New Fallout 3 screens

[Spider]

[quote name='H

[random n00b]

Haha, I'm pretty sure the definition of "greater than the sum of its parts" is that you can't define it fully in terms of other things, so what you're asking is kind of illogical.

Is it? One of the best examples that illustrate the principle of "being greater than the sum of its parts" is music. A symphony is indeed greater than random notes thrown together, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to explain how this is so. So, no. The concept of "greater than the sum of its parts" does not entail unfathomability.

 

 

Fallout was a delicate balance of various concepts and mechanics - it's that balance and choice of concepts/mechanics to use that is the 'soul', I guess.

Yes. That's known as polish and solid design. Both are very real notions.

 

 

That said, I doubt I'm the only one who feels art is more than the sum of its parts, and I believe that's actually a fairly widely held notion. But just because humans find it hard to capture the essence of something or explain it fully by referencing its parts doesn't mean it is divinely determined.

And just because a notion is widely held, it doesn't mean it's true. Art majors can give very detailed and concrete accounts of their field of work, as the study of art has been systematised. Musicology wouldn't exist, if music couldn't be analysed and explained, either. Just because you can't capture and explain it, doesn't mean *nobody* can.

 

With art it happens just like with technology. Both can appear mystical and magical, unless one has received formal education. Then the magic seems to fade a bit.

[Hell Kitty]

I always considered Deus Ex a game that's "greater than the sum of its parts", because its parts simply aren't as good as games that focus on those areas. The stealth and combat can't compare separately to dedicated stealth games or FPS. Jack of all trades, master of none.

 

If games have a "soul", I'd say it's developers that care about the game they are making. Just because you care, though, doesn't mean you won't make crap, and vice versa. I consider Saint's Row to be rather "soulless", as it's an attempt to cash in on the success of GTA. It copied the gameplay fairly well, though, and introduced improvements, which were even copied by the devs for GTAIV.

[Tigranes]

One of the best examples that illustrate the principle of "being greater than the sum of its parts" is music. A symphony is indeed greater than random notes thrown together, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to explain how this is so

 

Linkin Park's level of popular success in the early years of this decade was nothing short of phenomenal. Their music in this period was actually very simple and formulaic: it could be reduced to a sum of elements such as throaty male screaming, repetitive but unrelenting rap, simple and powerful electric guitar chords, a single ballad melody resounding through the entire composition, a strict intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus formula (with exactly tabulated systems of bridges in relation to the choruses), etc. If we took these elements separately, defined them 'scientifically', then fed them to a 'blind monkey', would the monkey, as you say, random noob, produce something that succeeds at the level of Linkin Park - no, rather, music that sounds like, and is 'as good as', Linkin Park? I don't think so. A media product is never simply a sum of its parts: in that very summation, something that is created is more than that. This is something that you can't explain if you try to import a purely mathematical / scientific mind to something so fluid, and try to 'define' what 'Fallout is', what the core of 'Fallout' is. NMA have been doing that for years, but you look at them arguing over the latest concept art and many of them still disagree with each other. That doesn't mean that 'what Fallout is' doesn't exist: it simply means that it is the wrong approach altogether to try and reduce it down to isolated essences which can be mathematically reconstructed. It's quite simply the wrong model to use.

 

Of course art, music, etc. can be analysed and explained. But all (good) analysis of art, for example, always relates any exploration of a single essence or component back to that whole which is more than the sum of its parts: that which is evident in the work of art itself. Same with Fallout. Now, the fact that it's ab it of 1+1=3? doesn't mean that the study of art or other media is considered to be mystical: that dichotomy between a 'scientific' taxonomy and a 'prehistoric' mysticity is entirely unfounded in this case, because that implies that everything has a scientific-mathematical order with which it is composed, and with enough study, enough technology, enough tools, one can dissect anything to find these independent, atomised elements which follow the general logics of science. That is inverse logic because we are taking the scientific model and applying it to Jack and Joe, and when it doesn't seem to fit, we say "it's just not very clear yet, let's keep going". Art can be demystified, explained, analysed, deconstructed: but because of the nature of art, the way to do it is not to try and define clear, independent, atomised characteristics and say art is the mathematical sum of these parts. That simply flies in the face of art as we experience it, just to satisfy a scientific model. Art and other media have to be analysed in a way that is conscious of this 'more than the sum, etc' and the fact that experience of art and media is always holistic in regards to who consumes it and how.

