Cantousent

At the very least, drink some beer twice a year. Actually, for a serious moment, I don't want to encourage folks to drink if they don't already. it's really not very healthy.

I finished the second scenario of HoMM V and then took a parting shot in the ongoing battle against the unholy triumvirate.

Good Lord, Hades spouts drivel and someone actually buys into it? hahaha Well, you three can form the an unholy triumvirate and work to change the categories that have existed in more or less the same way your entire lives. You notice that the whole notion is to place horror as a subgenre of either fantasy or drama. Hey, are you guys all pulling my leg or do you really believe this stuff? Maybe Hades is doing one of his "stirring the pot" things again. I tell you what, I'll let you guys get the last word. Actually, I'm more than happy to let you take the final shot and we'll see if you manage to convince the world that we should follow your new and improved more analytical approach. hahaha At that point, I'll concede that I've been bested by my intellectual betters. EDIT: ...But I'm not really angry about it. I do think it's a bit silly, so I can't help but make fun of you guys, but I'm not really hostile.

Before the thread gets canned, I'd like to say to Hades: "I love you maaaan!" I'm not confined to once a year drinking, by the way. As for Gothic. I've never played it. I might think about grabbing it, though.

First of all, how can I trust you when you only imbibe once a year? Seriously! ...At any rate, I'm willing to leave it at what we've written. It's for the Gods of TOMBS to decide now. Either that or a bunch of drunk, stoned, or stupid nerds. Either way, I'm happy.

Welcome back. I see you and you'd best give us the good word, you yutz. Either that or be kind enough to put yourself on hidden so you don't raise up our hopes.

It always amazes me that Vol doesn't irritate me as much as Hades. I wonder why. After all, he's such an <EDIT> likeable <END EDIT> fellow. :Eldar's shaking his head with bemusement while handing Vol a fresh beer, which Eldar will gladly drink if Vol doesn't drink alcohol, icon: Anyhow, there are no facts. These are all categories. We can change the criteria for the categories all we want, but I don't know why I should use the Volourn/Hades category spread instead of the familiar ones in use already. Now, Vol says, "[f]antasy, by defintion, includes anything that doesn't exist or is IMPOSSIBLE to exist in the real world." So, Star Wars is IMPOSSIBLE while Star Trek is POSSIBLE? How about resurrection? At one point, that was considered absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, but there are several cases of someone being brougth back to life. Now, Frankenstein is considered classic literature, but it involves bringing some poor bastard back to life using other folks' parts. That's clearly fantastic, deserves to be placed in the horror category, and yet it is a classic work. Moreover, it seems it is POSSIBLE to bring folks back to life and to take the organs from one person and put them in another person. Should Frankenstein be considered Fantasy? Science Fiction? Horror? Or a literary Classic? Frankly, Star Trek's social moddel is absolutely nuts. I think that's an example of fantasy if I've ever seen one. How about this, though, there was an episode of Star Trek in which Kirk and Spock and co. went to a world where the Roman empire lasted into what would be, for us, the modern age. There was a group of rebels who worshipped the "Sun" god. Only at the end did someone point out that the group who was in the process of toppling the Roman Empire in this new world didn't worship the "Sun" god, but the "Son" god. Dum dum DUM! Even if we discount the clear examples of explicit religious or quasi-supernatural material in the series, there's still the fact that many episodes presented creatures or conditions that are clearly fantastic and IMPOSSIBLE from any current scientific standpoint. When I say that setting is the benchmark for placing a work into a genre, it's not an argument. It's one of the few real FACTS... YES, FACTS I TELL YOU!!!!... in this discussion. :Eldar's having loads of fun icon: So, you guys might want to decide what constitutes a genre, but it's already been done. The only thing you can hope is that you guys can convince a sufficient number of people to change the established categories. Good luck. It can happen. It has happened. I doubt you'll do it anyhow. As for the whole fiction/fantasy thing. Clearly, all fantasy is fiction. Not all fiction is fantasy. So, everything fictitious falls into the category of fiction, but that category is too broad and so we must separate the works of fiction into smaller chunks. Otherwise, we have to muddle through stuff like Legacy of the Drow to get to Crime and Punishment. So, my point wasn't that all fiction is fantasy. My point is that we can make the category as broad as we want by saying that anything that does not exist in reality at this moment is, indeed, fantastic. ...But that's not the case. In regards to Bloodlines, I can see it going in either the fantasy or the horror genre. Maybe both, if we wanted to cross-reference it. The one off vampire doesn't make it fantasy. It's established that some works that present vampires or ghosts or whatnot are not classified as fantasy. However, Bloodlines sports a number of fantastic creatures, mages, magic, and a whole slew of other fantastic elements to the degree that someone may fairly call it fantasy. However, the setting, with monstrous creatures, a dark setting, a focus on the macabre, and a whole slew of other horrific elements may put the game into the horror category. We love to create categories, we humans, but they invariably fall apart at some point. Just accept that categories are, ultimately, going to be arbitrary at some point. Well, I guess you can say that the category of live folks and dead folks is not arbitrary. Wait, wasn't he technically dead before they managed to bring him back to life. Damn that CPR!

