Dragon Age: Origins PC Gamer preview out, tidbits...

[Qwinn]

LOL, first they go with the old "You have to put 10 years of study into Tolkien. Simply reading his books is not enough to form an informed opinion." And now they try the old "You say that my favourite writer sucks? Well, your favourite writer sucks too. (Whats his name?)"

Exactly. :D I've seen people do this so often, it's wonderfully juvenile. Are not! Am too! My dad can beat your dad!

You know what's even more juvenile? Conflating 3 different people's posts and acting as if anyone put them all forward, so that you can then act as if they contradicted themselves. I don't and never did particularly agree with buccaroobonzai's argument that you need to read other people's analysis for your opinion to be valid, and I never put forward any such argument myself. But, if I put forward my -own- argument in the same thread, then o, you caught me, we must all be wonderfully juvenile!

Asshat. I guess Shannow -did- ask for more ad hominems, but did you have to choose such an intellectually dishonest basis for them?

Alright then. Please, give us some examples of books that -do- make a point of celebrating heroism and nobility that you -don't- think are shit.

Sure. I've expressed elsewhere on the Codex that I like Zelazny's Lord of Light, Moorcock's Dancers at the End of Time, a bunch of Discworld books and more: not all of which celebrate your precious nobility and heroism, but which are hardly long parades of "everyone sucks the world is dark wah sinister allegory" babble. I can go back to Michael Ende's The Neverending Story and Momo and still enjoy them. Why, not so long ago I just finished Geoff Ryman's Air; I invite you to look up its synopsis and try to claim it identifies with that silly, over-simplified category you've come up with. Oh, I even have a bit of a soft spot for Malory, even if I think some chunks of Morte D'Arthur drag on somewhat.

Well, I've not read most of those after the first few you mentioned. I grant that you have at least -some- taste, seeing as I do consider Zelazny to be the best fantasy writer around, bar none (and yes, better even than Tolkien... but there's not many others I'd say that about). Moorcock is entertaining in a masochist way, but absolutely, he fits the predicted bill about dark, dreary and depressing with virtually no character worth a damn. And actually, if I had to pick a single book by Zelazny that fit that bill more than any other, it would be Lords of Light too. He had much better novels.

Still, as someone else pointed out before... you know what's even more shallow than a worldview where everything is black and white?

A worldview where everything is just black.

THAT'S why I asked that question.

As for ratio, I'm afraid I don't sit down and categorize books I like in such a retarded manner; do you? I enjoy the books I enjoy for a large variety of reasons: from good writing to interesting world-building to characters. Sorry, I don't like like a caricature. Or a badly-written, mono-dimensional character from a dull fantasy epic.

I didn't expect that you would've calculated such a ratio prior to now. I asked you to look at your bookshelf and try to answer my question honestly. It appears you have no interest in doing so. That's fine. Completely expected.

Sorry? What does this have to do with... well, anything?

Because, at least in -my- opinion, a literary opinion born out of pure bigotry, racism and identity politics isn't worth the pixels damaged in representing it. To wit:

Tolkien devotes a thousand-pages epic to concerns I find trivial and laughable, though I'm sure that to another spoiled white person, they're all terrible immense, terribly scary issues.

Thank you for showing it again. (I love the assumption that I must be white, by the way - or even better, the implication that non-white people shouldn't appreciate Tolkien). And let's review your original racist screed:

Another point is something most Codexers won't see anything wrong with: Tolkien's an ethnocentric bore. Notice that I don't use the word "racist" because I'm sure he held no active, conscious opinion of non-English people, let alone participated in bigotry (whatever else people might shout about "orcs are black but humans and elves are white!").

Well, that's very kind of you to not call him a racist. It'd be pretty ridiculous to do so in a setting where the different races -are actually totally different races-. But you yourself very clearly have an active, conscious opinion of English people.

It's not so much that I find his setting unoriginal because I've already read other fantasy; it's that I see absolutely nothing in the so-called beauty of Middle-earth. It's dead to me. I have no patience for a dead white man

His race matters why? Other than to a racist? At any rate, here we've covered both race and gender warfare...

lamenting the tragic loss of gray, insipid countryside in the most self-indulgent way possible.

Too freaking funny. So Tolkien was an environmentalist before his time. Seriously, do you go off on present-day environmentalists too? I'm guessing probably not. They're probably convenient political allies in lots of other ways, so I'm betting they get a pass.

It's so hilariously, incredibly privileged

Don't forget the class warfare! Wewt, that covers the unholy trinity - race, class, AND gender warfare all in one smug sanctimonious package.

