The idea of using real cities and locations in comics versus using made up cities isn't a new idea. Last summer I brought up the question of whether or not actual locations should be used. Today I want to focus more on the two main publishers that tend to prefer one tactic over the other.
== TEASER ==
When I last touched on the subject, one area I focused on was when a real location was damaged. Soldier Field was blown up in Marvel and San Diego had some sinking issues in DC. When an actual location is wrecked and you happen to live nearby, that reinforces the fact that these stories are pure fiction (not that anyone in New York is really expecting to see Spider-Man swinging by).
It was Stan Lee that pioneered the move to using real cities. This was a way for readers to feel closer to the stories. Aside from Asgard, Wakanda and Latveria, pretty much all the locations in Marvel exist in the real world. Nightwing relocated to New York City recently and the Teen Titans are in San Francisco, so neither publisher is strictly using fake or real locations. When I was in New York and drove over the George Washington Bridge, I couldn't help but think that was where Green Goblin killed Gwen Stacy. That gave me a tiny moment of feeling like I was connected to the story even though I had read it years ago.
Most readers do enjoy stories from both publishers but there are those that strongly prefer one over the other. What I want to know is, does the fact that DC uses made up cities more often and Marvel uses real ones affect your opinion on the two publishers and their characters? Does it matter if made up characters are in made up cities or do you prefer to think of them in real locations?