I play RPGs and I've played quite a bit of MtG and I know I'm cool. No geek loser for me. Seriously, I've known some women who are truly beautful who truly made my stomach turn on sight. If everyone looked beautiful in the same way, it would just mean that we'd judge folks based on their character. We should do that anyhow. Finally, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's not just a cliche. While there are certain standards that folks from around the world share in evaluating beauty, it's also as much of an individual assessment. Not only do you not know what someone else will find beautiful, you really aren't sure yourself until you look upon it and find beauty. If some yutz makes a flippant comment at me, I'm going to flame them and it will be beautiful.

"Wouldn't that mean that everything except biographies and pure documentaries is fantasy?" Yes. Pretty much. People created genres for easier classification. Really, we could have a single fiction category. That doesn't really work well in reality, however, and so we have separated works of fiction into smaller categories. Specialists in any particular field will take these categories and separate them even further. There are different views on this, but I believe that most categories are based more on setting than on individual elements. This is actually how most bookstores work as well. It's imperfect since there are books with clearly fantastic elements that end up in the straight fiction area or fantasy books that end up in science fiction. Star Wars is a classic example that causes the science fiction snob with a better analytical approach to rend his shirt and gnash his teeth. Overall, however, it works as well as anything else. In what category would most folks include something like Xmen? How is it billed to the public? Science fiction? Fantasy? Comic fiction? How do we handle overlapping genres? According to Hades and his patented analytical approach, any (ANY?) supernatural element places a work in the fantasy category? Hell, there are science fiction classics that would end up in fantasy if we did that.

I can accept that, Kaftan. *shrug* Okay, alan. It's no great sin to be mistaken. However, I'd like to know how far you push this "supernatural" business. Does this mean that horror does not exist as a genre because you and Hades share a patented "analytical approach?" hahaha

My point is that we create genres to make it easier to find a book. Star Trek might as well be fantasy for all the pseudo-science crap we find in it, but it falls into the science fiction category. In fact, you still see a lot of bookstores that have a single Fantasy/Science Fiction area.

While I'm sure you'd like me to bow before your superior intellect and analytical approach, I simply won't. There is no real difference between science fiction and fantasy other than setting. Star Trek is a fantasy. Even fiction with a more scientific bent is only science inasmuch as it uses real science. The moment it deviates from established reality, it goes into fiction mode. Why do we have different elements of fiction in the first place? To make it easier to go into a store and choose a book? Because the human mind works by separating similar items into different categories? I dunno. What I do know is that your claim of greater insight or your profession of a better analytical approach is unconvincing. Really, it boils down to the same old business of some person trying to force others to buy in to his particular vision. Well, Hades, your vision is blurred. While I think it's flawed, I'll take the bookstore's categories over yours. After all, Orson Scott Card's books, with all their mystical and supernatural references, still end up in Science Fiction all the time. That's because, individual elements aren't the last word on any genre. EDIT: Got Orson mixed up with his character, Andrew for a moment.

