832 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

TheMadCat wrote...

Really? What great stories am I missing?

OT: The Wing Commander series was pretty great, with some of the best FMV acting of the, well, the brief FMV gaming era!

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 09:05 .

[bsbcaer]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There's also force behind all physical and some magical attacks, a Fortitude score based on strength, melee AoE on all attacks on Nightmare difficulty, tactical active dodging, elimination of potion/heal spamming, and cross-class combos. Just to list a few things that were the opposite of dumbed-down. Not claiming that other things weren't, but they did add depth in places and it should be acknowledged.

I've noticed some people playing the game and completely ignoring the fortitude ability....then they would complain about being knocked down by enemies and blaming the game for it....

[Narreneth]

Blastback wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

enrogae wrote...

VanDraegon wrote...

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not A sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Then, in my opinion, it shouldn't be called Dragon Age "2".

Why not?  The game is still set in the Dragon Age...

Dragon Age 2 implies that it is a direct contiuation of the previous game.  Something like, Dragon Age: Rise to Power would show that it is a Dragon Age game, but not a sequal.  Part of the same franchise, but not the same series.

You're arguing semantics.   BioWare has said the Dragon Age series is about the Dragon Age in Thedas.  Therefore, being that events in the Dragon age are still the subject of this game, it stands to reason that it's a continuation of the story. Dragon Age 2 is a sequel to Origins, it's just not a sequel that involves your Warden.  Give it a rest.

[EternalPink]

we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who enjoy just that experience, and we drive others away.In of itself, that runs the risk of genre death -- it becomes too referential or too reliant on people understanding that STR means strength which feeds into accuracy which results in damage done, and so on. You end up in a case where, the genre eventually burns out, or falls flat, or becomes too risky to take any risks in development, and so on and so forth, and that's not something I want to see happen.

http://www.1up.com/f...?pager.offset=0

Within the RPG genre explaining what does what and why is surely more down to the game mechanics and the learning curve of the game than the target audience having pre-knowledge of how the game works and this could be helped a lot by RPG's not using a lot of the cop outs they do in level design (unpickable indestrutable interior doors come to mind) or letting players make crap characters by accident.

If your playing a RPG and lets say for example you can and want to make a rogue but due to poor explainations, tutorials, manuals, codex's and so on you are unable to find out what attributes and skills you should have then i'd blame the RPG not the gamer

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Deep_Sea_Diver wrote...

By getting rid of what people who play RPGS like, in other words he's trying to switch one audience for a another.
One with arguably more people, sadly hardcore RPG fans are in the minority now.

This is what I'm afraid of. It won't be an official goal, very likely not even something that they openly admit to themselves, but its there as a sinister undercurrent.

They seem to take even the most inane complaints from non-fans very seriously, while defending obviously FUBAR decisions like the recycled dungeons that their (former) core audience criticises them for.

There's nothing sinister about it and it is an official goal.  BioWare is a corporation, dude.  Sure, the people are BioWare love games, so the job is probably a dream job.... Work (i.e. get a paycheck) at something you love.  But the company is there to make money.  So of course they're going to aim for the bigger market.  :D:D  And since they can make kick ass games (like DA2) and still make money... why wouldn't they?

[AkiKishi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs yet.

Fixed that for you.  :D:D   If the time consuming, boring things that have fallen by the wayside are what someone requires to concider a game an RPG... I think you're missing out on a lot of great stories.

The end of Killzone 3 put's the end of DA2 to shame, as does the opening level of Homefront (before the action starts). They are still not RPGs.

Bioware are going from a market that they have almost to them selves into one where they are competing with some very big guns for fans who don't want to select dialogue for an imaginary character.

Look at FF, sells scads. Game systems complex, but the story is told to you. Now to me this would suggest that it's less about mechanics and dumbing down and more about how BIoware tell their stories.

[TheMadCat]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...

Really? What great stories am I missing?

OT: The Wing Commander series was pretty great, with some of the best FMV acting of the, well, the brief FMV gaming era!

Wing Commander? Good lord could you go back any futher?

[_000Darkstar]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

_000Darkstar wrote...

What are you people smoking? DA2 is the same game as Origins. It simply changed some of Origins' shortcomings, i.e. Combat.
Everything that made Origins an RPG is still there... You people make my head hurt.

Real questions is "what are you smoking".
DA II is lower then **** compared to Origins.
Recycled areas, horrible ending, weak romances, unable to change companions (armor, robes, clothes etc...), Mass Effect dialogue wheel...