There's no room for anything else but this grim march toward trumpeting epicness.

Unlike, say, Michael Moorcock. That guy was a laugh riot, that one.

Look. Seriously. Forget everything else I said. The fact that you actually liked the insipid horrifying rape of all that is sentient called "The Neverending Story" says -everything- I needed to know about how seriously to take your opinion.

The Neverending Story. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Qwinn

 

[Shannow]

LOL, first they go with the old "You have to put 10 years of study into Tolkien. Simply reading his books is not enough to form an informed opinion." And now they try the old "You say that my favourite writer sucks? Well, your favourite writer sucks too. (Whats his name?)"

Exactly. :D I've seen people do this so often, it's wonderfully juvenile. Are not! Am too! My dad can beat your dad!

Look. Seriously. Forget everything else I said. The fact that you actually liked the insipid horrifying rape of all that is sentient called "The Neverending Story" says -everything- I needed to know about how seriously to take your opinion.

The Neverending Story. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

NiggerJew

PS: The renaming was just not to appear racist when ...if I assume that you are white with christian values and from a non-third-world-country.

 

[Qwinn]

Hey, look. It's "let's conflate three different arguments" guy again. The one who wants more ad hominems.

How little surprise that out of that entire huge post, the only thing that matters to -this- guy... is race as well.

There's a shocker.

I think we've established one thing pretty clearly. "People who see the world exclusively through a prism of race, class and gender warfare don't like Tolkien. The rest of us that aren't bigoted sanctimonious assholes and don't give a fuck about those things, but see human beings as individuals instead of identity groups, think that he's pretty damn good."

Qwinn

 

[Qwinn]

Oh. OH. Wait a minute. I now realize I totally misunderstood about that "juvenile" crack. I apologize. I extended far too much credit, as what I -thought- you meant by it was merelly intellectually dishonest. I admit myself initially incapable of wrapping my brain around the complete idiocy of what you -really- meant.

Your bitch wasn't about us contradicting ourselves. They were gripes about the individual questions. And in there, you actually contend that after 9 freaking pages of watching you spout off about your vast intellectual superiority and refined taste in literature, it is illegitimate and juvenile to ask you to present examples of what you -do- consider to be good writing, so we can see a comparison. That is a completely unreasonable, -mockable- request that only -children-, apparently, can resort to.

The mind. It boggles. Next to the "My superior morality dictates humanity should go extinct" Avu in the other thread, that may be the second biggest idiocy I've seen expressed on the Codex so far, and dat there is sayin' something.

Qwinn

 

[Lesifoere]

Well, I've not read most of those after the first few you mentioned. I grant that you have at least -some- taste, seeing as I do consider Zelazny to be the best fantasy writer around, bar none (and yes, better even than Tolkien... but there's not many others I'd say that about). Moorcock is entertaining in a masochist way, but absolutely, he fits the predicted bill about dark, dreary and depressing with virtually no character worth a damn. And actually, if I had to pick a single book by Zelazny that fit that bill more than any other, it would be Lords of Light too. He had much better novels.

It's obvious you didn't read anything I mentioned. Dancers at the End of time is as far from "dark, dreary and depressing" as you can get, whether you consider any of the characters worth a damn or not (perhaps you could've consulted wikipedia about it). I'm puzzled as to how, precisely, Lord of Light is in any way particularly depressing--is it the lack of praise for the western civilization that got you so down?

The rest isn't worth responding to. It did give me a laugh, though! I've not had my arguments called "racist" before. :D Especially coming from someone like you, the irony in that is endless.

 

[Gragt]

See, there you go again: opinions. I'm afraid I've read LOTR and the Silm during my "well people drool over this so much, so there must be something decent in it" phase. Fact is, while I found the Silmarillion more interesting than LOTR, I still didn't think it awe-inspiring or exciting. When I started reading Germanic texts, I got even less impressed and more "wow, this was written centuries before but by fuck, Tolkien manages to be so much more boring, how does the man manage?"

Amazing how his name is associated with "wonderful imagimation" in popular culture, isn't it?

 

[Qwinn]

I've not had my arguments called "racist" before.

Not surprising.

Now, let's imagine we were arguing about a book by, oh, say, Malcolm X.

I have no patience for a dead black man lamenting the tragic loss of overgrown jungles in the most self-indulgent way possible.

And then I said:

Malcolm X devotes a thousand-pages epic to concerns I find trivial and laughable, though I'm sure that to another spoiled black person, they're all terrible immense, terribly scary issues.

