger? Warlock? Doug Ramsey?

I would call none of those characters "no name"

Avatar image for koays
#13 Posted by Koays (11273 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle: Well I'm a few days late so i'm not gonna go to far in because I'm not nearly as passionate as I was when I wrote that tangent....but yea your pretty much right on all accounts.

I'd argue that X-Factor has had a little more creative and interesting villains to originate in their books, but i'll freely admit that early X-Force is more character driven with stronger writing then what was going on in X-Factor until the Investigations era.

Maybe it's because I feel like X-Factor (by extent of being X-Men lite) is far more appealing do to it's limitless potential for stories, dramas and genres. Where as X-Force (despite the characterization done in it) is largely just action heavy superspy/kill squad/mercenaries and as such I have to be looking for that in order to want to read it.

And lmao X-Factor may have jumped on board the 90s train (bad art and eveything) but X-Force was driving it.


Avatar image for invain
#14 Posted by Invain (5147 posts) - - Show Bio

X-Factor wasn't any good until 2006. But in the last 10 years X-Factor has usually been a better comic.

Avatar image for selina_sublime
#15 Posted by Selina_Sublime (328 posts) - - Show Bio

Between those versions pictured? X-Factor Investigations.

However, I would vote for original, militant X-Force anyday. I love the hardened twist Cable's team brought and would cast my ballot for them even over my favorite character driven X-Book (XFI).

Avatar image for call-me-sam
#16 Edited by call-me-sam (56 posts) - - Show Bio

would probably have to say X-Factor. I liked the Simonson era in the 80s and I also enjoyed Peter David's "new direction" in the 90s, X-force got off to a crappy start with Liefeld, but became awesome when Nicieza and Greg Capullo took over. both are good but gotta say X-Factor maybe because I prefer the Characters.

Avatar image for inca
#17 Edited by INCA (19 posts) - - Show Bio

X-Factor.

Apocalypse first appeared in Fall of the Mutants which started in X-Factor. Angel first became Archangel in X-Factor. Cameron Hodge who instigated the whole Extinction Agenda first appeared in X-Factor. X-Factor lay the groundwork for what came after. X-Force was MARVEL trying to reinvigorate the dying New Mutants series. It also let Rob Liefeld create truly questionable looking costumes full of useless pockets. And baggy pants. Baggy pants...

Also Rob Liefeld couldn't draw feet and still can't to this day. Walter Simonson and Jim Lee could. Although Walter Simonson is still today the better illustrator anatomically speaking.

As you can see my reading era was the Claremont/Adams/Davis/Neary/Silvestri/Portacio/Lee/Simonson/Lobdell days of the X-Factor & X-Men. I probably forgot a few.

Avatar image for netherlandman
#18 Posted by NetherlandMan (395 posts) - - Show Bio

X-Factor. Mainly because of Peter David's multiple runs with the book. X-Force was more hit or miss.

Avatar image for knighthood
#19 Posted by knighthood (1917 posts) - - Show Bio

X-Factor was the first book I personally collected. And that was the O5 X-Men run. Loved the Apocalypse storyline, and apparently it was good enough to make a movie out of... so my vote is X-Factor.

Avatar image for knighthood
#20 Edited by knighthood (1917 posts) - - Show Bio

@invain said:

X-Factor wasn't any good until 2006.

Hmmm? I disagree. Simonson's run alone should be counted as "good"

Avatar image for cobracommander
#21 Posted by CobraCommander (194 posts) - - Show Bio

Force

Lots of my favorite mutants ended up being in one X-Force book or another and I usually liked where the stories went which kept me a lot more interested than most X-Factor runs.

Avatar image for cattlebattle
#22 Posted by cattlebattle (17682 posts) - - Show Bio

. Loved the Apocalypse storyline, and apparently it was good enough to make a movie out of..

They didn't really make a movie out of any X-Factor story line in particular. X-Men Apocalypse isn't based on Fall of the Mutants.

Avatar image for invain
#23 Edited by Invain (5147 posts) - - Show Bio

@knighthood said:
@invain said:

X-Factor wasn't any good until 2006.

Hmmm? I disagree. Simonson's run alone should be counted as "good"

She had a few good ideas but I thought her dialog was weak. I thought her over use of exclamation points and the word "dude" was annoying. The original X-Factor concept (which I know Simonson didn't create) also seemed dumb in my opinion.

Avatar image for knighthood
#24 Posted by knighthood (1917 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle: 1st appearance of Apocalypse & 1st time Apocalypse creates the horsemen ever. Without X-Factor, that movie wouldn't exist.

Avatar image for knighthood
#25 Posted by knighthood (1917 posts) - - Show Bio

@invain: Sure not the best writing. Especially in today's standards. I still think Walt and Weezy did a good job on those titles. Especially the build up to Fall of the Mutants through Inferno.

Avatar image for cattlebattle
#26 Posted by cattlebattle (17682 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle: 1st appearance of Apocalypse & 1st time Apocalypse creates the horsemen ever. Without X-Factor, that movie wouldn't exist.

Yes but the original idea the Simonsons had for Apocalypse is not what appeared in the film. I am just saying that just because they used Apocalypse and the concept of the Horsemen in the film, does not mean they specifically made a movie out of that story.