Recycled areas - I'll go ahead and give you this one, but honestly, it's not that big of a deal. The story makes sense in the setting it's placed in. It feels right. Creating another cave map wouldn't have added a whole lot to that.

Horrible ending - Completely subjective. I thought the ending was perfectly fine and sets up for a great lead in to DA3. What about the ending did you not like or felt was lacking? The fact that everything wasn't tied up in a neat little bow? There are plenty of amazing stories that don't. The DA2 ending left me wanting more which is something that should happen.

Weak Romances -  As if Origins' were soooo much better. At least after the deed is done in DA2 the romance continues to develop, which in Origins it did not.

Companion Armor - You don't go over to your friends' houses and tell them what to wear, do you? If you play on the PC there are ways to get around this. If you don't, too bad. There's no reason to change their armor anyway. It's better than anything you could equip on them anyway.

Dialogue wheel - You're complaining about how the dialogue is organized? Or are you compaining about the paraphrasing? Because the first would make you look like an idiot. The wheel gives more dialogue options than the list did and simply looks better (but that's a matter of personal taste). The paraphrase system I can understand. It's not perfect. You're never going to get the exact message with paraphrasing, but that's what the intent icons are for, and they work. I also believe the paraphrase system is better than having the full dialogue typed out for me to read, and then have it read back to me.

Seriously thought, it's nearly the exact same game with a new story and sped up combat. Attributes, classes, abilities, item management, dialogue choice. All of the RPG elements are still there.

Modifié par _000Darkstar, 20 mars 2011 - 09:11 .

[Shockwave Pulsar]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Balthamoss wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

It's exactly the same, only different ... ???!!!!

Combat most certainly does not feel anywhere near the same. It was immediately apparent to me and the number one reason I did not pre-order.

Having finished both games I can say that the speed and the attack animations are the only fundamental differences, control, positioning, mechanics are all the same, everything happens the same way, only about twice as fast.

I played DA:O to completion 6 times and played a couple other characters part way through the game. Spent alot of time in Origins. I only played the demo of DA2 (several times) but the combat doesn't seem anything like Origins. Maybe it is just the speed but it certainly doesn't seem like that's the only difference. The speed of the comabt is super annoying though. It doesn't have the chops to be a real action game like Ninja Gaiden . The combat is not reactive enough and there are not enough combos, moves, blocking, parrying etc. It just feels like a spastic half-breed.

Granted I actually thought DA:O combat was a bit on the fast side so you can hopefully better understand my opinion.

I found Origins combat for the most part tedious, slow-paced and boring, watching my mage do the same slow staff poking move over and over and over again, and waiting 5 seconds for a warrior to make a swing wasn't particularly exciting for me. 
Granted I think DAII is a bit too fast IMO, but still a lot more fun than in Origins, a matter of taste I guess.
If you found Origins too fast, maybe you won't like DAII, but I would give it a try, the demo isn't representative for the whole game, you have to get used to the speed at first, but once you do it plays very much the same, only faster 

Modifié par Balthamoss, 20 mars 2011 - 09:12 .

[Blastback]

Narreneth wrote...

Blastback wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...



Why not?  The game is still set in the Dragon Age...

Dragon Age 2 implies that it is a direct contiuation of the previous game.  Something like, Dragon Age: Rise to Power would show that it is a Dragon Age game, but not a sequal.  Part of the same franchise, but not the same series.

You're arguing semantics.   BioWare has said the Dragon Age series is about the Dragon Age in Thedas.  Therefore, being that events in the Dragon age are still the subject of this game, it stands to reason that it's a continuation of the story. Dragon Age 2 is a sequel to Origins, it's just not a sequel that involves your Warden.  Give it a rest.

Actually I was just trying to explain the positon to bsbcaer.  Not express my own opinion.  Which is that I don't really care what the game is called.

Modifié par Blastback, 20 mars 2011 - 09:12 .

[bsbcaer]

Blastback wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

enrogae wrote...

VanDraegon wrote...

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not A sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Then, in my opinion, it shouldn't be called Dragon Age "2".

Why not?  The game is still set in the Dragon Age...

Dragon Age 2 implies that it is a direct contiuation of the previous game.  Something like, Dragon Age: Rise to Power would show that it is a Dragon Age game, but not a sequal.  Part of the same franchise, but not the same series.

