Cantousent

Mine too.

Favorite villain: Aristes.

It was worth reading, even if it was tough. The quotes got garbled. I don't think Tolkien is a genius for his writing. I think he's a genius for his world building. Strange figure, our Tolkien. ...But I agree, he did not create the genre. That's not even counterfactual. The genre was being born. He managed to be in on the very beginning and left his imprint. That's why I've never really contended that we wouldn't have the genre without Tolkien. Ah hell, like a lot of arguments between folks on the boards, we probably agree on the majority of the issue. It's those tiny details that get us in hot water.

You've mentioned Haber before, and it's sparked my interest. Pardon me if I'm too bold, but did you ever finish your Haber biography? Or did you abandon the project in the wake of the Daniel Charles publication? My villain? Father. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This sparked my interest. Don't hold out on us, Gromnir. Dish out the dirt.

I promised. :Eldar

I don't respond to all of your arguments because most of them are irrelevant. I say what I have to say and, should you desire the sort of point by point, twenty page mental auto-eroticism you've come to enjoy foisting on the unsuspecting board, you must simply provide it yourself. Of course, you provide it. In spades. Gleefully, even. Since you

Any name might do, but one did, Azarkon. My argument has always been thus: It's easy to suggest that any name can do, but the place of honor will always go to the name that did.

...And yet you yourself are a practitioner of the same exercises you deride in others. If "t's impossible and fruitless to even try [sic] and predict..." then why do you predict how things would turn out in the first place? snip ...And yet, with all the letters and words bouncing around in your skull, you continue to argue the point. This is the point you find "impossible and fruitless to even try and predict." The fact is, you've entered the fray, and so you can only expect that others will target your statements. Moreover, I've always tired of the idea that someone else would have done it if [person x] hadn't. It's a cheap way of devaluing any person's accomplishment. The fact that such a view has so great currency in some circles doesn't change the fact that it's an insulting position in the first place. It's always easy to claim someone else would have done it in the long run. In the meantime, someone did. So, claiming that the whole genre would have come about and that it would have been largely the same is easy to argue after the fact, but the fact still remains that Tolkien stands there, even with folks deriding his role. Even folks who lack the intestinal fortitude to come right out and admit that their position devalues the person's contribution, however obliquely. Frankly, your arguments, on their face, devalue Tolkien's contribution by suggesting that it was anyone's to make but he happened to make it. Well, meta is right. Be Tolkien he says. By your argument, someone else would have been Tolkien if Tolkien hadn't existed. The problem with that argument is that Tolkien existed. The rest is just your particular brand of mental gymnastics. If it comes to that, I'd rather watch Gromnir's gymnastic routine. It's not that he isn't irritating, but he's far more entertaining for all that, and he turns a much better performance.

...And yet you yourself are a practitioner of the same exercises you deride in others. If "t's impossible and fruitless to even try [sic] and predict..." then why do you predict how things would turn out in the first place? The truth is, all we can argue is counter-factual history because, at the end of the day, Tolkien did exist and he is one of the genre's founding fathers. To argue whether someone would replace him is pointless as he was there and needed no replacement. So, saying that the genre would not exist without him sounds a bit arrogant, I suppose. Saying that the genre would essentially be the same without him aspires to the same heighth of arrogance. Maybe you've got a crystal ball, but I don't think so. I just think you know some facts and you've got really strong opinions but the difference between the two escapes you. The biggest roadblock to the folks who want to devalue Tolkien's contributions to the genre is his legacy. You might want to suggest that everything was going to work out largely the same without him, but you notice that there is quite a slew of folks arguing about whether or not Tolkien is important. Apparently, he's important enough that all these folks argue about him.

Ah hell, I guess I should at least give it a shot.

Yeah, but that doesn't bother me. I'm a completenik, so I usually hunt down everything. On the other hand, I didn't take the time to go through everything the first run and I doubt I give it a second. ...And I seriously doubt I go in for multiplayer in FEAR.

