[Captain Nash]

Throwing my hat into the crossover debate, I think that family-title crossovers can be less detrimental to storylines than company wide crossovers can. I'm not saying some ideas don't get put on hold but there's likely more flexibility for a writers input and for proper characterization. I just don't think every event needs to spiral into a line wide event. Also of course there's missing parts of the story most of us would have because most readers aren't going to get 40 different titles.

@Dr Kain, the ones you mention are great examples of what works (or I assume works I haven't read the DC ones yet) because they are family books. I think a lot of the X-overs work because they didn't spill into 40 books, just kept it between 4-ish books. Another example: For as much as I dislike BMB I thought the Avengers Disassembled was a great event (until the ending took a big crap on Wanda). The other events he's written not so much and it doesn't just stop with him.

I think the big problem too as others have mentioned is there's now a seemed need to shoehorn events into a yearly schedule, or now more than that. It used to be there was a big line wide cross over 1-2 times a decade along with crossovers in the family book groups, especially the X-titles. Secret wars which was a mini and Onslaught which was the first real "line wide" crossover IIRC, then it became a thing in the mid-00's to have a yearly event as well as some minis and family book crossovers, again mainly X-books. Now it's like they can't tell a story in a book anymore because they're trying to force 2-3 events a year in. It's too much IMO. Give the books some time to breath because I think most all of us have event fatigue.