I don't know about anyone else, but I really wish that Bioware never used the "origins" subtitle for the first game   That being said, you have the same time period (the "Dragon Age") in the same universe, occupied by the same races, with same/similar social issue occuring in the universe.

To use your example (and an example floating around this thread), then "Call of Duty 2" and "Call of Duty 3" should have been called completely different games because they weren't direct continuation of the previous game.  In the same vein, "Fallout 3" should have a different name because it's not a direct continuation of "Fallout 2" or "Fallout)

[Blastback]

Again, I'm just trying to expalin what I see as the position. I was fine with the game being called DA2.

[Altima Darkspells]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


He didn't say the genre was stale.  He said - in so many words - that resting on one's creative laurels is a good way to ensure that it becomes stale.

That's amusing, because BioWare has been resting on its laurels pretty hard since, say, Knights of the Old Republic.

Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing.  It's not like BioWare tried something new and exciting.  They borrowed elements from their other games and jammed them into Thedas and called it Dragon Age 2.

Elements from another game which they tweaked so hard it actually fell into another genre for its sequel.

Narreneth wrote...

It's cute how you think you speak for all 3.2 million people who bought DA:O.  Or a majority.  Or even a large minority.

You speak for you and you alone.  Despite how many people you think hate DA2 in all its glory, every single person that I know in real life that has DA2 is thoroughly enjoying it.  Hell, even people I've struck up conversations with when shopping for a new game are enjoying it.  The people posting on these forums are not a good litmus test for what people think of DA2.

Also, calling Origins a "traditional" RPG is ridiculous.  Yes, there are elements, but there's elements in DA2 as well.  

It's cute how you think your opinion is more valid than my own.

Because everyone I know that I've spoken to did like DA2.  Then they went further in the game.  And further in the game.  They ran up against things like the Arishok fight and the horrible ending.  At the end of it, they looked back and decided that they disliked the game.

And that's the people who bothered to buy the game on release day.  After telling friends and family my experiences with the game, those who were on the fence about it universally decided to either pass on the game or wait futher down the line for a price drop, or a bundle pack with all the inevitable RPG.

And yes, Origins isn't a traditional RPG, but that didn't stop BioWare from cashing in on the whole "Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate" hype they pumped out.  Given than the game sold over three million copies--including two-thirds of the sales coming from the unspeakably bad console ports--I'd say that there's an audience for that sort of thing.  Because, in the end, sales figures is all they'll care to understand.

[AllThatJazz]

bsbcaer wrote...

Blastback wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

enrogae wrote...

VanDraegon wrote...

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not A sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Then, in my opinion, it shouldn't be called Dragon Age "2".

Why not?  The game is still set in the Dragon Age...

Dragon Age 2 implies that it is a direct contiuation of the previous game.  Something like, Dragon Age: Rise to Power would show that it is a Dragon Age game, but not a sequal.  Part of the same franchise, but not the same series.

I don't know about anyone else, but I really wish that Bioware never used the "origins" subtitle for the first game   That being said, you have the same time period (the "Dragon Age") in the same universe, occupied by the same races, with same/similar social issue occuring in the universe.

To use your example (and an example floating around this thread), then "Call of Duty 2" and "Call of Duty 3" should have been called completely different games because they weren't direct continuation of the previous game.  In the same vein, "Fallout 3" should have a different name because it's not a direct continuation of "Fallout 2" or "Fallout)

Indeed. Had the game been called 'Dragon Age: Origins 2', I might have expected a continuation, but I've played plenty of games where the number '2' or '3' or whatever doesn't indicate a direct follow-up.

[88mphSlayer]

Narreneth wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

enrogae wrote...

Upsettingshorts -- I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I disagree with pretty much every point you've made. You say I don't value the positive aspects of what they did (what few there are), but you are wrong in your assumptions. I do value the positive aspects of DA:2, even if what I find positive differs from what you find positive.

No, you're saying the same thing I am - in this paragraph anyway. 

I'll show you in the next paragraph.

enrogae wrote...

A choice that you get to make, that has the same outcome no matter what choice you make, is less meaningful... period. It has no meaning if it changes nothing.

I disagree.  I value that my character in DA2's position and feelings on an issue matters to him and the people around him, even if the outcome remains static.  That's giving my protagonist characterization, it gives my companions characterization through their response.  Whether or not the same thing happens, or similar things happen, ultimately isn't as interesting to me.  So as far as something you value (variation in outcomes) and something I value (opportunities for characterization) goes, I can see why you'd prefer DAO and I'd prefer DA2.  Because neither is good at both.

enrogae wrote...