 

edit: Yeah, that was rambly tl;dr, sorry. But in relation to Fallout, really - it simply means that as Krezack says, it's more than just a sum of its parts, and therefore, making a Fallout sequel which recaptures that 'feel' of Fallout is NOT something a monkey could do. A monkey could reconstruct, say, a table from a blueprint exactly the same, but that's a table; a media product like Fallout is made in a different manner using different base elements which operate in a different manner, and a monkey, without the faculty to understand or adapt to that situation, would not be able to make something that recaptures that 'soul', if you like.

 

Conversely, this means that making a 'faithful' sequel in this sense does not mean that individual symptomatic elements, such as turn-based gameplay or 2D graphics, have to be the same. It would probably be easier if they were, and I'm sure Sand will come and tell me that for him, it's not FO unless it's turn-based (I think it was Sand?). But the 'feel, the 'soul', of a game is not dependent on all such symptomatic elements being exactly the same. That's why making a 'faithful' Fallout would not be a pointless, or silly, or simple venture!

[Pidesco]

Your example fails, because Linkin' Park's music was actually done by a blind monkey. Except this monkey was also deaf. And retarded.

[Tigranes]

My one weak point!

[Humodour]

One of the best examples that illustrate the principle of "being greater than the sum of its parts" is music. A symphony is indeed greater than random notes thrown together, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to explain how this is so

 

Linkin Park's level of popular success in the early years of this decade was nothing short of phenomenal. Their music in this period was actually very simple and formulaic: it could be reduced to a sum of elements such as throaty male screaming, repetitive but unrelenting rap, simple and powerful electric guitar chords, a single ballad melody resounding through the entire composition, a strict intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus formula (with exactly tabulated systems of bridges in relation to the choruses), etc. If we took these elements separately, defined them 'scientifically', then fed them to a 'blind monkey', would the monkey, as you say, random noob, produce something that succeeds at the level of Linkin Park - no, rather, music that sounds like, and is 'as good as', Linkin Park? I don't think so. A media product is never simply a sum of its parts: in that very summation, something that is created is more than that. This is something that you can't explain if you try to import a purely mathematical / scientific mind to something so fluid, and try to 'define' what 'Fallout is', what the core of 'Fallout' is. NMA have been doing that for years, but you look at them arguing over the latest concept art and many of them still disagree with each other. That doesn't mean that 'what Fallout is' doesn't exist: it simply means that it is the wrong approach altogether to try and reduce it down to isolated essences which can be mathematically reconstructed. It's quite simply the wrong model to use.

 

Of course art, music, etc. can be analysed and explained. But all (good) analysis of art, for example, always relates any exploration of a single essence or component back to that whole which is more than the sum of its parts: that which is evident in the work of art itself. Same with Fallout. Now, the fact that it's ab it of 1+1=3? doesn't mean that the study of art or other media is considered to be mystical: that dichotomy between a 'scientific' taxonomy and a 'prehistoric' mysticity is entirely unfounded in this case, because that implies that everything has a scientific-mathematical order with which it is composed, and with enough study, enough technology, enough tools, one can dissect anything to find these independent, atomised elements which follow the general logics of science. That is inverse logic because we are taking the scientific model and applying it to Jack and Joe, and when it doesn't seem to fit, we say "it's just not very clear yet, let's keep going". Art can be demystified, explained, analysed, deconstructed: but because of the nature of art, the way to do it is not to try and define clear, independent, atomised characteristics and say art is the mathematical sum of these parts. That simply flies in the face of art as we experience it, just to satisfy a scientific model. Art and other media have to be analysed in a way that is conscious of this 'more than the sum, etc' and the fact that experience of art and media is always holistic in regards to who consumes it and how.

 

edit: Yeah, that was rambly tl;dr, sorry. But in relation to Fallout, really - it simply means that as Krezack says, it's more than just a sum of its parts, and therefore, making a Fallout sequel which recaptures that 'feel' of Fallout is NOT something a monkey could do. A monkey could reconstruct, say, a table from a blueprint exactly the same, but that's a table; a media product like Fallout is made in a different manner using different base elements which operate in a different manner, and a monkey, without the faculty to understand or adapt to that situation, would not be able to make something that recaptures that 'soul', if you like.

