WoW vs WAR

[Synge]

This thread has two main purposes:
1)To provoke a Debate about WoW vs the upcoming MMO WAR
-Differences, superiority, etc
2)To brag about my guild (WAR)

Anyone self respecting idiot reading this forum knows what WoW is but in case you have been completely ignorant of the PC gaming World for the past 2 years allow me to elaborate on WAR.

Wahammer Age of Reckoning (WAR) is an MMORPG that will be a game mainly focused on PvP action. Much of what you know as WoW was taken from WAR lore and there are some similarities in the game but the differences largely out weigh them. There are still two playable factions in WAR but only 6 races. The difference here is that While WoW has 8 universal classes WAR has 24 "carrers" and each race has 4 of these belonging exclusively to it. Discuss away.

If anyone reading this is curious about WAR and what a WAR guild is like, the guild i am in Vendetta is counted as one of the top guilds atm in closed beta. We encouraged unity and love to have people who arent even in beta as long as they are still excited about the game. Visit vendettaguild.net to learn more about us :grin:

http://www.vendettaguild.net/arcadiea/Vendetta%20Sigs/Synge.jpg

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

/yawn.

Like seriously. When WAR actually comes out, people either will be motivated to buy it and try it out or not. People will either be motivated to play it, and keep playing it or not. Right now, there is no WoW vs WAR. There is WoW. WAR isn't out, there is no "vs". Come back after the game is released. Better yet, take it to the off-topic forum...

[Synge]

/yawn.

Like seriously. When WAR actually comes out, people either will be motivated to buy it and try it out or not. People will either be motivated to play it, and keep playing it or not. Right now, there is no WoW vs WAR. There is WoW. WAR isn't out, there is no "vs". Come back after the game is released. Better yet, take it to the off-topic forum...


Ummm. If you knew even just two of the sites for WAR and took 10 mins to not be so ignorant you would find everything and...whats this? a database of movies about the game on the warhammeronline website! omg!:shocked:

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Ummm. If you knew even just two of the sites for WAR and took 10 mins to not be so ignorant you would find everything and...whats this? a database of movies about the game on the warhammeronline website! omg!:shocked:

Is it launched? Let me check. Nope. Not yet. There is no WAR yet. There is maybe a Beta, but it isn't released. Therefore, there is no "vs" -- the game isn't out. Can you comprehend that?

Or how about this -- how many paying subscriptions are there for WoW? 10+ million worldwide. How about for WAR? 0 -- because it hasn't been released yet.

[Synge]

THis is supposed to be a discussion of ideas and features of WAR compared to wow. I dont see how you would not be able to do such.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

THis is supposed to be a discussion of ideas and features of WAR compared to wow. I dont see how you would not be able to do such.

this is supposed to be a forum to discuss general WoW topics, not WAR. If you wanna talk about WAR, maybe you should have put this in the Off-Topic forum.

Your topic fails on many levels for me. One, as much as I love Warhammer Fantasy, WAR totally looks so completely unappealing, it isn't funny. There just is nothing I have seen, read, or heard about it that has changed my position on it. I'm of the crowd that says "I'll wait until after it launches... maybe even a year or two after it does, and I'll see where it stands then".

But this isn't a topic for General WoW discussions. It is Off-Topic.

[SSH83]

IMO, Warhammer Online will be worth playing for the experience, since they're putting in quite a handful of interesting things. Will it replace WoW? I highly doubt it. WoW is like... Coke Classic. Ther are other softdrinks and they're all tastey in their own ways, but did Coke every die? Nope.

[jschild]

WoW is a game with VERY broad appeal to cater to people who want a wide variety of choices of what they want to do.

WAR supposedly will be primarily Realm PvP.

That said, until I see some reviews I really couldn't give a damn about it.

It will either be good or it won't.

Regardless, it will not put a dent into WoW since its focus is so much smaller.

Look at how many people played DaoC. Best Realm PvP ever implemented in a game as far as I know. How many millions played it? Oh thats right, it never had a million active subscribers.

Again, that being said, hopefully WAR will be able to live up to DaoC.

[Kodonn]

This thread has two main purposes:
1)To provoke a Debate about WoW vs the upcoming MMO WAR
-Differences, superiority, etc

Why would you want to try and debate 2 topics on such uneven terms? WoW has been out for 3 (?) years now and has over 10 million subscribers. "Wahammer" [sic] is still in closed beta. That's like comparing the Thanksgiving feast that my grandmother prepares to...this typed up menu from the cafe down the street that hasn't openned up yet. :wink:

2)To brag about my guild (WAR)
Since this forum is more or less dedicated to WoW, I think you're shopping in the wrong aisle.

Anyone self respecting idiot reading this forum knows what WoW is but in case you have been completely ignorant of the PC gaming World for the past 2 years allow me to elaborate on WAR.
TIP: If you're going to use the word ignorant in a sentence (and direct it at other people), you should proof read your posts before saving. Or did you really intend to direct that statement at just "one self-respecting idiot"? :grin:

Much of what you know as WoW was taken from WAR lore and there are some similarities in the game but the differences largely out weigh them.
"I thought much of what I know as WoW" was taken from the WarCraft PC game series lore (which has been around for quite some time), but thanks for clearing that up.

If anyone reading this is curious about WAR and what a WAR guild is like, the guild i am in Vendetta is counted as one of the top guilds atm in closed beta.
Okay...again..I hate to be picky, and I'm sure it is a great guild, but....it's a closed beta !!!!! I've never played in beta before, so maybe I'm mistaken and there are thousands of players all in there. But it seems to me that it's a bit like me bragging that I graduated in the top 10 of my class...........of 12 ? :ponder:

[Lothaer]

Warhammer, isnt that some tabletop game invented in England???

quite seriously i dont give a damn about a game that isnt even out yet.

here try this goto google and search WAR, you get a list of pages to do with the various wars ie WWi, WWII, Vietnam etc.

now go and search WoW and every single page listed has something to do with World of Warcraft.

ok lets broaden the search go google Wahammer Age of Reckoning, youll find the offical (?) link and some youtube links etc, now search World of Warcraft lol.

also worth noticing that supposedly the WAR release date is Q4 08, thats also the speculated release date of WotLK, good luck getting numbers then ROFL.

rant over have a nice day.

[Naolin]

Tbh Warhammer combat feels sluggish and the animations don't seem to work (at least in my opinion), ofcourse the game is in beta and all could change in the comming months. Who cares if it kills WoW anyways? (it won't btw incase you where wondering about that) It will get its players, WoW will keep a lot of theirs everyone will be happy (and flaming eachother for not playing their games, but that always happens with every game.)

[Mincemaker]

If you want to compare WoW with WAR, wait till WAR is out, then wait for someone to reach end game and experience it for another month or two, then we should have enough data to compare with WoW.

As of now, not many people has experienced WAR except the beta-testers so we can't make a fair comparison.