And less dialogue is less dialogue period... the fact that it's a shorter game only reinforces my opinion here.

Eh... I don't want to get into a thing about hours per playthrough. 

enrogae wrote...

But what I speak of is the fact that you can't really talk to anyone. You don't get to know your comrades in DA:2 as much as you could in DA:O.

Sure you can, and I sure did.  The difference - and I think DG might have addressed this in another thread - is that in DA2 you can't simply chat them up on cue like you could in DAO.  They reveal themselves to you more or less at their own pace, in their own way - and sometimes in more than one way.  If you don't use a companion or simply don't keep up with them, you can miss out on that content more easily than you could in DAO, where you could simply have a sitdown with whoever whenever.  But overall I didn't experience the same lack of connection to the characters in DA2 that others claim to, with one exception:  Fenris.  Because I played a 2HW and simply lost track of the guy.  I'll recitfy that in another game.

enrogae wrote...

Really, they just sit in the same spot for 9 years saying the same things?

Definitely could have been done better.  Though personally to me it's not that much worse repeating the same stuff for months.  I do seem to recall Isabela's oneliner about the hat shop changing over time, but I don't remember a ton of examples.  Some of the banter between characters changed to reflect their personal quests, like Aveline and Donnic or Merrill with the mirror.

enrogae wrote...

 a pointless debate.

They pretty much all are.

88mphSlayer wrote...

what does "friendly" - "sarcastic" - "dick" have to do with deciding the fate of the universe?

You're doing it wrong.

Picking the same direction every time isn't what they intend people to do.  Furthermore there's more than 3 options - though the game only "tracks" three for one liners and such.   Heck I think they should move around the diplomatic/top, sarcastic/right, blunt/bottom thing with every option just to ensure people don't fall into that habit. 

DA2 allows you to play a character who has feelings and positions on things - unlike say, Commander Shepard, who is one of two barely coherent characters. 

i don't care about Shepard's feelings and positions on things, i care about my feelings and positions on things

Yeah, I know.  I wish they'd give us multiple options to pick from so we can display what best fits our personal standpoint in the conversation.

Oh wait...

yeah those were awesome in games like Planescape Torment

i think the next actual evolutionary step is to just ditch avatars completely

rather instead use a microphone or kinect or whatever and the words you speak are the words that NPC's hear and respond to

[this isnt my name]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

It's like using Twilight to get someone into literature. I suppose we applaud that - so, sure, let Bioware run with it. I'll save some money.

And if they start off reading Twilight, then move into other types of fantasy/SF, then start exploring other genres, what's the problem here? Perhaps they should never read anything, eh? 

As a former English Teacher who has, God knows, struggled to get kids in deprived areas to read anything for pleasure, I'll give 'em Twilight over intellectual snobbery anyday.

Its better they read nothing, twilight not only butchers vampires, but tries to show a borderline abusive (definately stalkerish) relationship as "loving".

[Cobrawar]

Mike laidlaw has no clue what he is talking about. You cant reinvent the wheel. you cannot force evolution ,evolution comes on its own thru time. Mike laidlaw is trying to create something that doesn't exist. rpg's aren't that hard to play. people pick them up in no time. The only audience I see him trying to appeal is to people who don't play rpg's

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Brenus wrote...

And Bioware would have had an even larger and devoted fanbase if they had kept making games as good as BG2.

Wrong.  Where are the games similar to BG2 today?  How many do you see out there?

If, as you claim, there is a huge market for those games, companies would be all over it.  Yet they are not.  Because games like BG2 were great for their time... but now, in the market today...  Baldur's Gate 2 would suck.

[AllThatJazz]

[quote]88mphSlayer wrote...

[quote]Narreneth wrote...

[quote]88mphSlayer wrote...

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

[quote]enrogae wrote...

Upsettingshorts -- I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I disagree with pretty much every point you've made. You say I don't value the positive aspects of what they did (what few there are), but you are wrong in your assumptions. I do value the positive aspects of DA:2, even if what I find positive differs from what you find positive.[/quote]

No, you're saying the same thing I am - in this paragraph anyway. 

I'll show you in the next paragraph.

[quote]enrogae wrote...

