1846
Books / Re: what about "adventure magazines?"
« on: November 06, 2002, 05:54:48 PM »
So THAT'S why everyone hates McFarlane. I always heard people bad mouthing him here and there, but never knew why until now. Thanks!
News:
Max is a Shadowblade, a supernatural--and supernaturally competent--warrior bound to protect her witch Giselle. As a Shadowblade, Max doesn't age. She is better, faster, stronger than any ordinary human being. And she hates it. Giselle betrayed her trust to make Max what she is, and though she is magically compelled to protect Giselle and follow orders, Max works against her witch in every way she can. Continue reading Bitter Night
Review by Silk
Discuss it in our forums.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1847
Books / Re: what about "adventure magazines?"
« on: November 05, 2002, 07:05:28 PM »
Wow, Slant, that is a really sucky origin for Wolvie. Talk about bland! Thanks for the info.
I also remember Cerebus popping up in an issue of Spawn at some point. I never read much Spawn, but that issue was a pretty cool commentary on the superheroes who were not owned or written by their creators anymore.
I also remember Cerebus popping up in an issue of Spawn at some point. I never read much Spawn, but that issue was a pretty cool commentary on the superheroes who were not owned or written by their creators anymore.
1848
Everything Else / Re: Best of British
« on: November 05, 2002, 02:27:33 AM »
Like I said before, Mustard, you do raise interesting points here. However, it seems that you and I have different criteria for what makes one great.
Well met!
Well met!
1849
Books / Re: what about "adventure magazines?"
« on: November 03, 2002, 05:30:06 PM »
I used to be a huge Marvel fan when I was in Jr. high/ early high school. I stopped reading about the time of the Infinity War. The only thing I read now-a-days are Knights of the Dinner Table.
I never read The Maxx, but I watched (and still have on tape) the entire animated series they showed on MTV. I was a teenager when it aired, and while I found it cool at the time, it made little sense. Maybe it would make more now if I went back and watched it. What was the premise again? It's been too long...
Also, can someone clue me in on Wolvie's origins? I'm dying to know.
I never read The Maxx, but I watched (and still have on tape) the entire animated series they showed on MTV. I was a teenager when it aired, and while I found it cool at the time, it made little sense. Maybe it would make more now if I went back and watched it. What was the premise again? It's been too long...
Also, can someone clue me in on Wolvie's origins? I'm dying to know.
1850
Role-Playing Games / Re: Setting Ideas Contest
« on: November 03, 2002, 05:20:12 PM »
They've narrowed it down to the 3 (?) finalists. Each has to submit a 100 page treatment on their world and I don't think they've hit the due date for that yet.
A lot of the ones who got eliminated in the last round shared a common theme of a "golden age"
Should be interesting to see what wins. Well, hopefully it will be interesting to see what wins!
A lot of the ones who got eliminated in the last round shared a common theme of a "golden age"
Should be interesting to see what wins. Well, hopefully it will be interesting to see what wins!
1851
Everything Else / Re: Best of British
« on: November 01, 2002, 02:26:26 PM »
Mustard, I see your point, but if what you say holds true then you rob virtually every scientist who'd come along of any of their thunder. Plus, I don't think that "someone else would have figured it out" holds true most of the time. In some cases, certainly, but in others it was only the right person in the right place. Look at how microwaves and penicillin were discovered...completely by accident. If someone else had been there to observe the phenomenon, they might have merely ignored it or not drawn any meaningful conclusions. If someone beside Cromwell had taken the reigns, things woudn't have been as "glorious." It's the same thing.
Darwin and Wallace are a special case. It's rare that theories like that develop concurrently (Calculus is the only other thing I can can think of that developed this way). Plus, Natural Selection is a theory, not a natural law, in that by its nature it can never be proven, only supported or disproven.
Plus, your argument works against you just as easily. Even without Brunel, colonization would have eventually happened, just at a slower rate.
I agree with you that greatness requires the right person in the right place at the right time, but it applies universally.