Call back one month or two after WAR is released.

[todhus]

Well, I must say there is already lots of information around regarding WAR. It is just scattered all over the Internet.

*I just found this site that gives a good overview of WoW compared to WAR (http://wow-vs-war.com/)

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

People can make whatever comparisons they may or may not want, but since WAR is not released yet, it makes no difference. When WAR gets released, let's see how it matches up.

[Mincemaker]

Well, I must say there is already lots of information around regarding WAR. It is just scattered all over the Internet.

*I just found this site that gives a good overview of WoW compared to WAR (http://wow-vs-war.com/)

Does reading about Italy, which you have never visited, means you know it as well as, say, England, which you had visited? Does that mean you can properly compare England with Italy?

I think not. Just knowing is not the same as experiencing it first hand.

[Turonx]

People can make whatever comparisons they may or may not want, but since WAR is not released yet, it makes no difference. When WAR gets released, let's see how it matches up.

I agree, thats like trying out two cakes without trying the other...but honestly i'll try it i'm not too sure i'll get into it though. One more thing i'm not saying this thread is such a good idea ( since WAr isn't out yet) but don't yell at the guy for this thread he just wants to know our opinions.:grin:

[todhus]

I think the site offers a good comparison of what people know so far. Of course it is not the time to completely make up your mind but the differences are already obvious and a lot of the new things like the Tome of Knowledge and what it does isn't hard to understand.

Mincemaker I agree just knowing is not as good as experiencing it first hand. But not knowing the differences is even worse.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

I agree, thats like trying out two cakes without trying the other...but honestly i'll try it i'm not too sure i'll get into it though. One more thing i'm not saying this thread is such a good idea ( since WAr isn't out yet) but don't yell at the guy for this thread he just wants to know our opinions.:grin:

My gripe was that it was placed in the completely wrong location. It had been moved now. This thread really should have been in Off-Topic the whole time.

[KottonmouthKing]

WAR doesn't look that appealing to me, looks like in some of the movies on their main website, the graphics aren't the best on somethings. I prefer WoW over WAR any day, plus you would have to start from scratch, and learn the whole basis of the game.

WoW Is just my game I guess.

[Turonx]

My gripe was that it was placed in the completely wrong location. It had been moved now. This thread really should have been in Off-Topic the whole time.

Yea I do agree with you there...and not to be mean but your asking about another MMORPG on a WOW site thats not the greatest place to ask which ones better WOW vs WAR your gonna get alot of crap. But again my bro reads the books and i've read 2 of them and there not THAT bad so i'll give the game a look but I highly doubt it will replace wow.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Yea I do agree with you there...and not to be mean but your asking about another MMORPG on a WOW site thats not the greatest place to ask which ones better WOW vs WAR your gonna get alot of crap. But again my bro reads the books and i've read 2 of them and there not THAT bad so i'll give the game a look but I highly doubt it will replace wow.

I have/play Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40k, and even have a bunch of the Bloodbowl stuff too. I tried the Warhammer Fantasy RPG out and got revolted by the mechanics of it, decided against it. I've also read a lot of the books. But in all honesty, there is nothing about WAR that appeals to me. Now, I know I'm a bit offset because my favorite Warhammer Fantasy race won't be playable (Skaven), but even accounting for that, there just is nothing even remotely appealing to me about the game.

[Mincemaker]

I am only looking forward to RvR. A massive, grand scale war in which territory ownership shifts back and forth sounds appealing, as long as those who are fighting it are not AV AFKers, Mr "We are going to lose!", Mr "I don't bloody give a damn about objective points, I'm gonna go rake in some kills!" or Mr "I want to lose quickly!". I swear, those guys kill PVP.

However, I'm not sure how they are going to address the issue of very high levels strolling into lower level zones and ruin the battle between two factions of low levels. Nothing is less fun than having a bunch of overlevelled gods coming in to turn the whole battle one sided and unplayable by low levels who are there to kill the other low level off.

[Turonx]

However, I'm not sure how they are going to address the issue of very high levels strolling into lower level zones and ruin the battle between two factions of low levels. Nothing is less fun than having a bunch of overlevelled gods coming in to turn the whole battle one sided and unplayable by low levels who are there to kill the other low level off.

Hmmm that does sound like a problem...but we've all seen those epic war movies/games that theres always one small group of ppl in a crowd and their so much more powerful/skilled then everybody else and their just ripping bodies while they break the enemy lines. What if there isn't any lvl's just great gear and weapons? Like everybody can die but its your skill that keeps you alive?

[Mincemaker]

Hmmm that does sound like a problem...but we've all seen those epic war movies/games that theres always one small group of ppl in a crowd and their so much more powerful/skilled then everybody else and their just ripping bodies while they break the enemy lines. What if there isn't any lvl's just great gear and weapons? Like everybody can die but its your skill that keeps you alive?

Though in actual warfare, all soldiers in the same faction are the same. Any strategic advantage is shared by the entire army. So it is never a team being so much better than the rest of them that they own everyone. Rather, it is the entire army owning the other army.

And when you speak of the small groups of people, those are the special cases. Either they are veterans leading their men, or they are Special Operatives. However, Special Operatives are never on the front line, they are usually behind the line sabotaging/assassinating the enemy.

[Turonx]

yea i've been researching on the game and it actually sounds hella fun I love the idea of taking a enemies land and and capital but I do think its stupid that you can't keep it. But it looks very interesting and I'll try it out I do hope it live to the expectations. one thing I do wonder is why limit the amount of players having a seige on a capital the more the bloodier and it would have to make the other faction actually try to get it back.

P.S. Don't worry it will never take WoW's place in my geekish heart

[Shellar]

WoW will eventually fade. That is true.

WAR however will not be its replacement. WAR is a replacement for Dark Age of Camelot.
The Force is strong with this one.

[Wartro]

http://www.notaddicted.com/node/173#comment-59

Warhammer = SnoreHammer ???
not sure. may be true may not be true

but I still feel the Community in Warhammer is worst then GW and WoW's Community.
and the gender restrictions on Classes Suck

Yea I do agree with you there...and not to be mean but your asking about another MMORPG on a WOW site thats not the greatest place to ask which ones better WOW vs WAR your gonna get alot of crap. But again my bro reads the books and i've read 2 of them and there not THAT bad so i'll give the game a look but I highly doubt it will replace wow.

I know Warcraft got the Orc vs Human thiing from Warhammer, but What else did Warcraft Lore get from Warhammer?

[Davemetalhead]

I know Warcraft got the Orc vs Human thiing from Warhammer, but What else did Warcraft Lore get from Warhammer?

Surely you could just as easily say that it got the Orc v Human thing from Tolkein rather than Warhammer ?

[bearbehind]

Surely you could just as easily say that it got the Orc v Human thing from Tolkein rather than Warhammer ?