I'm not planning on buying one, but my family loses patience with me. I'm still holding out for more news between the 360, PS3, and revolution. I'm leaning for 360, but I liked some of the titles I saw for the PS3. I'm probably not going to get the Revolution, but that's because I'm going to buy it more for the hardware than the games. After all, I've spent some time playing xmen legends lately, but I've been playing music and watching DVDs on my xbox even more.

So, you agree that Tolkien had a huge impact on the genre but you don't think he created everything out of thin air, Vol? If that's the case, then I don't see the problem. ...Or at least the problem isn't between us.

No no, Gorth, I meant System Shock 2. Now the sound works, but it's caught in terminal loops. It's driving me batty.

Tolkien didn't create the genre, but he sure as hell had an impact on it. It's funny, because some folks want to give Tolkien credit for creating the genre, other folks feel compelled to downplay his significance. Rubbish.

I love it when I read a post and get the feeling I've only understood half of it. I'm a bit slow. I do think it's interesting that, as a species, we're attracted to folks without rhyme or reason. For instance, I've found a wide variety of women sexually attractive. Some of them were obvious choices, but others were not. Some of them became sexually attractive to me over time while others were attractive from the moment I met them. Some of them were pretty, but others were never what I considered pretty, even though I might have found them extremely hot. I can think of specific examples right now that fly in the face of conventional wisdom in terms of looking at sexual attraction. I'm sorry. I know I'm giving a slightly different bent to the thread, but I find this idea of sexual attraction and how it plays in different people quite interesting.

Why use sense, Laozi? You have to fall either in the "Tolkien is God" or the "Tolkien is insignificant" camp. Didn't you know that? hahaha

It was prefectly done. One of the best parts to visit in the game. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought so. I was especially impressed by the fact that I was playing a vampire, an unholy denizen of the night, while getting spooked by ghosts and other unholy denizens.

I rather enjoyed the haunted Mansion in Bloodlines. great stuff.

Anyone know how I can get the sound to work in the game? It's silent. The cutscenes works, but everything is upside down. Don't you all appreciate the new assinine editing scheme?

Swinehearted wretch. Fallout is a great game. The fanatics are a little much sometimes, though. I'm not looking forward to Fallout 3 from Bethesda, sorry Shadow, but I'm not writing it off before I see it. I'm probably going to try Oblivion when it hits the shelves. If it lives up to the hype, I'm that much closer to purchasing Fallout 3. If Fallout 3 sounds like a good game, I'll buy it. I don't expect it to be Fallout, but I'm willing to give it a shot as long as the game is solid. We're probably never going to get a Fallout 3 that looks even remotely like Fallout 1/2. The industry has advanced and publishers want to take advantage of the franchise, not the gameplay design. I think Bethesda is a great choice to make the game. Troika would have screwed it up and Obsidian would have closed the board because of the Fallout crazies jumping out of the woodwork with pitchforks and fiery brands.

Where do folks get all this satanic crap anyhow. I mean, I can understand fervor, but leveling the satanic charge is soooo old.

I'm getting it right now. Thanks, you great cookie, you.

Heh, oops. Yeah, I meant DOOM, not doom3.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Wolfenstein 3D. In fact, I enjoyed the original Escape from Castle Wolfenstein, which was not 3D nor was it a shooter in the modern sense of the word. I'm intrigued by System Shock 2 and I might just buy it. I do agree with you, alan. Doom really was a huge step forward for FPSs. How's this for a definition of significant: Doom 3 took FPSs from bit players to true significance. *shrug* We can argue, but I've already made my opinions known. Finally, there were two areas where I heard a phone ringing in FEAR. I answered the first and it made some funky sounds. I never found the second phone. Anyone give me a spoiler on what it said. Other than that, I think I pretty much scoured everything regarding the story from the game, including the little bit at the end of the credits.