Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 1694679" data-attributes="member: 4720">I don't understand why it can't appeal to both.&nbsp; Sure, if it has any minor magi-tech tropes, it can't appeal to the hard-core traditional gamers who insist that everything since Greyhawk sucks.&nbsp; And simply by being a role-playing game, it can't appeal to hardcore video gamers who don't play anything but Hideo Kojima's latest &quot;classic.&quot;&nbsp; But the inability to appeal to a closed mind isn't necessarily a failure of the product.Commercial does not necessarily equal bad, you know.&nbsp; There's a great tendency around here to assume that anything &quot;the great unwashed masses&quot; like is inferior.&nbsp; It's probably the only thing I dislike about ENWorld.Tolkien, Howard, and Vance are more self-similar than say Tolkien, Lineage, and WarCraft?&nbsp; Only if you look at the audience for each.&nbsp; Tolkien is an entirely different type of literature from Howard, Lieber, and Vance, and despite their similarities, I have trouble thinking of Vance as at all similar to Howard and Lieber (though to be fair, it hurt to read Vance so much that my experience is sorely limited).And in what way is the WarCraft world, or that of Lineage, or even that of Dark Age of Camelot, any sillier than Vance's?&nbsp; Or that of D&amp;D itself?&nbsp; Most MMORPG worlds (barring Everquest) are a LOT less silly than the world implied simply from reading the Monster Manual.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 1694679, member: 4720"] I don't understand why it can't appeal to both. Sure, if it has any minor magi-tech tropes, it can't appeal to the hard-core traditional gamers who insist that everything since Greyhawk sucks. And simply by being a role-playing game, it can't appeal to hardcore video gamers who don't play anything but Hideo Kojima's latest "classic." But the inability to appeal to a closed mind isn't necessarily a failure of the product. Commercial does not necessarily equal bad, you know. There's a great tendency around here to assume that anything "the great unwashed masses" like is inferior. It's probably the only thing I dislike about ENWorld. Tolkien, Howard, and Vance are more self-similar than say Tolkien, Lineage, and WarCraft? Only if you look at the audience for each. Tolkien is an entirely different type of literature from Howard, Lieber, and Vance, and despite their similarities, I have trouble thinking of Vance as at all similar to Howard and Lieber (though to be fair, it hurt to read Vance so much that my experience is sorely limited). And in what way is the WarCraft world, or that of Lineage, or even that of Dark Age of Camelot, any sillier than Vance's? Or that of D&D itself? Most MMORPG worlds (barring Everquest) are a LOT less silly than the world implied simply from reading the Monster Manual. [/QUOTE]

Verification