Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2

[Living One]

No, I don't see any problem with a writer not enjoying combat in a videogame. She's a writer. She's not a designer.

Good videogame writers use gameplay as much as,if not more than exposition.To make a player feel like he's lost in a huge,wondrous dungeon you make a huge,wondrous dungeon.

You don't put a dwarf and some cut-scene to make a big deal about the corridor you are '''''exploring'''''.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[qloher]

And I can't believe you guys defend bioware.

They obviously have some fans, their games still sell in the millions.

And why are they here? Obviously bioware makes the kind of games they need. And obviously they like their writing style. Why the need to tell every other cRPG developer have the same style?

Again, I'm sorry and I'm asking for your forgiveness, but Obsidian is actually my favourite RPG developer ever. I guess this has something to do with my presence here...

You certainly don't showcase that.

 

@Merin I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that.

Well, neither do you. The thread derailed into a conversation about BioWare now, logically we are not speaking about Obsidian.

Or maybe in your mind BioWare hate somehow automatically equals Obsidian love? This line of thought is fundamentally flawed I should say.

[Amentep]

People can be fans of more than one thing.

 

Do you guys really enjoying mocking people so much?

 

We've got to do something for the next two years.

 

Yeah, I think this is pretty much it.

 

To be fair, there's only so far anyone can discuss a subject and most of us probably feel little urge to restate the things we already said. Give us all a few days to get our wind back and I'm sure we'll be going at it again and debating the pros and cons of video game storytelling and the capacity of same to handle long term character development and characterization while utilizing a multi-party framework while also not detracting from the overall goal of the story which is to have a party of 6 whack the fool out of their enemies.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Amentep

[Merin]

People can be fans of more than one thing.

 

Do you guys really enjoying mocking people so much?

 

We've got to do something for the next two years.

I for one enjoy having my posts deleted.

 

Well, not really.

 

It probably wouldn't happen if you attacked the problem and not the people.

 

For example -

 

I absolutely, one-hundred percent agree that having tons of threads demanding all companions be romanceable in all sexualities is something that is not productive for any forum and having that here would be bad, and it is one of, if not the, biggest problem at BSN.

 

You can easily address that issue without name-calling people, or blanket-asserting that everyone from BSN or everyone who likes romance in a game wants that.

 

And, you know, picture-spam assaults on people - probably also not likely to stay posted.

 

---

 

If it matters to you, and it may well not, I usually enjoy reading what you write.

[Grimlorn]

And I can't believe you guys defend bioware.

They obviously have some fans, their games still sell in the millions.

And why are they here? Obviously bioware makes the kind of games they need. And obviously they like their writing style. Why the need to tell every other cRPG developer to have the same style?

Bioware doesn't give them enough romance. They want more.

[kenup]

And I can't believe you guys defend bioware.

They obviously have some fans, their games still sell in the millions.

And why are they here? Obviously bioware makes the kind of games they need. And obviously they like their writing style. Why the need to tell every other cRPG developer have the same style?

Again, I'm sorry and I'm asking for your forgiveness, but Obsidian is actually my favourite RPG developer ever. I guess this has something to do with my presence here...

You certainly don't showcase that.

 

@Merin I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that.

Well, neither do you. The thread derailed into a conversation about BioWare now, logically we are not speaking about Obsidian.

Or maybe in your mind BioWare hate somehow automatically equals Obsidian love? This line of thought is fundamentally flawed I should say.

I didn't say anything about Obsidian; and I do like a lot of their writing decisions. You are the one wanting Bioware "romances"(Ugh, I said it again!), defend their writers, when numerous people have illustrated why they are bad writers, and take anything we say as "hating", when we are just being objective. Then you tell me that Obsidian is your favourite company and expect me to not doubt that?

[Amentep]

 

I absolutely, one-hundred percent agree that having tons of threads demanding all companions be romanceable in all sexualities is something that is not productive for any forum and having that here would be bad, and it is one of, if not the, biggest problem at BSN.

 

 

To be fair, the anti-romance crowd is just demanding all companions be romanceable in all sexualities that don't include the PC (however the PC is defined).

[Merin]

@Pshaw I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that. Same if you can't see the wrong in not liking Tolkien's books but loving the movies and understand what a fangirl or fanboy is.

 

I hate Tolkien's books. HATE.

 

And I love the movies... despite the books.