 

Conversely, this means that making a 'faithful' sequel in this sense does not mean that individual symptomatic elements, such as turn-based gameplay or 2D graphics, have to be the same. It would probably be easier if they were, and I'm sure Sand will come and tell me that for him, it's not FO unless it's turn-based (I think it was Sand?). But the 'feel, the 'soul', of a game is not dependent on all such symptomatic elements being exactly the same. That's why making a 'faithful' Fallout would not be a pointless, or silly, or simple venture!

 

 

<3

[random n00b]

Linkin Park's level of popular success in the early years of this decade was nothing short of phenomenal. Their music in this period was actually very simple and formulaic: it could be reduced to a sum of elements such as throaty male screaming, repetitive but unrelenting rap, simple and powerful electric guitar chords, a single ballad melody resounding through the entire composition, a strict intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus formula (with exactly tabulated systems of bridges in relation to the choruses), etc. If we took these elements separately, defined them 'scientifically', then fed them to a 'blind monkey', would the monkey, as you say, random noob, produce something that succeeds at the level of Linkin Park - no, rather, music that sounds like, and is 'as good as', Linkin Park? I don't think so.

Yes. This contradicts what I said, how? A monkey's cognitive faculties are not at human levels (regardless of how folks think of Todd), and therefore you have built a strawman that invalidates your point.

 

Conversely, if you analise and categorise the elements (as you have done) that make up LP's music, chances are that people will be able to reproduce their style rather faithfully, as proven by the many groups in that genre now. The success of said groups is of little consequence, due to factors of marketing and novelty. Again, rarely are musicologists asked when records labels choose which groups are to be the new cash cows and which are to be forgotten.

 

 

A media product is never simply a sum of its parts: in that very summation, something that is created is more than that. This is something that you can't explain if you try to import a purely mathematical / scientific mind to something so fluid, and try to 'define' what 'Fallout is', what the core of 'Fallout' is. NMA have been doing that for years, but you look at them arguing over the latest concept art and many of them still disagree with each other. That doesn't mean that 'what Fallout is' doesn't exist: it simply means that it is the wrong approach altogether to try and reduce it down to isolated essences which can be mathematically reconstructed. It's quite simply the wrong model to use.

No. No, no, no. What you are describing is simply the creative process. The same creative process involved in designing AMD's latest chip, for instance. No, a monkey wouldn't be able to do it, nor would I. It takes training, intelligence, and a good dose of effort. The same with game design.

 

Is it wrong to apply a rational approach to this, why? Because you and Krez say so? Oh, well. It too was wrong to apply a rational approach to mental disease back in the 18th century as well, when schizophrenia was considered to be caused by "bad spirits", and the "soul" was believed to reside in the heart (one of the three, we supposedly possessed, at least). That is, until some crazy guy came along and thought that mental disease was caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, and therefore, chemistry could provide solutions to those imbalances. W0wsers!

 

If a long-winded exposition on the postulates governing the unfathomability of art could convince me that something that's man-made can't be made subject to analytical thought, I wouldn't even have bothered to begin with.

 

The thing is, you are trying to steer the discussion into the realm of the mystical (where, conveniently, debunking your assertions would be impossible), while all evidence leads to the conclusion that there's nothing unmeasurable or metaphysical involved. Only a lack of formal education, as I said before.

 

 

Of course art, music, etc. can be analysed and explained. But all (good) analysis of art, for example, always relates any exploration of a single essence or component back to that whole which is more than the sum of its parts: that which is evident in the work of art itself. Same with Fallout. Now, the fact that it's ab it of 1+1=3? doesn't mean that the study of art or other media is considered to be mystical: that dichotomy between a 'scientific' taxonomy and a 'prehistoric' mysticity is entirely unfounded in this case, because that implies that everything has a scientific-mathematical order with which it is composed, and with enough study, enough technology, enough tools, one can dissect anything to find these independent, atomised elements which follow the general logics of science. That is inverse logic because we are taking the scientific model and applying it to Jack and Joe, and when it doesn't seem to fit, we say "it's just not very clear yet, let's keep going". Art can be demystified, explained, analysed, deconstructed: but because of the nature of art, the way to do it is not to try and define clear, independent, atomised characteristics and say art is the mathematical sum of these parts. That simply flies in the face of art as we experience it, just to satisfy a scientific model. Art and other media have to be analysed in a way that is conscious of this 'more than the sum, etc' and the fact that experience of art and media is always holistic in regards to who consumes it and how.