Yea! Suffice to say warcraft didnt come up with orcs, but War didnt either. Hell the concept of green brutes probably predates LotR and even DND... Fantasy has been around in mulitple forms for decades - Fantasy universes just revise them a little each time.

All these races are almost certainly based on folklore anyway...

[Wartro]

Yea! Suffice to say warcraft didnt come up with orcs, but War didnt either. Hell the concept of green brutes probably predates LotR and even DND... Fantasy has been around in mulitple forms for decades - Fantasy universes just revise them a little each time.

All these races are almost certainly based on folklore anyway...

ok so what did Warcraft get from Warhammer?

[elsegundo]

to say Warcraft got things from Warhammer is like saying ninjas came from Naruto.

[Mincemaker]

ok so what did Warcraft get from Warhammer?

When Warcraft I was first created, it was meant to be a strategy game based on Warhammer Fantasy. However, Blizzard didn't get the license and so tweaked their game to adapt to that. What did they get? Warcraft!

You can say Warhammer is the inspiration behind Warcraft. In fact, Starcraft is also heavily inspired by Warhammer 40k! See those Terrans Marines? They were based on the Space Marines. See the Zerg? They were based on Tyranids!

[Shellar]

Or you could say that both Blizzard and GW borrowed ideas from the same forebearers.

Orcs, Elves and Dwarves? Tolkien's Middle Earth.
Terran/Space Marines? Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Zerg and Tyranids? H.R.Giger's Alien.

[Mincemaker]

Or you could say that both Blizzard and GW borrowed ideas from the same forebearers.

Orcs, Elves and Dwarves? Tolkien's Middle Earth.
Terran/Space Marines? Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Zerg and Tyranids? H.R.Giger's Alien.

Though it is kinda known that Blizzard is a big fan of GW. And oh, btw, elves and dwarves were originally created by Nordic Mythology. And Starship Troopers is the pioneer of anything relating to powered armor.

[bearbehind]

I may be wrong - but i thought dwarves were inspired - by well dwarves....

*whispers* they do exist y'know.

[moopy]

And Starship Troopers is the pioneer of anything relating to powered armor.

Much the same way in which Ford invented the wheel, sure.


Oh, and too lazy to read the whole thread- did someone ask "what is it good for?", good god, y'all..

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Much the same way in which Ford invented the wheel, sure.

Starship Troopers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) originally came out in '59. In little rectangular format called "books".

I can't say whether or not it pioneered the mechanical armor or not, but it definitely made the idea popularized :grin:

/randomness

[semiiramiis]

http://www.notaddicted.com/node/173#comment-59


and the gender restrictions on Classes Suck



There are gender restrictions on class? That's pretty bad. One of the reasons why I chose wow is that it gave me the chance to play a female character. I certainly will not choose a game that does not allow that equally.

[Valas Azuviir]

Starship Troopers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) originally came out in '59. In little rectangular format called "books".

I can't say whether or not it pioneered the mechanical armor or not, but it definitely made the idea popularized :grin:

/randomness

It's no different from everyone saying that Tolkien is the grandfather of Fantasy, despite the fact that Lord Dunsany preceded him.

First mention of something that could be considered a powered exoskeleton would be the Lensman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman) series by E. E. Smith (which dates to the late 30s and 40s).

/More random trivia. :tongue:

There are gender restrictions on class? That's pretty bad. One of the reasons why I chose wow is that it gave me the chance to play a female character. I certainly will not choose a game that does not allow that equally.

There are some restrictions. Dark Elf males being allowed to pursue a career in the magical Arts is a deviation from the standard Lore for instance.

It's akin to only women being able to become a Bene Gesserit, which is an all female organization within the Dune universe.

The no female Orcs thing.. Well, the Orcs in 40k (sci-fi) reproduce asexually, by way of a type of fungus. While no explanation has been given for the Warhammer Fantasy Orcs, it is fairly safe to assume that the same applies to them. Hence, there being no females.

[Turonx]

To be born from a mushroom....yea that says it all.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

It's no different from everyone saying that Tolkien is the grandfather of Fantasy, despite the fact that Lord Dunsany preceded him.

First mention of something that could be considered a powered exoskeleton would be the Lensman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman) series by E. E. Smith (which dates to the late 30s and 40s).

/More random trivia. :tongue:

True enough, I would have brought up Lensmen, but I believe Starship Troopers is considered the book that ushered in the idea of military powered armor... it is far more well-known.

[Shellar]

There are gender restrictions on class? That's pretty bad. One of the reasons why I chose wow is that it gave me the chance to play a female character. I certainly will not choose a game that does not allow that equally.
You can play a female character in WAR, as long as she's not an Orc.
Just like you can play a male character in Diablo2, but not a male Amazon.

[moopy]

Starship Troopers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers) originally came out in '59. In little rectangular format called "books".


Really? I've never heard of those, I get all my information from daytime talk shows.

E.E. "Doc" Smith's rather ropey and dated "Lensman" series is the earliest mention of these ideas that I can recall, from the 1930s. Robert H. was a big fan of "Doc" and is on record as saying that he wishes that the series had a better ending, making it clear that he had read what was a hugely popular series at the time.

..for those of you who actually like sci-fi. I find most of it to be painfully poorly-written, barring Stanislaw Lem or PKD (possibly William Gibson too, on a good day). However, I know that scifi sells well to a certain market segment- even the turgid, stilted and impersonal prose of Isaac Asimov. Asimov wrote better textbooks than stories, amusingly. Hell, even Arthur C. Clarke was hugely popular- his characters make the two-dimensional "goody lawyers/baddy lawyers" of John Grisham seem positively Shakespearian.

There's a certain sort of person who will swallow any amount of this tripe, even going as far as the cringe-inducing jumped-up fanfic like the Star Wars and Halo books. Hell, some people even bought the Warcraft books, fanfic seems to be exempt from having to past muster on any grounds of quality. A less literate, usually teenage market still snaps this stuff up.

[semiiramiis]

Really? I've never heard of those, I get all my information from daytime talk shows.

E.E. "Doc" Smith's rather ropey and dated "Lensman" series is the earliest mention of these ideas that I can recall, from the 1930s. Robert H. was a big fan of "Doc" and is on record as saying that he wishes that the series had a better ending, making it clear that he had read what was a hugely popular series at the time.

..for those of you who actually like sci-fi. I find most of it to be painfully poorly-written, barring Stanislaw Lem or PKD (possibly William Gibson too, on a good day). However, I know that scifi sells well to a certain market segment- even the turgid, stilted and impersonal prose of Isaac Asimov. Asimov wrote better textbooks than stories, amusingly. Hell, even Arthur C. Clarke was hugely popular- his characters make the two-dimensional "goody lawyers/baddy lawyers" of John Grisham seem positively Shakespearian.