 

I also disliked Watchmen, the graphic novel, but loved Watchmen, the movie. Same with V for Vendetta. Though, to give Alan Moore some credit, I actually really enjoyed LoEG, the graphic novels, and the movie was pretty bad.

 

I also think there's too much combat in most games. I think L.A. Noire would have been a better game without the gun fights and car chases. I've played Blade Runner quite a few times without ever drawing my gun outside of the shooting range and the one scene you are forced to fight in.

 

It's odd to advocate no combat in a sword & sorcery kind of game, true... and what's the point of classes if not for combat (they are almost exclusively designed to give "personality" or "flavor" to how your character acts in combat and nothing else, in D&D-esque RPGs at the very least.)

 

But it's not odd to like video games with no combat in it.

 

Your statement and argument are too broad.

 

Someone writing dialog and characters for a game doesn't have to like combat, regardless of what's in the game. Just like I can write religious characters in a story, or play a paladin or cleric in a video game or table top game, and STILL be an atheist in real life.

 

Her job isn't designing combat encounters or combat mechanics. She doesn't have to like combat.

 

This problem with her is far more about the people complaining than it is about her.

[FlintlockJazz]

No, I don't see any problem with a writer not enjoying combat in a videogame. She's a writer. She's not a designer. She doesn't want things to break the flow of her story anymore than a novelist would want you to have to run a quarter mile in between chapters. Quite simply put she's a part of a team and it's her job to write and others put together the game. I'm sure if she had complete control over a game it would be more like Heavy Rain however since ME3 clearly was not Heavy Rain I'm not sure how much her personal preferences mattered in terms of affecting the development of the game.

 

The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making.

 

That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Not to sway too far out of the topic of conversation but I feel the David Gaider Twilight thing needs to be clarified a little:

 

Does Dave Gaider really like Twilight?

David Gaider's words to describe Twilight can largely be condensed into a begrudging admiration of the success it seems to have gotten, and a professional assessment of what exactly causes it's wide-spread appeal. The poor man didn't quite realise that the wide-spread appeal was due to the fact that a large number of readers were idealistic love-struck vampire lovers or just.... Uh... Not quite right. He doesn't really express "like" for the book series, so much as a professional interest.

 

Whatever opinions he has on Twilight, I consider Gaider an alright writer, not one of the best in the industry but, in my opinion, he's one of the best that Bioware currently has. I will never be able to hate the man, he created one of my favourite companions and the only "romance" that I, personally, have ever truly enjoyed from Bioware. Of course, that success was largely before Bioware's "mainstream" appeal.

 

The topic of Gaider's writing abilities is subjective and all my opinion, of course, but the supposed "love" of Twilight is neither subjective, nor is it accurate.

 

Sorry for dancing relatively off-topic.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Sylvanpyxie

[kenup]

@Pshaw I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that. Same if you can't see the wrong in not liking Tolkien's books but loving the movies and understand what a fangirl or fanboy is.

 

I hate Tolkien's books. HATE.

 

And I love the movies... despite the books.

 

I also disliked Watchmen, the graphic novel, but loved Watchmen, the movie. Same with V for Vendetta. Though, to give Alan Moore some credit, I actually really enjoyed LoEG, the graphic novels, and the movie was pretty bad.

 

I also think there's too much combat in most games. I think L.A. Noire would have been a better game without the gun fights and car chases. I've played Blade Runner quite a few times without ever drawing my gun outside of the shooting range and the one scene you are forced to fight in.

 

It's odd to advocate no combat in a sword & sorcery kind of game, true... and what's the point of classes if not for combat (they are almost exclusively designed to give "personality" or "flavor" to how your character acts in combat and nothing else, in D&D-esque RPGs at the very least.)

 

But it's not odd to like video games with no combat in it.

 

Your statement and argument are too broad.

 

Someone writing dialog and characters for a game doesn't have to like combat, regardless of what's in the game. Just like I can write religious characters in a story, or play a paladin or cleric in a video game or table top game, and STILL be an atheist in real life.

 

Her job isn't designing combat encounters or combat mechanics. She doesn't have to like combat.

 

This problem with her is far more about the people complaining than it is about her.

I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.

 

And no Hepler doesn't have to like combat. But a) she doesn't want reduced combat, she wants a "Skip gameplay(which includes combat)" button, b) she is writing for a game that includes combat as a game mechanic, so whether she likes it or not she has to write stories making that combat meaningful and lastly c) DA2 had you murder at least half the Canadian population, so I don't see her not liking combat made the games any better on that respect.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[Monte Carlo]

Hepler was either naive or was pushing flamebait with those comments.