Art is, and always has been just another consumer product. And there's nothing "prehistoric" about mysticism. It's the natural tendency of man to ascribe otherworldly qualities to that which isn't quite understood:

[Musopticon?]

Well, this'll be a blast to observe.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Musopticon?

[Tigranes]

I'll try not to disappoint, Mus.

 

Yes. This contradicts what I said, how? A monkey's cognitive faculties are not at human levels (regardless of how folks think of Todd), and therefore you have built a strawman that invalidates your point.

 

Edit: See below, actually - I am repeating myself a lot.

 

Is it wrong to apply a rational approach to this, why?

 

The approach I am advocating is 'rational' as well. I am not advocating that 'art just can't be understood, leave it alone'. I am not arguing against taking a 'rational' or 'systematic' approach at all. Can I make self any clearer, I wonder? I'll try. I do not have a problem with analysing art, games, etc., in a logical manner: I am saying that I believe your specific method of analysis ill-suited to this particular subject, though it might be for objects normally associated with mathematics and the 'sciences' as we have come to know of it post-18th century. The approach of modern-era science with its desire to create clearly defined taxonomies of independent, atomised variables is not the only 'rational' or 'logical' approach - the 'human sciences' of our era alone show us many others, as do the likes of Condillac (or was it before Condillac? Gah) in the previous centuries.

 

If a long-winded exposition on the postulates governing the unfathomability of art could convince me that something that's man-made can't be made subject to analytical thought, I wouldn't even have bothered to begin with.

 

Again, I never said it's 'unfathomable'. Of course it's, uh, 'fathomable'. Just not in the way you suggest: mechanically taking apart particular characteristics of a media product, defining them in that decontextualised/atomised state then assembling them together with different variables - that is unlikely to produce an overall experience that one would say was 'faithful' to the original, IMO. Of course, we can agree to disagree, but I would hate for you to think that I was simply saying, "Oh no, we can't find this out, at all".

 

The thing is, you are trying to steer the discussion into the realm of the mystical

 

Absolutely not. I can see where you get this impression, because the gaping hole in my first post was an alternative suggestion - if I think your approach doesn't get us to the heart of the matter, then what does? Very simple version - a media product is often more than the 'sum of its parts'. If we understand 'parts' as things such as 'bright colour palette', 'a disposition towards certain chords' or 'a wikipedia dialogue system', then just a sum of such parts are not guaranteed to successfully produce a particular experience. I would suggest that atomisation is the problem: we want to look at how the product is contextualised, defined and absorbed as a whole by real people - how certain disparate elements, such as the accent of Morte and the colour-tone of the Mortuary and whatnot, came together in the player's mind to create several overarching themes or 'feel'. There is nothing mystical about any of this, though it is a good deal less certain than the properties of rocks. But a media product is more than the mechanical assembly of certain tropes, because what is just as important as the nature of these tropes, is how they are put together, and how they are presented and consumed by the player, as a whole. That's why monkeys cannot recreate Fallout.

 

Which is exactly what you are doing by assuming that there's something beyond the elements forming a work of art, and the way those elements are arranged together. That's called technique, and it's probably the part of an artistic work that receives the most attention and is studied the most.

 

I think we're sort of both arguing against an invisible man: you are trying to debunk the idea that there is something unexplainable and mystical about game production, but that was never what I was arguing at all (I was simply suggesting, as I say above, a different way). Equally, I am fighting the argument that (a) it is an uncreative, mechanical and pointless work to try and 'recapture' the 'experience' of the original Fallouts, because all it takes is a taxonomic definition and re-assembly of tropes, and by extension suggesting that (b) the 'hardcore fans' real gripe with Bethesda is not that they are taking particular key tropes and trashing them, but that the overall impression that develops from these independent tropes is very different. (for example, quite a few of NMA, which we love to lampoon so much, would be quite happy with a first-person real-time Fallout if it recaptured the overall experience).

 

Sorry, but all you are pointing to is, again, lack of education, as a basis for your theory of how art affects everyone differently. This "ecstasy" that's experimented from a good work of art is just art doing what it's supposed to, as intended by its creator.