There's a certain sort of person who will swallow any amount of this tripe, even going as far as the cringe-inducing jumped-up fanfic like the Star Wars and Halo books. Hell, some people even bought the Warcraft books, fanfic seems to be exempt from having to past muster on any grounds of quality. A less literate, usually teenage market still snaps this stuff up.


Lol..even tho I indulge in writing wow fan fiction, as many of you already know..they can be found on this site in the thread conveniently labelled fan fiction... I must agree with this. You missed a few grevious offenders (Elizabeth Moon!) And reading Wow published fiction either makes me giggle or gives me heartburn. (Hmmm. it's a baby. Baby cows drink...milk. Baby wolves drink...milk. Baby everything else in existence drinks..milk. Ergo, baby orcs must...not drink milk? Takes a child to point out the obvious? Puhleeze! Could have been handled so much better and still gotten the desired effect.) The Lensmen series definitely reflects its era, and is worth a read just to see how far we've come. Even Heinlein was stilted and odd in the beginning, and we all know how far he went beyond that. I used to be a huge fantasy fan, but not so much now. It's often labored and hokey. My personal favorite author of the moment is S.M. Stirling. (Not for young audiences, please!) Forget the books he wrote with Anne McCaffery, because his dark and gritty style clashes abominably with hers. And remember always, his work suffers as the series go on. On that note, I tremendously suggest Island in the Sea of Time. This one comes before he lets himself go mad with the Cast of Thousands mentality that comes in the third book of the series. Ditto with Marching Through Georgia. Both would have been great as stand alone books, read their sequels with a grain of salt.

[moopy]

semi,

You're clearly going to hell, or something :-) We all have our dirty little secrets..

Maybe you should try "Against the day" by Thomas Pynchon- a rambling surreal and occasionally infuriating novel with elements of sci-fi, fantasy and goodness knows what else, set in the late 19th century. By turns thriller, western or steampunk adventure, it scratched an itch that I didn't know I had.. not for people who like their books straightforward or tidy, however.. I wasn't sure if I actually hated it until I was halfway through- by then, I couldn't put the damn thing down.

Oh, and it contains the immortal line "trust me, I'm an osteopath".

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Really? I've never heard of those, I get all my information from daytime talk shows.

I still couldn't pass up that reference, it was not meant to be an insult, just a reference.

E.E. "Doc" Smith's rather ropey and dated "Lensman" series is the earliest mention of these ideas that I can recall, from the 1930s. Robert H. was a big fan of "Doc" and is on record as saying that he wishes that the series had a better ending, making it clear that he had read what was a hugely popular series at the time.

Like I said in a later response, Lensmen may have had the fist mention of powered armor/suits in Sci-Fi, but the idea of a military force using powered armor more or less was credited to Starship Troopers. So, in a sense, yes, Lensmen is the earliest known reference to powered armor, but Starship Troopers took that idea and made it fit in a military environment, has honestly been far more popular for a far longer time period than Lensmen was.

Now, I do like a number of Sci-Fi and Fantasy works, and I'll agree there are some real bad ones out there too. But there is a lot of real intriguing ideas and possibilities which are thrown in, many of which helped plant seeds in invention and creativity in engineers for years, resulting in a lot of the direction that technology has gone. From the standpoint of observing how fiction has influenced society, it is quite intriguing to me.

[moopy]

I still couldn't pass up that reference, it was not meant to be an insult, just a reference.

It read as extraordinarily patronising. I'm quite aware of what a book is, though thanks for the kind elucidation :)

The problem of most science fiction being horribly written and thus appealing primarily to an audience with poorly-developed critical faculties isn't a new one. Sturgeon's law and all that. As Kingsley Amis put it:


"SF's no good!" they bellow till we're deaf.
"But this is good." "Well, then it's not SF."

[semiiramiis]

semi,

You're clearly going to hell, or something :-) We all have our dirty little secrets..

Maybe you should try "Against the day" by Thomas Pynchon- a rambling surreal and occasionally infuriating novel with elements of sci-fi, fantasy and goodness knows what else, set in the late 19th century. By turns thriller, western or steampunk adventure, it scratched an itch that I didn't know I had.. not for people who like their books straightforward or tidy, however.. I wasn't sure if I actually hated it until I was halfway through- by then, I couldn't put the damn thing down.

Oh, and it contains the immortal line "trust me, I'm an osteopath".

You're not the first person to predict my final resting place, and you're probably all right. And as Heinlein stated, "Beware of poets who read their works in public, they may have other nasty habits...."

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

It read as extraordinarily patronising. I'm quite aware of what a book is, though thanks for the kind elucidation :)

sorry, maybe this will help:


Mr. Koreander: The video arcade is down the street. Here we just sell small rectangular objects. They're called books. They require a little effort on your part, and make no bee-bee-bee-bee-beeps. On your way please.

I just somewhat butchered the quote... but it seemed to fit in a mildly humorous sort of way. I tend to use references like that, as more of a mild sense of humor than being rude, insulting, or patronizing.

The problem of most science fiction being horribly written and thus appealing primarily to an audience with poorly-developed critical faculties isn't a new one. Sturgeon's law and all that. As Kingsley Amis put it:

Well, like I said, I know there is some really bad sci-fi out there. But there's also a good amount of intriguing ideas and concepts... even more impressive is when some seemingly insane idea from a Science Fiction writer ends up becoming at least partially real. I mean, Isaac Asimov fantasized and wrote about humanoid robots decades ago, yet this fantastical idea of his seems to have taken form in reality... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO)

[jschild]

Many people confuse Science Fiction and Sci-Fi

There is a distinct difference and only the worst of book snobs try to confuse the two. That and many of the so-called classics suck. Many are amazing. But never, ever, assume something is good because a critic or some such said so. Take some time, and find what you like. I avoid fantasy like the plague because much of it is unoriginal but there are also many good books. Hell, I've even ran into alot of sci-fi that I like because it is fun.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Many people confuse Science Fiction and Sci-Fi

There is a distinct difference and only the worst of book snobs try to confuse the two. That and many of the so-called classics suck. Many are amazing. But never, ever, assume something is good because a critic or some such said so. Take some time, and find what you like. I avoid fantasy like the plague because much of it is unoriginal but there are also many good books. Hell, I've even ran into alot of sci-fi that I like because it is fun.

Ok, I'm confused then. What do you see as the distinction between Science Fiction and Sci-Fi. I think you're making a semantic argument there, but I'm curious all the same. For me, they are one in the same. Sci-Fi is simply an abbreviated form of Science Fiction as far as I know. It is merely a different, shorter spelling of the exact same genre.

For me, the stories are much like how J.R.R. Tolkien put it -- a melting pot of ideas, concepts, and stories from a wide variety of different cultural influences that each author draws from to make his or her own work, and then it all ends up back in that melting pot for the next author to use. Every supposed original idea presented in a book, could be traced back to before recorded history -- just mixed maybe a little differently with other ideas along the way. Making the argument that something is "unoriginal" seems like quibbling over details, and unimportant details. If the story is engrossing and holds my attention, I like it. If not, I tend to not read it.