Darwin and Wallace are a special case. It's rare that theories like that develop concurrently (Calculus is the only other thing I can can think of that developed this way). Plus, Natural Selection is a theory, not a natural law, in that by its nature it can never be proven, only supported or disproven.
Plus, your argument works against you just as easily. Even without Brunel, colonization would have eventually happened, just at a slower rate.
I agree with you that greatness requires the right person in the right place at the right time, but it applies universally.
1852
Everything Else / Re: Best of British
« on: November 01, 2002, 02:39:07 AM »
In retrospect it's funny that the two people that pretty much no one wanted on the list (Lennon and Di) were the ones that made it. Kind of silly since it's far too soon to see if they will have any long standing impact on Britain.
My vote, and I'm bucking the trend here, Charles Darwin gets my vote. I'm horribly biased though, being a biology degree holder and all.
'Ole Chuck gets a really bad rap as most of the people give him all the baggage that comes along with evolution. Darwin did not come up with evolution, in fact, evolution was never even mentioned in Origin of Species (at least not in the context we take it if it was). What Darwin contributed was the theory of natural selection, the basis which underlies evolution. It's beautiful, it's elegant, and it is the window through which we view all of modern biology. Religious fanatics have tarnished the legacy of this great man, and his theories don't even directly conflict with Creationism...in my opinion they make a stronger case for a supreme being, if anything. Errrrr...rant over.
Also interesting to note is that if Darwin wouldn't have come along and published OoS, a man by the name of Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist and big game hunter, would have been given the credit (and baggage) or the theory of Natural Selection. Both Darwin and Wallace came up with the theory at about the same time and even had correspondence about the subject...Darwin just beat him to the punch (and rather underhandedly, I might add).
It's actually a bit worrisome that the human race is no longer under the constraints of natural selection, but instead under social selection...but that's a whole 'nother rant.
While Darwin is pretty high on my "cool" list, my biology superheroes are Watson and Crick, the gentlemen who discovered the structure of DNA and revolutionized genetics. Crick was British...he should be on the list
My vote, and I'm bucking the trend here, Charles Darwin gets my vote. I'm horribly biased though, being a biology degree holder and all.
'Ole Chuck gets a really bad rap as most of the people give him all the baggage that comes along with evolution. Darwin did not come up with evolution, in fact, evolution was never even mentioned in Origin of Species (at least not in the context we take it if it was). What Darwin contributed was the theory of natural selection, the basis which underlies evolution. It's beautiful, it's elegant, and it is the window through which we view all of modern biology. Religious fanatics have tarnished the legacy of this great man, and his theories don't even directly conflict with Creationism...in my opinion they make a stronger case for a supreme being, if anything. Errrrr...rant over.
Also interesting to note is that if Darwin wouldn't have come along and published OoS, a man by the name of Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist and big game hunter, would have been given the credit (and baggage) or the theory of Natural Selection. Both Darwin and Wallace came up with the theory at about the same time and even had correspondence about the subject...Darwin just beat him to the punch (and rather underhandedly, I might add).
It's actually a bit worrisome that the human race is no longer under the constraints of natural selection, but instead under social selection...but that's a whole 'nother rant.
While Darwin is pretty high on my "cool" list, my biology superheroes are Watson and Crick, the gentlemen who discovered the structure of DNA and revolutionized genetics. Crick was British...he should be on the list
1853
Role-Playing Games / Re: real world vs fantastic worlds
« on: November 01, 2002, 02:20:59 AM »
I groaned when I read that Slant, since I hear some version of that nearly every day, or, more typically, "Luke, I am your father."
Then it dawned on me...You probably didn't know my name was Luke.
Ahhhhh, it's funny because it's true.
Then it dawned on me...You probably didn't know my name was Luke.
Ahhhhh, it's funny because it's true.
1854
Role-Playing Games / Re: A few notes on Lejendary Adventures.