A choice that you get to make, that has the same outcome no matter what choice you make, is less meaningful... period. It has no meaning if it changes nothing. [/quote]

I disagree.  I value that my character in DA2's position and feelings on an issue matters to him and the people around him, even if the outcome remains static.  That's giving my protagonist characterization, it gives my companions characterization through their response.  Whether or not the same thing happens, or similar things happen, ultimately isn't as interesting to me.  So as far as something you value (variation in outcomes) and something I value (opportunities for characterization) goes, I can see why you'd prefer DAO and I'd prefer DA2.  Because neither is good at both.

[quote]enrogae wrote...

And less dialogue is less dialogue period... the fact that it's a shorter game only reinforces my opinion here. [/quote]

Eh... I don't want to get into a thing about hours per playthrough. 

[quote]enrogae wrote...

But what I speak of is the fact that you can't really talk to anyone. You don't get to know your comrades in DA:2 as much as you could in DA:O.[/quote]

Sure you can, and I sure did.  The difference - and I think DG might have addressed this in another thread - is that in DA2 you can't simply chat them up on cue like you could in DAO.  They reveal themselves to you more or less at their own pace, in their own way - and sometimes in more than one way.  If you don't use a companion or simply don't keep up with them, you can miss out on that content more easily than you could in DAO, where you could simply have a sitdown with whoever whenever.  But overall I didn't experience the same lack of connection to the characters in DA2 that others claim to, with one exception:  Fenris.  Because I played a 2HW and simply lost track of the guy.  I'll recitfy that in another game.

[quote]enrogae wrote...

Really, they just sit in the same spot for 9 years saying the same things?[/quote]

Definitely could have been done better.  Though personally to me it's not that much worse repeating the same stuff for months.  I do seem to recall Isabela's oneliner about the hat shop changing over time, but I don't remember a ton of examples.  Some of the banter between characters changed to reflect their personal quests, like Aveline and Donnic or Merrill with the mirror.

[quote]enrogae wrote...

 a pointless debate.[/quote]

They pretty much all are.

[quote]88mphSlayer wrote...

what does "friendly" - "sarcastic" - "dick" have to do with deciding the fate of the universe?[/quote]

You're doing it wrong.

Picking the same direction every time isn't what they intend people to do.  Furthermore there's more than 3 options - though the game only "tracks" three for one liners and such.   Heck I think they should move around the diplomatic/top, sarcastic/right, blunt/bottom thing with every option just to ensure people don't fall into that habit. 

DA2 allows you to play a character who has feelings and positions on things - unlike say, Commander Shepard, who is one of two barely coherent characters. 

[/quote]

i don't care about Shepard's feelings and positions on things, i care about my feelings and positions on things
[/quote]

Yeah, I know.  I wish they'd give us multiple options to pick from so we can display what best fits our personal standpoint in the conversation.

Oh wait...

[/quote]

yeah those were awesome in games like Planescape Torment

i think the next actual evolutionary step is to just ditch avatars completely

rather instead use a microphone or kinect or whatever and the words you speak are the words that NPC's hear and respond to
[/quote]

Combine that with a VR environment and that would be awesome. Combine that with an incredibly sophisticated
AI/VI that can improvise stories/consequences and you've just about got the closest thing to tabletop gaming that isn't tabletop gaming.

Gah, who am I kidding. I'm gonna be old and senile or dead by the time that happens. 

[MonkeyLungs]

Balthamoss wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Balthamoss wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

It's exactly the same, only different ... ???!!!!

Combat most certainly does not feel anywhere near the same. It was immediately apparent to me and the number one reason I did not pre-order.

Having finished both games I can say that the speed and the attack animations are the only fundamental differences, control, positioning, mechanics are all the same, everything happens the same way, only about twice as fast.

I played DA:O to completion 6 times and played a couple other characters part way through the game. Spent alot of time in Origins. I only played the demo of DA2 (several times) but the combat doesn't seem anything like Origins. Maybe it is just the speed but it certainly doesn't seem like that's the only difference. The speed of the comabt is super annoying though. It doesn't have the chops to be a real action game like Ninja Gaiden . The combat is not reactive enough and there are not enough combos, moves, blocking, parrying etc. It just feels like a spastic half-breed.

Granted I actually thought DA:O combat was a bit on the fast side so you can hopefully better understand my opinion.