Going back to tie this into the original topic of the thread, Warhammer and WarCraft are two different fantasy settings. Just because they might share certain elements, it does not imply that one is directly copied from the other -- even if one came out before the other. Warhammer, if memory serves, was drawn from the old Wargames that already had existed, mixing in the fantasy ideas presented through Dungeons & Dragons, to make a fantasy setting (D&D also was derived from the old Wargames, as well as drawing heavily from mythology and Lord of the Rings... Lord of the Rings was drawn from folktales and mythology itself).

WarCraft, meanwhile, had some similar ideas, drawing from the Real Time Strategy games, in Blizzard's particular creative and inventive style of taking something that already exists, and then make it better with polish. Did Warhammer influence WarCraft? Possibly. But then again, I'd also say that WarCraft has influenced Warhammer. Heck, D&D influenced WarCraft, and now WarCraft seems to be influencing the next iteration of D&D. None of this is one group "ripping off" ideas from another group. It is developers liking what other developers have done, and borrowing them, it is more of a homage to how how good a game or an idea is if other games/setting start mimicking parts of it (mimicry is the highest form of flattery). It is all part of the creative process, as new stories are pulled from the melting pot.

The same can be said about Warhammer 40K and StarCraft... even the "Aliens vs. Predator" comics, video games, or (shudder) movies... they present some similar ideas in all of that as well.

Some ideas are better than others, some not so much. But all of them are constantly growing, developing, maturing. Part of that maturing is that the people working on them incorporate what they feel works from other systems. It isn't begrudging anyone, or any other team to do this.

[semiiramiis]

"Creativity is hidding your sources."

Mark Rein-Hagen, guy who wrote the original Vampire: the Masquerade sourcebook and...

"There's nothing new under the sun...." Semii's mom.

Basically everything written is a derivation of something else. I cannot express how sad I was when my best friend drew the correlations between Clarimonde out of my Wow book and Anakin Skywalker. I can assure you nothing was farther from my intentions, but the point was still there. There are only so many stories...all cats are black in the dark.

[jschild]

Science Fiction is generally considered the more serious fiction, with "Hard" science fiction being a different layer that is heavily based on real science.

Sci-fi is what is generally referred to when speaking of action books, like star wars and similar books.

Contact, Ender's Game, Flowers for Algernon, etc are Science Fiction.

Star Wars books, Star Trek books, etc, that focus more on action and not story tend to be sci-fi.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

"Creativity is hidding your sources."

Mark Rein-Hagen, guy who wrote the original Vampire: the Masquerade sourcebook and...

heh

"There's nothing new under the sun...." Semii's mom.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 actually :)

Basically everything written is a derivation of something else. I cannot express how sad I was when my best friend drew the correlations between Clarimonde out of my Wow book and Anakin Skywalker. I can assure you nothing was farther from my intentions, but the point was still there. There are only so many stories...all cats are black in the dark.

Except for the ones that are gray.

Science Fiction is generally considered the more serious fiction, with "Hard" science fiction being a different layer that is heavily based on real science.

Sci-fi is what is generally referred to when speaking of action books, like star wars and similar books.

Contact, Ender's Game, Flowers for Algernon, etc are Science Fiction.

Star Wars books, Star Trek books, etc, that focus more on action and not story tend to be sci-fi.

Ok, interesting take on it, but it definitely leaves me with the distinct feeling of being a semantic argument. I'm curious what you'd define Frank Herbert's work as? Or even something like Stargate (which does tie in a lot of real scientific ideas, with a lot of fictional ones, and does focus on the science along with the action/adventure aspects)...

It does seem that your distinction is very much tied to the background and influences of the author. In some sense... it's almost like not seeing the forest for the trees... to use the colloquialism.

[Valas Azuviir]

E.E. "Doc" Smith's rather ropey and dated "Lensman" series is the earliest mention of these ideas that I can recall, from the 1930s. Robert H. was a big fan of "Doc" and is on record as saying that he wishes that the series had a better ending, making it clear that he had read what was a hugely popular series at the time.


By the looks of things, Heinlein was more than just a fan, and apparently also a friend. He's noted as being a frequent visitor to the Smith home, and was apparently told what Smith would do in the 7th novel, which Smith deemed unpublishable, because it dealt with certain subjects, which were and are still considered taboo (Heinlein had no such problems with the subject, as he himself did write about such things in his work).

*Look at the science fiction is not sci-fi comment* :ponder:

The latter is just an acronym for the former. Or are you referring to the differing sub-genres in Science Fiction?

---

And yup, looks like you're talking about the varying sub-genres.

[jschild]

It is an artificial distinction, but would you consider Gattaca (sp?) and Star Wars the same kinds of movie? One deals heavily in idea's while the other deals in action. There is tons of what I and others refer to as scifi. Science Fiction is a much smaller segment of the market. Is it better? That's up to the readers but there is def more bad sci-fi than bad science fiction (due to market makeup).

Dune I would easily consider science fiction.

Stargate the movie is easily sci-fi. I cannot judge the TV series as I never really watched it. Saw a few episodes and never really got into it. Was it a book first? Clueless there, sorry.

The distinction is mostly this - Is it just dressed up action with different weapons and bad guys? or does it deal with real ideas and alternatives?

he latter is just an acronym for the former. Or are you referring to the differing sub-genres in Science Fiction?


More different sub-genres. My comments are more colored by Harlan Ellison's distinctions of Science Fiction and Sci-fI (Big fan of his) but I do not share his hostility towards sci-fi. I love Peter David and buy every book he writes. Is it deep reading? No, but it is hella fun and I love it. Not every book I read has to be something "deep". I like to mix and match :)

Bottom line is, read what you like.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

The distinction is mostly this - Is it just dressed up action with different weapons and bad guys? or does it deal with real ideas and alternatives?

Ok, then explain Star Trek, which was, in many ways, a platform for Roddenberry to promote his particular political ideas and show them to his audience. There was a *lot* of real-world situations placed in Star Trek, and given a futuristic wrapper for attractiveness.

I think you are confusing the abbreviation version of the exact same genre, with various sub-genres within it, like Valas pointed out.

More different sub-genres. My comments are more colored by Harlan Ellison's distinctions of Science Fiction and Sci-fI (Big fan of his) but I do not share his hostility towards sci-fi. I love Peter David and buy every book he writes. Is it deep reading? No, but it is hella fun and I love it. Not every book I read has to be something "deep". I like to mix and match :)

Bottom line is, read what you like.