Why stop there? Why not say that a game that has any element that cannot be found in reality must also fit the "fantasy" genre? I mean, Star Trek? Fantasy. Foundation? Fantasy. Hell, even stuff that anticipates the future is fantasy, right? The term fantasy has much more to do with setting than it does with individual elements. Otherwise, a Harlequin romance with a vampire main character becomes a fantasy novel. In reality, unless we're talking a different kind of fantasy, romance is a separate genre, even when it borrows elements from other genres. Werewolves are part and parcel of horror, but readers can easily find these werewolves in a fantasy novel. So, no, Hades, placing supernatural elements in a novel does not, in and of itself, make a game fantasy.

Just bought HoMM V. I'm installing now. When I get the chance, later today, I will play.

Get off the ganga, mahn, and start the game design. I'd like to see this as a major theme. Of course, it could suck. I'm with Nart in that I don't want to see some huge escort mission type game where I do nothing but fret over the number of civilian casualties. Hey, I'd be happy with a game that enlarged the possibility of civilian casualties while increasing the impact those casualties would have on the roleplaying aspect. Someone else mentioned the scheme, but I'm too lazy to look.

Everybody was kung-fu fightin' -- Who the hell remembers?

Yours was the only review I really regretted. Sure, I could have done more with Kor's and Lady Crimson's, but they were generally good for what I knew at the time. Your scores were pitifully low and you deserved better. Of course, who gives a crap. The real meat of these reviews, from Moth's to Baley's, is the commentary.

While I try to finish the current chapter, which has had no end of delays as I try to accomodate people in my life, I was listening to: Ruby Tuesday -- Rolling Stones unfortunately, my wife hates the Stones, Pink Floyd, and a whole host of other folks and so I've settled on the more "upbeat:" Here Comes Your Man -- Pixies

...And, for another question, is there a place like Direct2Drive where I can buy a copy?

Perhaps they didn't think the combat was bad, the role-play possibilities were stunted, or the story was a big yawn. Just a possibility, I suppose.

The ending for DOOM 3 disappointed me for a variety of reasons. First of all, I hate games where I'm the only survivor. I wouldn't hate it except that it seems like, in so many of these games, I'm the only survivor. That's what made Half-Life such a good game. You met with folks and you had the idea that you might be able to save some of them. All those folks I met during DOOM 3 died? I didn't manage to save a single one? I fought like hell through hordes of enemies to defeat the minions of Satan and everyone died anyhow? Well, I guess I saved Earth, but it was still disappointing. The other thing I hated was losing the Soul Cube. I wanted to keep it handy just in case I needed to smack down more bad guys. Okay, that's all well and good, but at least DOOM 3 was just the same ol' business, even if that's all it was. RoE was just... well... weird. The ending was odd. The game-play wasn't that bad, but it did get a little tedious, what with the revenant at every other step. I mean, once I had to fight five revenants in a row. There was an area that spawned several waves of those big blob things who shoot powerful fireball and hellknights. I can play it on easy, but it's just a pain. Now, to be fair, the artifact is cool, but I found myself saving it up for the big battles which meant I slogged through most of the game without using it. Too bad, however, as it really is a kick-ass little bundle of evil goodness. If I came across something like that in real life, I'd probably spend my whole life seeking some method to destroy it, which I guess is part of the idea behind RoE. Anyhow, if you really enjoyed DOOM3, I'd suggest RoE. If you were neutral or bored by DOOM3, I would simply not suggest buying this expansion. I guess, if you were neutral and didn't have something better to play, you might want to see if you can get it for $10 or less, depending on how hard up you are. EDIT: What I meant to say is tha I could have played it on easy, but why should I have to choose between tedium on either end. Hard should mean harder, not "great, another twenty random spawns in this room." I didn't mind the spawns in DOOM 3, but they sure as hell finally got to me in RoE.

So much for Time healing all wounds.

I've always been a bit intrigued by Ravenloft but, oimoi, I deal only in custom campaigns.

I finished DOOM 3: RoE. Anyone else find the ending weird and dissatisfying? What the hell? People complain about the ending for KotOR 2, but I was quite unhappy with the end of RoE.

Sawyer wrote a great little treatise on this a while ago. It might be worth it to read his also. I'll take a look at yours, Rhomal. I've deliberated going in on a module, but I've been leery of it.