 

Again, I feel as though you have, in your mind, a view of an argument which screams mysticism - as if I was arguing that no, no, we can't possibly understand these works of art, they're impossible to define, they defy all attempts, they have a soul of their own! Notice that I judiciously avoid all such language - though I should have defined the 'more than the sum of' bit better, as I hopefully rectified just above. I have to stress again that whereas you are building towards a conclusion that I am advocating a mystical path of non-knowledge, that could not be further from the truth. I am simply saying that I respectfully disagree with your approach towards analysing these works, and that I believe a more holistic and contextual approach, coming less from 'what parts is this work made out of' and more from 'how have people understood this work as a whole' might work better.

 

I wish I had time to actually edit this post and make it less of a repetitive ramble, sorry. Looking at it now, every paragraph seems to say similar things, but just saying it a bit better. I'll leave it though, (a) no time and (b) every time I attempt to condense it down, I seem to misrepresent myself and get in more trouble. But really - I am in no way advocating the sort of 'mysticism' you are getting an impression of. I just think we can't so easily trash the 'more than the sum of' vernacular, and approach analysis from such a technical, object-oriented dimension.

[Humodour]

Is it me or does n00b just love to argue for the sake of it?

[Pidesco]

That has always been his way.

[random n00b]

The approach I am advocating is 'rational' as well. I am not advocating that 'art just can't be understood, leave it alone'. I am not arguing against taking a 'rational' or 'systematic' approach at all. Can I make self any clearer, I wonder? I'll try. I do not have a problem with analysing art, games, etc., in a logical manner: I am saying that I believe your specific method of analysis ill-suited to this particular subject, though it might be for objects normally associated with mathematics and the 'sciences' as we have come to know of it post-18th century. The approach of modern-era science with its desire to create clearly defined taxonomies of independent, atomised variables is not the only 'rational' or 'logical' approach - the 'human sciences' of our era alone show us many others, as do the likes of Condillac (or was it before Condillac? Gah) in the previous centuries.

The approach I'm taking is merely an empirical one. It's the same that has allowed to make breakthroughs in neuroscience, psychology, and relativistic quantum mechanics. Again, I have yet to see something that could lead me to belive that such an approach is inadequate when dealing with the products of human creativity.

 

Also, I don't see where you get the impression that this approach fails to take into consideration that complex systems have different properties than their forming elements. This phenomenon is known as emergent properties and is well documented, in a (unsurprisingly) rather systematic way.

 

 

Again, I never said it's 'unfathomable'. Of course it's, uh, 'fathomable'. Just not in the way you suggest: mechanically taking apart particular characteristics of a media product, defining them in that decontextualised/atomised state then assembling them together with different variables - that is unlikely to produce an overall experience that one would say was 'faithful' to the original, IMO. Of course, we can agree to disagree, but I would hate for you to think that I was simply saying, "Oh no, we can't find this out, at all".

That is only true if the "variables" that govern the reassembly you are talking about are random. If those variables and the rules they are bound to are understood, that is not so much the case anymore.

 

 

Absolutely not. I can see where you get this impression, because the gaping hole in my first post was an alternative suggestion - if I think your approach doesn't get us to the heart of the matter, then what does? Very simple version - a media product is often more than the 'sum of its parts'. If we understand 'parts' as things such as 'bright colour palette', 'a disposition towards certain chords' or 'a wikipedia dialogue system', then just a sum of such parts are not guaranteed to successfully produce a particular experience.

That's where the creative lead comes in and says what works, what doesn't, and what needs improvement. Again, I suppose he is not making this stuff up as he goes, he has a very concrete idea of what he's attempting to achieve, and that idea didn't just appear to him like that. It's the product of thinking, working and experience. His (innate?) quality as a designer and most importantly, his experience in the field are the variables that will determine whether or not he will be able to produce the "particular experience" he's after. This does not preclude the fact that cognitive mechanisms that determine a person's reactions to certain stimuli can't be studied and catalogued, and this data used later.

 

 

I would suggest that atomisation is the problem: we want to look at how the product is contextualised, defined and absorbed as a whole by real people - how certain disparate elements, such as the accent of Morte and the colour-tone of the Mortuary and whatnot, came together in the player's mind to create several overarching themes or 'feel'. There is nothing mystical about any of this, though it is a good deal less certain than the properties of rocks. But a media product is more than the mechanical assembly of certain tropes, because what is just as important as the nature of these tropes, is how they are put together, and how they are presented and consumed by the player, as a whole.