It is still a semantic argument, and making a distinction/separation between different sub-genres that fall under the Science Fiction genre. Dune is extremely oriented on action in large sections of the series, for example. Making a distinction between Science Fiction and Sci-Fi, to me, would be like making a distinction between people named Jonathan and people named Jon. Separating out distinctions in personality, appearance, etc between the two... when the names themselves are irrelevant to this. Heck, Jon is an abbreviation of Jonathan (but doesn't necessarily have to be, I know).

Science Fiction, or Sci-Fi is a rather wide-spread and encompassing genre in literature, movies, and games. It is an umbrella grouping, of sorts, of a variety of different sub-genres, which tends to have (but does not need to be the focus of) science that has been extended to fictional (not currently real) ends. It can be grounded in real scientific theory, or just made up on the spot. Often, this is set in a futuristic kind of setting, but it can also be present-day, or even the past. The fantastical "super science" can be a focal point, or just a plot device or some other, relatively minor aspect of the work.

[jschild]

Star Trek fluctuates alot. Much of Star Trek is technobabble BS. But when it is good, it is really good. Star Trek (The Visitor, City on the Edge of Forever) can be very good fiction and it can be total crap (much of Voyager, random episodes, the whole Black/White episode from ToS). Taken as a whole, I would lean more towards sci-fi, due to the heavy reliance on technobabble to solve most of its problems.

Dune deals very heavily with politics and religion than action. There is action in it, but it serves a clearly defined goal in context of the story. If you take the politics and religion out, you have nothing.

If you look at alot of science fiction writers, you will see the ongoing arguement between what I've said. Many science fiction writers (in my sense of the word) hate being lumped in with sci-fi crowd, because they don't like the connation of bad sci-fi.

Just a few examples.....
http://las.livejournal.com/170894.html

http://louanders.blogspot.com/2005/03/science-fiction-vs-scifi.html

http://www.jvoegele.com/literarysf/scifi.html

Think of it this way. Just because it's in the future doesn't change a thing.
Making essentially a WW2 story but with lasers would be more "sci-fi"
Looking and extrapolating the future, doing real what ifs, expanding and exploring ideas with possible technologies in the future is more "science fiction".

Again, this is how some people look at the group, even expanding it some to include "Hard" science fiction, which means nothing that is impossible can be allowed. (Contact is a good example of this - Sagan actually went to the top physicists in the world to come up with a "possible" method of space travel since afawk there is no way to go faster than light.).

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Seems to smack of elitism, jschild.

[Valas Azuviir]

Have to agree with Xlorep on this one. It's a unnecessary distinction within the community itself. Just because there's a lot of quartz in the rough gemstones you've just found, doesn't make the sole diamond within them any less of a gemstone.

For every Philip Athans there's an Elaine Cunningham to reference two Fantasy authors.
And even within the Fantasy genre there are plenty of sub-genres, from Contemporary Fantasy (Harry Potter or Highlander) to Fairytale fantasies (Wizard of Oz or Peter Pan), Heroic Fantasy (Lord of the Rings, the Wheel of Time), Mythic Fiction (American Gods), Sword and Sorcery (Conan or Elric) and a lot of works belong to one or more genres at the same time at times as well.

Which is no different from certain sci-fi works. Starship Troopers is both space opera as it's military science fiction

[moopy]

*Look at the science fiction is not sci-fi comment* :ponder:

The latter is just an acronym for the former. Or are you referring to the differing sub-genres in Science Fiction?


Nope, the clue is in the reference to Sturgeon's Law. Also, the oft-repeated complaint that it's often judged by the worst examples. Sadly, this is something of a slippery argument as the distribution curve is badly skewed towards "worst examples", thus making it a fair method of appraisal.

However, there are people in this thread who are inspired by things as cringe-inducingly turgid as Tolkein or Star Trek (some of whom are probably even interested in the back story to video games too). Trying to discuss such things near them is probably a little too much like talking about cosmology around creationists :-)

(They'll be missing the point, and saying "but... but.. Tolkein is fantasy" right about now, bless. Let the screaming and whining begin)

[jschild]

Seems to smack of elitism, jschild.

Think moopy has the handle of "elitism" on this one here.

Some people do use the distinction, as I mentioned Harlan Ellison as an example. I don't but I do not clump the different styles together. There does tend to be 2 distinct styles of science fiction. Those that seek to seriously explore ideas (and or consequences of those ideas or technology) and those that like to have cool aliens and space ships.

To treat one as "lesser" is elitism however. They are different and have different goals. One tends to be more thought provoking and the other tends to be fun.

I love my fun books just as much as my thought provoking ones, for very different reasons. The problem comes in when someone thinks one is "superior" to the other by their "standards" and thus anything else is "low" reading. That is what "elitism" truly is.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Which, based on the links you provided, that seemed to be what the whole thing was promoting.

[jschild]

There is alot of elitism in the debate. Those were just examples. Not everyone disdains the different groups, however. You can easily enjoy both groups or you can...

However, there are people in this thread who are inspired by things as cringe-inducingly turgid as Tolkein or Star Trek (some of whom are probably even interested in the back story to video games too). Trying to discuss such things near them is probably a little too much like talking about cosmology around creationists :-)

treat them utter disdain.

I prefer to enjoy both however, but the split is there and it is very real, enspecially among the authors (some consider it an insult to be called sci-fi writers).

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

There is alot of elitism in the debate. Those were just examples. Not everyone disdains the different groups, however. You can easily enjoy both groups...

I still fail to see why there needs to be the distinction. Tehre are sub-genres within both Science Fiction and Fantasy. I fail to see why there needs to be a further division between "thought-provoking" and "fun" or what have you. The sub-genres handle that fairly well... and a lot of the Science Fiction can easily be seen as somewhere in-between. I feel it is really unnecessary.

[jschild]

Mainly because there is not a "Serious and Deep sci-fi group" and a "fun and light sci-fi group"

Within each sub-genre of scifi, you can generally find both examples. And again, as I said, If you read alot of science fiction authors personal writings, many resent the sci-fi label because they know what public opinion is of it.

Contact or Gattaca are lumped in with the worst hollywood scifi movies ever by being labeled as "sci-fi" and so many created the distinction themselves. It's also often called by authors speculative fiction to even further seperate themselves from "sci-fi".

It is a distinction that can be elitist or protectionist, but it exists nevertheless.

[moopy]

I love my fun books just as much as my thought provoking ones, for very different reasons. The problem comes in when someone thinks one is "superior" to the other by their "standards" and thus anything else is "low" reading. That is what "elitism" truly is.

I'd flip it around, and say the problem comes when people don't have the critical faculties to distinguish, and treat the crap/fun/so bad they're good books as though they were profound literature. This is kinda the hallmark of the teenage trekkie, sadly. Everyone needs a little light relief sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with pure entertainment. The problem comes when someone tells you how profound and searing the insight contained within old Babylon 5 episodes really can be, or how you should put down your Camus and read some Timothy Zahn Star Wars crap, with a crushingly inevitable lecture on the whys and wherefores.