[Amentep]

No, I don't see any problem with a writer not enjoying combat in a videogame. She's a writer. She's not a designer. She doesn't want things to break the flow of her story anymore than a novelist would want you to have to run a quarter mile in between chapters. Quite simply put she's a part of a team and it's her job to write and others put together the game. I'm sure if she had complete control over a game it would be more like Heavy Rain however since ME3 clearly was not Heavy Rain I'm not sure how much her personal preferences mattered in terms of affecting the development of the game.

 

The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making.

 

That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

 

I'd also make an argument that as a writer, its part of your job to understand the media you're working for and making your writing fit the medium. This is why novelists don't always make the best choice to script the movie based on their book; you have to be able to shift gears and understand how the medium you're writing for works.

 

To pull this back to the topic of romance, I think this illustrates the way romances are perceived as a problem; it has to do with different views of what the medium is capable of and how it can (or fails to) handle certain elements of drama (then filtered through the scope of the game and its design and then lastly just personal preferences).

Edited October 19, 2012 by Amentep

[Merin]

The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making.

 

That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

 

Okay, I can agree with most of that. With at least the minor caveat that most games allow you to easily skip dialog and cut scenes to get right back to fighting.

 

I don't think a "skip combat" button would be bad in certain games (wouldn't many here want a "skip romance" button?) but it would have to be a feature that takes into consideration many factors, and for some games it would be more hassle than it's worth.

 

Let me give you a good example of this, however -

 

Medieval Total War. A combo turn-based and real-time strategy game series. Those games you can choose to just play the big strategy and not the battle tactics. Every time a combat happens you can let the computer resolve it by the click of a button.

 

Another example, part way at least. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade and Dawn of War: Soulstorm. They are RTS's. When enemies attack your territories you control you can have the computer auto-resolve the battle.

 

Now those aren't cRPG's, yes, but the concept can be the same. In reaching a broader audience (and a different section than what overlaps the FPS crowd) role-playing games have attracted players who are more interested in story and dialog than in fighting. You have to acknowledge it, even if you won't "accept" it (though you should accept it.) And with that crowd come people who want the interactive story and the creation of their character but NOT the endless waves of combat encounters.

 

It's a valid viewpoint. A bit different than traditional, perhaps...

but game genres evolve over time.

 

cRPG's used to be text-based, build your entire party, dungeon crawls. There didn't used to be recruitable companions, and story didn't use to be a focus. Choice depended on what classes, spells and weapons you chose and that was it. And combat was turn-based.

There was resistance to the inclusion of pre-made characters. There was resistance to story-focus, dialog options, and choices in the game for different results. You got real time (with pause option) combat.

But most people here love IE games. And almost all those changes are key to IE games.

But there are still people who'd prefer turn-based. Dungeon crawling. Making your own party. Less story and more combat and dungeon crawling.

 

And now there are cRPG players who want LESS combat and MORE story.

 

Different strokes.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Merin

[qloher]

And I can't believe you guys defend bioware.

They obviously have some fans, their games still sell in the millions.

And why are they here? Obviously bioware makes the kind of games they need. And obviously they like their writing style. Why the need to tell every other cRPG developer have the same style?

Again, I'm sorry and I'm asking for your forgiveness, but Obsidian is actually my favourite RPG developer ever. I guess this has something to do with my presence here...

You certainly don't showcase that.

 

@Merin I already wrote my thoughts about Hepler. If you can't see wrong with someone hating combat in video games, while working on those kinds of games, nothing I say will change that.

Well, neither do you. The thread derailed into a conversation about BioWare now, logically we are not speaking about Obsidian.

Or maybe in your mind BioWare hate somehow automatically equals Obsidian love? This line of thought is fundamentally flawed I should say.

I didn't say anything about Obsidian; and I do like a lot of their writing decisions. You are the one wanting Bioware "romances"(Ugh, I said it again!), defend their writers, when numerous people have illustrated why they are bad writers, and take anything we say as "hating", when we are just being objective. Then you tell me that Obsidian is your favourite company and expect me to not doubt that?

I don't want "BioWare romances" whatever this even supposed to mean. I want just romances. If we look at the full list of Obsidian's games released so far we will find out there are more games with romances than without them in that list. Should we incorporate a term "Obsidian romances" or something?