If no one's ever called you out on it before, it's not because you're any less of a racist, it's because you profit from a flagrant societal double standard that accepts anti-white racism as legitimate.

I, on the other hand, consider -all- racism, toward -anybody-, to be illegitimate. An anti-white racist is every bit as much a racist as an anti-black racist. I couldn't give a fuck what someone's skin color is. You do.

Especially coming from someone like you, the irony in that is endless.

Indeed... the fact that you don't know anything about me, and yet somehow, on the single basis that I have explicitly condemned -all- forms of racism, and have never made a statement on this board that could be considered even remotely racist, you have magically decided that I must -be- a racist, and you can dub it "ironic" that I would call you out for your own explicitly racist rants. The irony is thick indeed, but it ain't mine.

Qwinn

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I'm gone for a while, and now I don't know if this should be retardoed or stickied in General.

 

[Gragt]

Nail it on your door, the smell will scare the others away.

 

[nomask7]

There, there, no need to get upset.

Now put on your tinfoil hat like a good nutter and go and take your dose of moron-feed from the cuntroversial bookshelves.

If you can't concede the fact that not everything taught in school is necessarily fact, you're the one who should be putting on his tinfoil hat. If you can concede it, then either shut the fuck up or examine the evidence, dumb herd animal fuck.

In point of fact, I made no claims either way, you moronic little twat, but since you bring it up, no - I'm no fan of idiotic, counterfactual gibberish taught in or out of schools. Which is why I have no time for glorious fuckwits like you.

dumb shit fuck cunt bollocks cunt herd fuck shit fuck.

But you like to enforce herd norms and impose them on strangers anyway, without ever having examined the arguments of the opposing side. That doesn't sound very enlightened to me.

On the other hand, if you think you know something about the subject of the "Holocaust", you could start by explaining why it was OK for Dachau to undergo a transformation from a "death camp" to an ordinary labour or concentration camp - and why such a transformation should be unthinkable in the case of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Why were the Nuremberg eye witnesses reliable in the latter case, but not in the former?

 

[Deleted Member 10432]

There, there, no need to get upset.

Now put on your tinfoil hat like a good nutter and go and take your dose of moron-feed from the cuntroversial bookshelves.

If you can't concede the fact that not everything taught in school is necessarily fact, you're the one who should be putting on his tinfoil hat. If you can concede it, then either shut the fuck up or examine the evidence, dumb herd animal fuck.

In point of fact, I made no claims either way, you moronic little twat, but since you bring it up, no - I'm no fan of idiotic, counterfactual gibberish taught in or out of schools. Which is why I have no time for glorious fuckwits like you.

dumb shit fuck cunt bollocks cunt herd fuck shit fuck.

But you like to enforce herd norms and impose them on strangers anyway, without ever having examined the arguments of the opposing side. That doesn't sound very enlightened to me.

On the other hand, if you think you know something about the subject of the "Holocaust", you could start by explaining why it was OK for Dachau to undergo a transformation from a "death camp" to an ordinary labour or concentration camp - and why such a transformation should be unthinkable in the case of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Why were the Nuremberg eye witnesses reliable in the latter case, but not in the former?

That's it? That's your counter? LAWL. I haven't the time, the energy or the desire to bother with a lightweight monomaniac like you.

 

[nomask7]

There, there, no need to get upset.

Now put on your tinfoil hat like a good nutter and go and take your dose of moron-feed from the cuntroversial bookshelves.

If you can't concede the fact that not everything taught in school is necessarily fact, you're the one who should be putting on his tinfoil hat. If you can concede it, then either shut the fuck up or examine the evidence, dumb herd animal fuck.

In point of fact, I made no claims either way, you moronic little twat, but since you bring it up, no - I'm no fan of idiotic, counterfactual gibberish taught in or out of schools. Which is why I have no time for glorious fuckwits like you.

dumb shit fuck cunt bollocks cunt herd fuck shit fuck.

But you like to enforce herd norms and impose them on strangers anyway, without ever having examined the arguments of the opposing side. That doesn't sound very enlightened to me.

On the other hand, if you think you know something about the subject of the "Holocaust", you could start by explaining why it was OK for Dachau to undergo a transformation from a "death camp" to an ordinary labour or concentration camp - and why such a transformation should be unthinkable in the case of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Why were the Nuremberg eye witnesses reliable in the latter case, but not in the former?

That's it? That's your counter? LAWL.

You might want to look yourself in the mirror. Most "counters" I've read by idiots like you are pretty bad already, but you're really conquering new ground there.

I haven't the time, the energy or the desire to bother with a lightweight monomaniac like you.