I like crummy books as much as the next person, (though I draw the line at Stephen King, which just hurts to read). I don't. however, enjoy some of the more misguidedly intense fanboys and their obsession with them.

[Valas Azuviir]

I think I can boil it down to the simplest essence.

Plenty of inane and irritating folks on this planet. But at the end of the day, they're as human as I am.. I don't suddenly start calling myself a Vooboosh, just to distinguish myself from them. I let my actions and words set me apart from them.

If someone wants to still think, that just because I'm human, I'm supposed to be inane and irritating. Know what?? Good for them, because I don't give a flying rat's backside about what they think. I do what I think is right, they don't like it? Tough..

If, I were one of those authors, by reaction would still be the same. You don't like my work because you think all sci-fi is bad. Good for you.. Now pike off and let me deal with those who do enjoy my work, they're worth my time and you sure as hell ain't.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Mainly because there is not a "Serious and Deep sci-fi group" and a "fun and light sci-fi group"

Within each sub-genre of scifi, you can generally find both examples. And again, as I said, If you read alot of science fiction authors personal writings, many resent the sci-fi label because they know what public opinion is of it.

Contact or Gattaca are lumped in with the worst hollywood scifi movies ever by being labeled as "sci-fi" and so many created the distinction themselves. It's also often called by authors speculative fiction to even further seperate themselves from "sci-fi".

It is a distinction that can be elitist or protectionist, but it exists nevertheless.

/sigh

I still say it is needless. Why is it so wrong for someone to enjoy something for what it is, WHY must there be such pointless drivel about critical thinking crap in fiction? Fiction is diverse enough to extend in a wide variety of directions. Science Fiction, or Sci-Fi is as well -- it is merely a subset of Fiction. Within that subset are other subsets, or "sub-genres". Further dividing each sub-genre into two parts seems so completely needless.

And honestly, what the authors claims... the links you offered.... are very elitist. They want to place themselves above other authors. It therefore invalidates the arguments, and quite honestly makes me less inclined to be bothered reading their books.

I'd flip it around, and say the problem comes when people don't have the critical faculties to distinguish, and treat the crap/fun/so bad they're good books as though they were profound literature. This is kinda the hallmark of the teenage trekkie, sadly. Everyone needs a little light relief sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with pure entertainment. The problem comes when someone tells you how profound and searing the insight contained within old Babylon 5 episodes really can be, or how you should put down your Camus and read some Timothy Zahn Star Wars crap, with a crushingly inevitable lecture on the whys and wherefores.

I like crummy books as much as the next person, (though I draw the line at Stephen King, which just hurts to read). I don't. however, enjoy some of the more misguidedly intense fanboys and their obsession with them.

I'm still lost as to why there is such a need. There are good bits of information and details in a lot of different works. There is no need to make such a painful distinction. Honestly, I can look at a work of fiction critically, but I would rather enjoy myself than be troubled with whether there is some bizarre deeper meaning being portrayed in the work. That would be, in my personal opinion, defeating the entire purpose of why I picked the book up to read in the first place.

[jschild]

In an ideal world it would be needless. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where people separate everything into tidy little segments. Red vs. Blue. Conservative vs. Liberal. Star Wars vs. Star Trek.

Is life really that simple? Hell no. But it is what people do. My denying that it is not how things should be does not negate the fact that things, indeed, are that way.

[moopy]

I'm still lost as to why there is such a need. There are good bits of information and details in a lot of different works. There is no need to make such a painful distinction. Honestly, I can look at a work of fiction critically, but I would rather enjoy myself than be troubled with whether there is some bizarre deeper meaning being portrayed in the work. That would be, in my personal opinion, defeating the entire purpose of why I picked the book up to read in the first place.

You miss the point. Some of the things lauded by fervent fanbois are so painfully badly written that they grate. They do not require the concious deployment of secret literary criticism monkeys, merely an adequate level of education. A classic example of this would be the output of Arthur C. Clarke. Painfully stilted, cumbersome, cold and impersonal- it was the sweeping concepts that people stayed for, not the ability to actually write.

However, the most vocal defenders of scifi (like the most vocal advocates of anything- witness platform wars) tend to be somewhat ignorant and insular, and wouldn't actually notice the glaring flaws due to a lack of wider context. Thrilling for them, of course, but telling everyone else that there is no better meal than a Big Mac is likely to produce some interesting responses from those who have eaten elsewhere. Everyone fancies junk food once in a while, most choose not to subsist exclusively upon it.

The broadening of palette is why many people often grow out of a near-exclusive diet of scifi and fantasy, after discovering the pleasures of "grown-up" writing. Things don't have to be hugely challenging to read, but when well executed, they can be more more pleasant experiences. The difference between a hack and a craftsman is rather large.

[jschild]

While I do not agree fully with you moopy (you seem to be falling into the "insular" trap yourself), much of sci-fi is indeed junk food.

May I ask, what are your favorite books? Just wondering about your tastes.

[semiiramiis]

Reading for pleasure is just that, a pleasure. If you honestly, really, totally enjoy what you're reading, then more power to you! So few people read for the sheer joy of it anyway, it seems like a crime to snarl amongst ourselves over it. While I agree with a lot of this... It doesn't really matter. I read a lot of fantasy/scifi/alternate universe stuff. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors. yay. But I also truly enjoy things that will never be lauded as great, and which honestly edge towards guilty "don't catch me reading it" But hell, if I want to read about crime solving cats and dogs, and it brings me joy, great.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

In an ideal world it would be needless. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where people separate everything into tidy little segments. Red vs. Blue. Conservative vs. Liberal. Star Wars vs. Star Trek.

Is life really that simple? Hell no. But it is what people do. My denying that it is not how things should be does not negate the fact that things, indeed, are that way.

Except that from what I've seen, it is a relatively small group of people who are claiming it is this way, and most definitely is not the standard. The distinction you've listed between Science Fiction and Sci-Fi is an obscure one, only a relatively few people I've ever seen made that distinction, and of those, most used it as a way to elevate their own work as something superior to the other... which brings in the elitism.

It isn't that way, it is just some people want it that way.

You miss the point. Some of the things lauded by fervent fanbois are so painfully badly written that they grate. They do not require the concious deployment of secret literary criticism monkeys, merely an adequate level of education. A classic example of this would be the output of Arthur C. Clarke. Painfully stilted, cumbersome, cold and impersonal- it was the sweeping concepts that people stayed for, not the ability to actually write.

I don't miss the point. You are defining elitism here. Note your use of the word "fanbois", or the phrase "do not require conscious deployment of secret literary criticism monkeys". There are, in my experience, a number of books that while poorly written, conveyed an idea I found intriguing, and then would expand on with my own little projects. I don't need some snobbish perception of what is superior to which, I just know what I personally like or don't like, and I know how to pick something apart and find what I really like.