Also good luck with being "objective" about the art category, that's pretty wrong and I'm not going to go there any further.

Also feel free to bash BioWare's Mac Walters and Casey Hudson, those I'm not going to protect at all in any situation.

[Merin]

 

I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.

 

 

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore?

 

I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion.

[jarpie]

The 'problem' I have with her comment is that it is indicative of the problem in general with Bioware games: the parts of the game seem to be unconnected with each other. RPGs really need to have each part of the game influence each other, the dialogue needs to influence the combat and both need to be influenced by the same stats for instance. Bioware games have increasingly segregated the dialogue and combat to the point that you can be using blood magic in front of an entire city and no one seems to mention it in conversation. The writers should be working with the designers and those implementing the combat mechanics to make sure everything works and makes sense in the world they are building, for instance TNO's ability to switch classes was written into Planescape's story as his using his 'forgetfulness' and even justified questlines and the like. If you are able to skip combat to get straight to the dialogue or vice versa with no impact then something is wrong with the RPG you're supposed to be making.

 

That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

 

Okay, I can agree with most of that. With at least the minor caveat that most games allow you to easily skip dialog and cut scenes to get right back to fighting.

 

I don't think a "skip combat" button would be bad in certain games (wouldn't many here want a "skip romance" button?) but it would have to be a feature that takes into consideration many factors, and for some games it would be more hassle than it's worth.

 

Let me give you a good example of this, however -

 

Medieval Total War. A combo turn-based and real-time strategy game series. Those games you can choose to just play the big strategy and not the battle tactics. Every time a combat happens you can let the computer resolve it by the click of a button.

 

Another example, part way at least. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade and Dawn of War: Soulstorm. They are RTS's. When enemies attack your territories you control you can have the computer auto-resolve the battle.

 

Now those aren't cRPG's, yes, but the concept can be the same. In reaching a broader audience (and a different section than what overlaps the FPS crowd) role-playing games have attracted players who are more interested in story and dialog than in fighting. You have to acknowledge it, even if you won't "accept" it (though you should accept it.) And with that crowd come people who want the interactive story and the creation of their character but NOT the endless waves of combat encounters.

 

It's a valid viewpoint. A bit different than traditional, perhaps...

but game genres evolve over time.

 

cRPG's used to be text-based, build your entire party, dungeon crawls. There didn't used to be recruitable companions, and story didn't use to be a focus. Choice depended on what classes, spells and weapons you chose and that was it. And combat was turn-based.

There was resistance to the inclusion of pre-made characters. There was resistance to story-focus, dialog options, and choices in the game for different results. You got real time (with pause option) combat.

But most people here love IE games. And almost all those changes are key to IE games.

But there are still people who'd prefer turn-based. Dungeon crawling. Making your own party. Less story and more combat and dungeon crawling.

 

And now there are cRPG players who want LESS combat and MORE story.

 

Different strokes.

 

There always have been cRPGs which are story-based and with recruitable companions, such as Ultimas 4-7 and for example also Ambermoon and Amberstar had recruitable companions. Did you ever play Goldbox-games? They were also pretty storydriven so it's not just something what Fallout and IE-games brought.

Edited October 19, 2012 by jarpie

[kenup]

I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.

 

 

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore?

 

I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion.

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is. And yes it is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. You don't see a biologist worth their weight disapproving of the Evolution Theory, do you? I don't comment on the other books/movies because I don't care about them, the conversation wasn't about them.

 

With you people everyone should deserve the same respect, no matter how wrong their arguments in a debate, or their lack of knowledge and/or experience on the matter. Except from the anti-romance-minigames team, we are Ebil!

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[Dostro89]

DA:O did romance well for the most part I think. You had to get the characters to like you, there was depth and feeling to it. And not everyone was a romance option just because and not everyone was open to any type of relationship. Your relationship also changed, evolved a character and it wasnt just about the sex scene.

 

DA2 on the other hand.... worst romance in a game I've seen yet. Everyone was open for anything, it was shallow and cheesy.

 

I want a romance option, I dont want everyone romancable, I want there to be meaning behind it and not just hey they worlds ending wanna have sex

[Living One]

I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.

 

 

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore?

 

I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion.

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is. And yes it is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. You don't see a biologist worth their weight not approving of the Evolution Theory, do you? I don't comment on the other books/movies because I don't care about them, the conversation wasn't about them.