But you feel compelled to post meaningless ridicule on a subject you know nothing about.

a lightweight

I didn't mean to imply that you had to examine my arguments, only that if you were as open minded as you think, you would spend your time examining the best arguments of the opposing side instead of ridiculing me. Personally, I would recommend Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust:

www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/

Direct address: 70.86.161.234/GB/Books/loth/

monomaniac like you

So I'm a monomaniac now, merely because I know something about a subject that you're unfamiliar with. I'd say the "Holocaust" is in fact one of the many subjects I know much more about than you do.

 

[Deleted Member 10432]

There, there, no need to get upset.

Now put on your tinfoil hat like a good nutter and go and take your dose of moron-feed from the cuntroversial bookshelves.

If you can't concede the fact that not everything taught in school is necessarily fact, you're the one who should be putting on his tinfoil hat. If you can concede it, then either shut the fuck up or examine the evidence, dumb herd animal fuck.

In point of fact, I made no claims either way, you moronic little twat, but since you bring it up, no - I'm no fan of idiotic, counterfactual gibberish taught in or out of schools. Which is why I have no time for glorious fuckwits like you.

dumb shit fuck cunt bollocks cunt herd fuck shit fuck.

But you like to enforce herd norms and impose them on strangers anyway, without ever having examined the arguments of the opposing side. That doesn't sound very enlightened to me.

On the other hand, if you think you know something about the subject of the "Holocaust", you could start by explaining why it was OK for Dachau to undergo a transformation from a "death camp" to an ordinary labour or concentration camp - and why such a transformation should be unthinkable in the case of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Why were the Nuremberg eye witnesses reliable in the latter case, but not in the former?

That's it? That's your counter? LAWL.

You might want to look yourself in the mirror. Most "counters" I've read by idiots like you are pretty bad already, but you're really conquering new ground there.

I haven't the time, the energy or the desire to bother with a lightweight monomaniac like you.

But you feel compelled to post meaningless ridicule on a subject you know nothing about.

So, you accuse me of commenting on something I know nothing about (according to you), and then proclaim me an 'idiot', posting 'meaningless ridicule'. That's just too brilliant.

a lightweight

I didn't mean to imply that you had to examine my arguments, only that if you were as open minded as you think, you would spend your time examining the best arguments of the opposing side instead of ridiculing me. Personally, I would recommend Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust:

www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/

Direct address: 70.86.161.234/GB/Books/loth/

What next, are you going to cite Leuchter? van Pelt, Markiewicz and Pressac dealt with that shit years ago.

monomaniac like you

So I'm a monomaniac now, merely because I know something about a subject that you're unfamiliar with. I'd say the "Holocaust" is in fact one of the many subjects I know much more about than you do.

"The many subjects"? My, you do have a high opinion of yourself - and a fantastic ability to judge another from cursory assumptions. I'm really impressed by your critical reasoning so far. What next? Are you going to try and guess my shoe size and religious and political affiliation? How about my hair and eye colour? I'll give you a hint: non-Aryan.

For the record, though, the reason you are a monomanic is, to paraphrase Churchill, that you can't your mind and won't change the subject.

Further batshit from you will be met with extracts from the gnostic gospels.

 

[nomask7]

There, there, no need to get upset.

Now put on your tinfoil hat like a good nutter and go and take your dose of moron-feed from the cuntroversial bookshelves.

If you can't concede the fact that not everything taught in school is necessarily fact, you're the one who should be putting on his tinfoil hat. If you can concede it, then either shut the fuck up or examine the evidence, dumb herd animal fuck.

In point of fact, I made no claims either way, you moronic little twat, but since you bring it up, no - I'm no fan of idiotic, counterfactual gibberish taught in or out of schools. Which is why I have no time for glorious fuckwits like you.

dumb shit fuck cunt bollocks cunt herd fuck shit fuck.

But you like to enforce herd norms and impose them on strangers anyway, without ever having examined the arguments of the opposing side. That doesn't sound very enlightened to me.

On the other hand, if you think you know something about the subject of the "Holocaust", you could start by explaining why it was OK for Dachau to undergo a transformation from a "death camp" to an ordinary labour or concentration camp - and why such a transformation should be unthinkable in the case of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Why were the Nuremberg eye witnesses reliable in the latter case, but not in the former?

That's it? That's your counter? LAWL.

You might want to look yourself in the mirror. Most "counters" I've read by idiots like you are pretty bad already, but you're really conquering new ground there.

I haven't the time, the energy or the desire to bother with a lightweight monomaniac like you.