However, the most vocal defenders of scifi (like the most vocal advocates of anything- witness platform wars) tend to be somewhat ignorant and insular, and wouldn't actually notice the glaring flaws due to a lack of wider context. Thrilling for them, of course, but telling everyone else that there is no better meal than a Big Mac is likely to produce some interesting responses from those who have eaten elsewhere. Everyone fancies junk food once in a while, most choose not to subsist exclusively upon it.

How, exactly, is the position you are presenting here, the method you are doing it, any less insular than what you are calling a "fanboi"?

The broadening of palette is why many people often grow out of a near-exclusive diet of scifi and fantasy, after discovering the pleasures of "grown-up" writing. Things don't have to be hugely challenging to read, but when well executed, they can be more more pleasant experiences. The difference between a hack and a craftsman is rather large.

And that very paragraph, heck, the very first sentence within it, defines you as elitist. It is condescending, and spoken from a position of over-inflated superiority. You are basically marginalizing people with different tastes than you, while propping your own particular tastes as being "grown-up".

[Shellar]

I'd flip it around, and say the problem comes when people don't have the critical faculties to distinguish, and treat the crap/fun/so bad they're good books as though they were profound literature. This is kinda the hallmark of the teenage trekkie, sadly. Everyone needs a little light relief sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with pure entertainment. The problem comes when someone tells you how profound and searing the insight contained within old Babylon 5 episodes really can be, or how you should put down your Camus and read some Timothy Zahn Star Wars crap, with a crushingly inevitable lecture on the whys and wherefores.

I like crummy books as much as the next person, (though I draw the line at Stephen King, which just hurts to read). I don't. however, enjoy some of the more misguidedly intense fanboys and their obsession with them.
A truly enlightened sage can understand the nature of the ocean by examining a single drop of water - or gain insight into the complexities of human nature by reading a poorly written fanfic.

[mesonm]

You guys need to get out more....

...talk about beating a dead horse. :)

[Stormatak]

Well if any game WoW needs to worry about its AoC. As it will beat out WAR. Thats my theory.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Well if any game WoW needs to worry about its AoC. As it will beat out WAR. Thats my theory.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Honestly, I doubt WoW has to worry about *any* other MMO, not for a long, long while.

[bearbehind]

Honestly, I doubt WoW has to worry about *any* other MMO, not for a long, long while.

/agree

Wow's almost unbelievable success is not just due to its ingame elements. The entire design, that often borders upon the comical, has given the MMORPG genre a new image which tells people that it's OK to play RPG games -Come out of the closet and you will not be labelled a geek, much in the same way that the simpsons told us that cartoons were cool and not just for kids...

The WOW players are not seen as being Nerdy D&D stereotypes with bad facial hair and a natural aversion to sunlight - No, we are easy going, working professionals with a virtual hobby. Like their TV ads with Shatner try to put across - we are everyday well balanced individuals with the ability to laugh at ourselves.

No other MMO has pulled this off anywhere near as WOW has, and AOC and WAR are both missing this point completely. 10 million billion people cannot be wrong :)

[moopy]

A truly enlightened sage can understand the nature of the ocean by examining a single drop of water - or gain insight into the complexities of human nature by reading a poorly written fanfic.

The path to such enlightenment is truly harrowing, and contains many false turns, specious bodhisattvas and branches of Starbucks.

[moopy]

Apologies for the back to back post.. jschild's question deserves an answer, as it's always lovely to have an excuse to muse on favourites. Thanks, jsc! <3

While I do not agree fully with you moopy (you seem to be falling into the "insular" trap yourself), much of sci-fi is indeed junk food.

May I ask, what are your favorite books? Just wondering about your tastes.

Indeed, js, a lot is junk food. There's nothing wrong with the odd burger, if you don't live on it though :)

Me? I read anything and everything- once. I will give any author a chance if someone hands me a book and tells me it's worth reading. The only authors that have annoyed me enough to not finish a book were Umberto Eco and Stephen King. The Eco was a turnoff because it was ponderous and stilted, downright painful. The Stephen King made me shudder due to the inept writing.

My favorite books? Jeez, the list goes on forever, and ranges from the heavyweight to utter fluffy crap :) Here's a few that I like though:

1984 by George Orwell. Sparse journalistic style of writing. Classic stuff.

Goedel, Escher, Bach- An Eternal golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter. Wonderful stuff, playful and an absorbing.

The Cyberiad - Stanislaw Lem. Enchantingly ludicrous, can even be read to children.

Burning Chrome - William Gibson. Pulp scifi with without the tedium.

Barcelona Plates - Alexei Sayle. Exquisite short stories with killer twists.

Journey to the West - the Anthony Yu translation. Hilarious 13th century epic chinese fiction. Like Canterbury Tales, only with boss fights every other chapter.

L'Etranger - Albert Camus, preferably in an English translation, my french is awful.

The Illuminatus Trilogy. Utter bunkem, Surreal, filthy, trashy and joyful.

Beowulf - Seamus Heany translation. Enough smiting for anyone.

The Hotel New Hampshire - John Irving. The Great American Novel(tm) isn't dead yet..

The Big Sleep - Raymond Chandler. Seminal pulp fiction. Stylish as hell. See what everyone is parodying. A wonderfully dry writer.

Catch-22 - Joseph Heller. No description needed, I hope.

The Castle - Franz Kafka. Sadly unfinished, but bewildering and hypnotic.

Reaper Man - Terry Pratchett. Very very silly indeed. The best kind of junk food.

Zen and the art of motercycle maintenance- Robert Pirsig. This one was on my "should read" list for years, until I got around to it. I wish I had bothered a lot sooner. The advice on "stuckness" alone is worth the cost of admission.

Slaughterhouse 5 - Kurt Vonnegut. Semi-fictional account of the bombing of Dresden, amazingly written. And so it goes.

45 - Bill Drummond. One of the most diverting autobiographies that I've ever read.

"Minority Report" and other stories- Philip K Dick. Strange, skewed scifi tales from a man who couldn't stop writing. There's a lot of darkness at the core, and a sense of wonder. He could actually write rather well, on a good day.

Reasons to be cheerful - Mark Steel. Autobiographical again, an interesting snapshot of time, place and political climate.

An intelligent person's guide to liberalism - Conrad Russel. Written by the son of Bertram Russel, this slim volume is a grounding in the historical and philosophical basis of a particularly misunderstood political philosophy.

The list goes on- and what's on it depends on what I have read lately. I read voraciously. If something sucks, I tend to avoid that author in future unless I have a good reason- ditto with rereading. It does mean that I get to read some crap lacking redeeming features, of course. you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince.

[jschild]

The Illuminatus Trilogy - Best F'ed up book ever. Totally agree with you on that one.

Will have to check a few of those, enspec "An intelligent person's guide to liberalism", and"Slaughterhouse 5 (been on my need to read list forever)".

Thanks!