 

With you people everyone should deserve the same respect, no matter how wrong their arguments in a debate, or their knowledge and experience on the matter. Except from the anti-romance-minigames team, we are Ebil!

Welcome to the 'political correctness at all costs because otherwise thin-skins get sad' age,I'm afraid.

[Merin]

There always have been cRPGs which are story-based and with recruitable companions, such as Ultimas 4-7 and for example also Ambermoon and Amberstar had recruitable companions. Did you ever play Goldbox-games? They were also pretty storydriven so it's not just something what Fallout and IE-games brought.

 

I love the Gold Box engine and most of SSI's cRPG's! Wizard's Crown is a favorite of mine. I usually list either Pool of Radiance or Pools of Darkness (to represent the entire series) as one of my favorite cRPG's, if not games, of all time.

 

They had a plot in the background, and some of the later entries (specifically thinking of the Savage Frontiers duo) made strides to incorporating story into the gameplay...

but the Gold Box games were tactical turn-based combat first, second and third... with the background story adding color to the combats you were having.

 

I'm not knocking them... without that story I'd probably not have replayed the games so many times. A less story-focused game, like Phantasie or Bard's Tale, it is harder to motivate me through the endless random encounters. So SSI does shine a bit brighter than others at it's time.

 

But you can't compare integrated story of Baldur's Gate or PS:T to what counted as "story" back in the Gold Box era. I mean, it took Wasteland to finally REALLY show what story in a cRPG could be.

[kenup]

I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.

 

 

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore?

 

I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion.

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is. And yes it is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. You don't see a biologist worth their weight not approving of the Evolution Theory, do you? I don't comment on the other books/movies because I don't care about them, the conversation wasn't about them.

 

With you people everyone should deserve the same respect, no matter how wrong their arguments in a debate, or their knowledge and experience on the matter. Except from the anti-romance-minigames team, we are Ebil!

Welcome to the 'political correctness at all costs because otherwise thin-skins get sad' age,I'm afraid.

I was going to say something about that, but neither do I want to get banned, at least not for politics, nor do I want to turn it into a debate about politics.

[jarpie]

Is there any way to check if I'm being ignored by someone?

[ravenshrike]

I actually get why people dislike her, but I liked her because I could relate more to her than Morrigan and Leiliana. Morrigan is a witch from the woods who doesn't know what she wants., and Leilana is off her trolly thinking the Maker talks through her and that's why she doesn't have to make sense. Right, well, at least I understand Anora. Also, hot queen? Yes please.

In fairness to Morrigan she was raised by a female version of Emporer Palpatine to specifically be weak-willed and undecisive when it comes to her own personal wants. That was the entire base of her character arc.

[Merin]

I'm not gonna comment on Tolkien, or the other books to movies transitions.

 

 

Because everyone must love Tolkien or Moore?

 

I hope you aren't implying that a dislike of Tolkien is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion.

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is. And yes it is a serious cause for discrediting a person's opinion. You don't see a biologist worth their weight not approving of the Evolution Theory, do you? I don't comment on the other books/movies because I don't care about them, the conversation wasn't about them.

 

With you people everyone should deserve the same respect, no matter how wrong their arguments in a debate, or their lack of knowledge and/or experience on the matter. Except from the anti-romance-minigames team, we are Ebil!

 

"You people." That's a good start.

 

Comparing taste in fiction to scientific theory is kind of like comparing favorite colors to determining how many apples are in a basket.

 

One is subjective, the other is objective.

 

One is personal opinion, the other is empirical fact.

 

That aside...

 

I love Peter Jackon's style in making film. He took a dreadfully boring, trite, and egotistical travelogue (from an etymologist who was just upset that people wouldn't accept his perfect language he had constructed so he made a fantasy world where the most perfect race spoke his most perfect language) and made it into an enjoyable, beautiful, moving film.

 

The only way I got through reading Tolkien was by taking it on the train in Chicago, and having that or talking to homeless people as my trip to work every day.

 

Tolkien wasn't a good writer, as far as I'm concerned. His books are nigh-unreadable.

 

---

 

Opinion on Tolkien aside, you can't just gauge someone's ability to judge good literature or reading comprehension because they dislike one fantasy series of books.

 

I much prefer Neil Gaiman or Douglas Adams, or if I'm itching for something more "classic", I'll go with John Milton, Beowulf, Homer or Gilgamesh.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Merin