But you feel compelled to post meaningless ridicule on a subject you know nothing about.

So, you accuse me of commenting on something I know nothing about (according to you), and then proclaim me an 'idiot', posting 'meaningless ridicule'. That's just too brilliant.

a lightweight

I didn't mean to imply that you had to examine my arguments, only that if you were as open minded as you think, you would spend your time examining the best arguments of the opposing side instead of ridiculing me. Personally, I would recommend Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust:

www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/

Direct address: 70.86.161.234/GB/Books/loth/

What next, are you going to cite Leuchter? van Pelt, Markiewicz and Pressac dealt with that shit years ago.

monomaniac like you

So I'm a monomaniac now, merely because I know something about a subject that you're unfamiliar with. I'd say the "Holocaust" is in fact one of the many subjects I know much more about than you do.

"The many subjects"? My, you do have a high opinion of yourself - and a fantastic ability to judge another from cursory assumptions. I'm really impressed by your critical reasoning so far. What next? Are you going to try and guess my shoe size and religious and political affiliation? How about my hair and eye colour? I'll give you a hint: non-Aryan.

For the record, though, the reason you are a monomanic is, to paraphrase Churchill, that you can't your mind and won't change the subject.

Let me guess, a joo, amirite? Small wonder. As to my being unable to change my mind - how do you think I became a "Holocaust denier"? The truth is, it's usually the promoters of conventional wisdom who have never changed their mind about anything. Personally, I always try to change my mind when I learn new facts or realize that something which I thought was true was not. I derive my ideology from facts, not facts from the ideology that I'm an exponent of for what ever reason. That makes me more sane than 99% of humanity. Humans are social animals. The capacity for distinguishing between collective fantasies and reality was never programmed into most humans. They reproduce more successfully if they're deluded about most things about the world as well as themselves. Social acceptance is more important than knowing facts, and throughout human history, that has meant being ignorant of facts. Facts are evolutionarily significant only if you can use them to gain status, wealth, or power - each of which ultimately translates to reproductive success. Without their tremendously successful lies - and through lies, power, the Ashkenazim would be a dying breed. Now it's the White Europeans that are the dying breed, from 22% of the world population in the early 20th century to less than 8% now. The truth is, evolutionarily beneficial ignorance eventually goes to seed, and most people are by now simply without the means to know anything about anything unless by accident. What they learn is through repetition and blind trust in their favorite authority figures and what they see on the joo box.

 

[Deleted Member 10432]

a joo, amirite?

No. Do try again.

I'll give you a clue, oh educated one: peneiot ethnmpeue, marepekran ouop; tekmntrro marecei pekouosh marefshope n the etfhn tpe nfshope on hidjm pkah.

 

[elander_]

A very good writer i knew once said that an artist never invents anything but steals other concepts and ideas and make it look original and interesting. Tolkien did this and did it masterfully.

About Dragon Age it may not look like a masterpiece in writing and plot but it looks to be an interesting and well made game. It may be a more story focused crpg but it's still looks to be a crpg with some interesting light c&c and racial conflicts.

 

[nomask7]

A very good writer i knew once said that an artist never invents anything but steals other concepts and ideas and make it look original and interesting.

It sounds like he bastardized that from Stravinsky, who said that "a good composer does not imitate - he steals".

 

[Gragt]

Nothing wrong in taking good parts but it seems most people insist on taking the wrong ones.

 

[nomask7]

Don't take anything if you can't make it your own. That's what Stravinsky would've said. The Tolkien copycats are bad imitators - they aren't good enough to steal.

Another point: Tolkien never meant to produce dynamic and rounded characters in the slightly feminist-homosexual mold that people expect every novel to fit these days. The LotR has a distant, legendary quality and purity to it lacking in multi-tome Tolkien ripoffs that kids keep saying are actually better Tolkien than Tolkien himself. Nope, they're not better - they're different and aren't actually making Tolkien any less original than he was when the LotR was first published.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Look at this thread!

It's all that remains of two tragic posters trolled out of this forum.

RIP Mareus.

 

[Jaesun]

Hay look! Its nomask7!

 

[Rorschach]

What they learn is through repetition and blind trust in their favorite authority figures and what they see on the joo box.

Wow, you really are a dumb motherfucker.

 

[Lonewolf]

Wow I seen some threads go off topic but this is fucking ridiculous

 

[Lesifoere]

Wyrmlord is the new representative of the Tribe of Necro?

What happened to Qwinn, anyway? Can anyone give me a quick recap?

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=34656

Qwinn