Originally Posted by
Tracks
I hear the preference, but I think the stories become more captivating when the vampires have more character. Look at the success of Castlevania for instance. Vampires can still be the bad guys, but they need to have substance or the stories become repetitive. That's one of the reasons I've hated Blade more recently in vampire centric stories because basically all it means is we're going to see him cut up fodder with little resistance, then struggle with the only character with any depth. I liked that some writers have really tried to add depth to vamprie stories. Aaron's done it decently well, but I think Paul Cornell has done it the best with MI:13. I like them going the Mutant route because it means we can get more complex storylines with their culture and everything.
Goign back to Castlevania, I like that the stronger vampires aren't just normal vampires but a bit faster, they also use their age to learn technology/magic/whatever to elevate their status. Not just an extend hack and slash fest, but a vampire fight can look like this:
I also think I disagree with keeping them away from the rest of Marvel. That's just not how Marvel works anymore. There are other vampire comic books out untouched by the rest of Marvel, but in order for Blade and all of that to make sense, the vampires have to make sense from a Marvel-logic. It doesn't make sense for them to live thousands of years and not know the kind of magic that humans are picking up in a few decades, or that none of the vampires are smart enough to create the kind of technology that Wakanda, Krakoa, Latveria, etc. are full of. To make the stories compelling, they have to be formidable on a Marvel-level scale otherwise Blade's role doesn't make sense. I like that Aaron and Cates have just done that with how they've situated the current Vampire state.