Again, emergent properties. The fact that the neurological mechanisms, that rule how we react to a particular musical structure or an arrangement of colours, are less understood than the properties of a silicon structure does not mean they are less manipulable.

 

 

That's why monkeys cannot recreate Fallout.

Monkeys cannot recreate Fallout because they are stuck in an entirely different cognitive level. In their case it's an insurmountable physiological barrier. I don't see what this adds to the conversation aside from comic relief, since the converse statement "that's why people can't recreate Fallout" is strictly false, thus proving it's just a strawman.

 

 

Equally, I am fighting the argument that (a) it is an uncreative, mechanical and pointless work to try and 'recapture' the 'experience' of the original Fallouts, because all it takes is a taxonomic definition and re-assembly of tropes,

Eh, but it is. That's what they did with FO2, and it was the perfect sequel (and still, some say it's not entirely "faithful"!). Arguably, all it featured was a different plot.

 

 

and by extension suggesting that (b) the 'hardcore fans' real gripe with Bethesda is not that they are taking particular key tropes and trashing them, but that the overall impression that develops from these independent tropes is very different. (for example, quite a few of NMA, which we love to lampoon so much, would be quite happy with a first-person real-time Fallout if it recaptured the overall experience).

Yes, an "overall experience" that nobody can quite explain, but that will be called upon when the time comes around to bash FO3.

 

I have a feeling that if, instead of Bethesda, it was the original team that had secured the rights to the Fallout franchise, most of those proposed changes wouldn't draw so much flak. So the importance of "recreating the experience" is tangential at most, when one's own preconceptions and confirmation bias get in the way. Emotion overriding reason, I'd say.

 

 

I am simply saying that I respectfully disagree with your approach towards analysing these works, and that I believe a more holistic and contextual approach, coming less from 'what parts is this work made out of' and more from 'how have people understood this work as a whole' might work better.

I think I already addressed how holism and reductionism aren't necessarily opposite or incompatible. I am focusing on the impression I get that you are implying that complex systems have different properties simply because they do as opposed to that being the result of complex interactions between simpler parts that can be studied, categorised, and harnessed. There's no reason whatsoever to think that's not the case.

[random n00b]

Is it me or does n00b just love to argue for the sake of it?

Is it me or are you just trolling for the sake of it?

 

 

That has always been his way.

Why, thank you. Pleasing my fanbase is of paramount importance.

[thepixiesrock]

And I thought I was the only one

[Sand]

Anyway, Bethesda has butchered Fallout just as badly as Interplay did with FOPOS. I just don't see the point of them buying the franchise/license then make it UnFalloutish. Fallout 3 is the Diet Coke of Fallout series. Just one calorie, not Fallout enough.

 

[karka]

FO:BOS was just a spin off. Developers can make anything they want with the Fallout franchise as long as they stay away from the main series.

[Xard]

I can't believe random_n00b has started something like that

 

Take your scientiphilia where sun doesn't shine, genius

[random n00b]

And I thought I was the only one

You'll always be the only one in my heart.

 

 

I can't believe random_n00b has started something like that

 

Take your scientiphilia where sun doesn't shine, genius

Big words make head hurt? Me understand. Me no talk silly things no more, OK? OK. Friends now?

[Musopticon?]

Hahhah, ouch.

[Tale]

Oblivion with guns, lol.

[Xard]

I can't believe random_n00b has started something like that

 

Take your scientiphilia where sun doesn't shine, genius

Big words make head hurt? Me understand. Me no talk silly things no more, OK? OK. Friends now?

 

That would be more than welcome but considering your one man crusade here it won't happen

[Tigranes]

Heh. Okay, we've reduced it down to a simple difference I think, over the modern scientific method (or a specific branch of empirical logic). I hate to leave a discussion unfinished, but from past experience I know that that's another whole can of worms, and I myself can't articulate my own opinions satisfactorily when it comes to there. I hope you won't think it rude of me to leave it there (after all, it is getting off topic).

 

And while I maintain that I strongly disagree with rn, there's no need to flame him guys.

[random n00b]

Aw, man. Just when it was starting to get good.

 

And now, back to our regularly scheduled hating.

[Musopticon?]

Don't worry, random, I still hate you!