I found Origins combat for the most part tedious, slow-paced and boring, watching my mage do the same slow staff poking move over and over and over again, and waiting 5 seconds for a warrior to make a swing wasn't particularly exciting for me. 
Granted I think DAII is a bit too fast IMO, but still a lot more fun than in Origins, a matter of taste I guess.
If you found Origins too fast, maybe you won't like DAII, but I would give it a try, the demo isn't representative for the whole game, you have to get used to the speed at first, but once you do it plays very much the same, only faster 

Right on. I plan to get it. I am not impressed with some stuff that I have read about but to be fair I don't want to form too concrete an opinion before I've played the game in full. The combat is a sore spot for me though but there is a chance it will grow on me. Sometimes games do that.

[ExiledMimic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Note that I say nothing about the relative quality of DA2 in this post. Only that I think that this thread misrepresents his position.

Perhaps some posts on this thread do.  However I'm more angry that he chose to make this "evolution" to follow up a game very popular for being in their old fomula, rather than create a new game.  I jumped onto Mass Effect just because Bioware made it.  If they'd made an "old-formula" DA2 and then another RPG/Action game as a seperate project I'd have picked up both, and might not have liked the newer idea, but I wouldn't feel robbed by it. 

The idea of evolving the game only served to cheat out people who bought DA2 because they loved the first one for IT'S merrits.  That is the source of the anger, and it is the exact place a thread like this should address, not for the idea it's self which can have it's own merrits and it's own time to properly fit into it's niche of the gaming community.

[AllThatJazz]

this isnt my name wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

It's like using Twilight to get someone into literature. I suppose we applaud that - so, sure, let Bioware run with it. I'll save some money.

And if they start off reading Twilight, then move into other types of fantasy/SF, then start exploring other genres, what's the problem here? Perhaps they should never read anything, eh? 

As a former English Teacher who has, God knows, struggled to get kids in deprived areas to read anything for pleasure, I'll give 'em Twilight over intellectual snobbery anyday.

Its better they read nothing, twilight not only butchers vampires, but tries to show a borderline abusive (definately stalkerish) relationship as "loving".

Okay 'butchering' the completely fictional constructs of vampires aside, What about Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights? A fair amount of Shakespeare? George Eliot? Thomas Hardy? Many works of literature, bad and good, depict dysfunctional situations/relationships and try to present them as 'romantic' or even as something to which we should aspire. Well written classics 'Twilight' may not be (never read 'em), but picking up and reading a book, pretty much any book, is preferable to no books ever.  

Way off topic, sorry x

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 20 mars 2011 - 09:30 .

[Medhia Nox]

@AllThatJazz - in theory, nothing (I can think of a few things.) It may get people to read - and hopefully they'll move on to better literature.

But I won't be purchasing Twilight. I find no reason to buy Teen Literature - when I'm more interested in classical Literature.

"Intellectual snobbery" - I'm sorry I didn't stop reading at comic books, being stupid isn't something I aspire to. Yes, I prefer excellent literature (it actually isn't arbitrary - and relativity is a theory, not fact) to slash fiction. That doesn't mean I don't read some - even enjoy some, everyone loves junk food once in a while, but to me, reading "intellectually snobby" literature, is like eating healthy.

So, just as I wouldn't go into the Teen section for literature - neither would I buy roleplaying games catering to the lowest common denominator.

[AllThatJazz]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@AllThatJazz - in theory, nothing (I can think of a few things.) It may get people to read - and hopefully they'll move on to better literature.

But I won't be purchasing Twilight. I find no reason to buy Teen Literature - when I'm more interested in classical Literature.

"Intellectual snobbery" - I'm sorry I didn't stop reading at comic books, being stupid isn't something I aspire to. Yes, I prefer excellent literature (it actually isn't arbitrary - and relativity is a theory, not fact) to slash fiction. That doesn't mean I don't read some - even enjoy some, everyone loves junk food once in a while, but to me, reading "intellectually snobby" literature, is like eating healthy.

So, just as I wouldn't go into the Teen section for literature - neither would I buy roleplaying games catering to the lowest common denominator.

You needn't apologise for not stopping reading at comic books. How very laudable. Perhaps some of the people who read Twilight will not stop their reading there. That is the hope, isn't it, that introducing someone to something that they will enjoy and understand can lead to better and more complex things?

That something contains an element of simplicity that you find beneath you does not mean it caters to the Lowest Common Denominator.

[slimgrin]

^ And you are an English teacher?

.....

Modifié par slimgrin, 20 mars 2011 - 09:38 .