« on: November 01, 2002, 02:18:20 AM »
Slant: Off the top of my head the only other book I know was dual statted was "The Hermit," but I think there was one other... I think the adventures will be double statted from here on out. There's also a series of supplements he's putting out about how to create a Gygaxian Fantasy World. Should be interesting.
Also, the lack of setting might be a detriment to some, but it's not too difficult to put together your own stuff (I love world-building...I'm in the middle of such a project right now), just time consuming. D&D didn't have a setting for some time after it was released and it seemed to do pretty well Of course, RPG standards have risen dramatically in the last 20+ years or so.
Also, the lack of setting might be a detriment to some, but it's not too difficult to put together your own stuff (I love world-building...I'm in the middle of such a project right now), just time consuming. D&D didn't have a setting for some time after it was released and it seemed to do pretty well
Of course, RPG standards have risen dramatically in the last 20+ years or so.
1855
Webcomics & Free Stuff / Re: PVP bashes Furries
« on: October 31, 2002, 09:57:10 PM »
I'm a HUGE PVP fan and Scott's jabs at Furries certainly made me chuckle.
I just couldn't believe the backlash he got from that. That's two comics, KODT and PVP, I've seen where someone pokes a little fun at Furries and suddenly has the whole Furry sub-community screaming about biggotry. Sense of humor, people?
I can't say I understand the Furry thing either, but to each his own.
I just couldn't believe the backlash he got from that. That's two comics, KODT and PVP, I've seen where someone pokes a little fun at Furries and suddenly has the whole Furry sub-community screaming about biggotry. Sense of humor, people?
I can't say I understand the Furry thing either, but to each his own.
1857
Movies and TV / Re: oooooooh, scaaaaary
« on: October 31, 2002, 09:47:15 PM »
The Prophecy fall more under the thriller/action category in my book, although it does have some horror elements. I love the first one, too bad the sequels suck so bad. It inspired my to buy In Nomine, which I still have yet to play.
I can see how it could be scary to a youngster though.
I always thought that it would have been about 10 times better if David Lynch had directed though...
I can see how it could be scary to a youngster though.
I always thought that it would have been about 10 times better if David Lynch had directed though...
1858
Role-Playing Games / Re: A few notes on Lejendary Adventures.
« on: October 31, 2002, 09:43:12 PM »
...and speaking of the MMORPG, does it make any sense at all to base it on LA, a realtively unknown game? I mean, you want people to play your MMORPG, right, so if you're going to go to the trouble of liscencing a world for it wouldn't you want one that was widely popular?
From a strictly money making point of view, Forgotten Realms would be a gold mine as an MMORPG. The fan base for it is already huge and the style of a MMORPG fits well with the stereotypical style of FR.
I assume the reason behind this is because LA would be cheap to liscence and the recognition factor of EGG's name.
From a strictly money making point of view, Forgotten Realms would be a gold mine as an MMORPG. The fan base for it is already huge and the style of a MMORPG fits well with the stereotypical style of FR.
I assume the reason behind this is because LA would be cheap to liscence and the recognition factor of EGG's name.
1859
Role-Playing Games / Re: real world vs fantastic worlds
« on: October 31, 2002, 09:37:56 PM »
Must....resist...temptation....
1860
Role-Playing Games / Re: A few notes on Lejendary Adventures.
« on: October 31, 2002, 06:53:25 PM »
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... KK...don't let him hear you say that! Otherwise he won't team up with Rob Kuntz and finally publish the legendary Castle Greyhawk.
In all seriousness, nothing he has produced after D&D has been a much of a success, although LA does seem to be doing okay. From what I can gather from his frequent posts over at ENworld, Dragonsfoot, and Pied Pipers boards, though he is a friendly, humble man who just loves games.
In all seriousness, nothing he has produced after D&D has been a much of a success, although LA does seem to be doing okay. From what I can gather from his frequent posts over at ENworld, Dragonsfoot, and Pied Pipers boards, though he is a friendly, humble man who just loves games.