No More Metagame.com?

[Tronta]

in this topic, full-of-himself crab helmet ignores my acknowledgment of the weakness of calling it chaos, and my desire to rename it zen. hypocrisy also abounds, as refusal to acknowledge the deck concept by another name is equally as stubborn as insisting it be called something new.

 

as usual, the simple questions prove the most useful, in this instance, "why not?" applies.

 

if the first guy who ran this build decided to call it the "tooty-fruity-rainbow-patrol deck", do you think others would accept that? or someone would take it upon himself to rename it something less terrible. while the name in place isnt nearly as bad, i still think there could easily be a better name for it, one that isnt associated with any chick-flick-vampire-crap-writing. as the decktype in question is darks mixed with lightsworns, how about the obvious approach, calling it "darksworns"?

its not that hard to change a deck's name. all you have to do is call it by that name, and tell others to as well.

[Azmodius]

in this topic' date=' full-of-himself crab helmet ignores my acknowledgment of the weakness of calling it chaos, and my desire to rename it zen. hypocrisy also abounds, as refusal to acknowledge the deck concept by another name is equally as stubborn as insisting it be called something new.

 

as usual, the simple questions prove the most useful, in this instance, "why not?" applies.

 

if the first guy who ran this build decided to call it the "tooty-fruity-rainbow-patrol deck", do you think others would accept that? or someone would take it upon himself to rename it something less terrible. while the name in place isnt nearly as bad, i still think there could easily be a better name for it, one that isnt associated with any chick-flick-vampire-crap-writing. as the decktype in question is darks mixed with lightsworns, how about the obvious approach, calling it "darksworns"?

its not that hard to change a deck's name. all you have to do is call it by that name, and tell others to as well.

[/quote']

 

I agree, twilight = worst series ever!!! uh, and tons of imbeciles are obsesed with this crap!! hell, they must have been to name a deck after that sheet. Darksworn FTW!1

[Tronta]

the deck name came out first, but we cant change the name of the book.

 

i actually like darksworn as a name.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Darksworn is probably the best choice IMO.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

It's rather unorthodox to expect the entirety of a community to change an already establish deck name just because a couple of guys think it could be better. I mean, I see where you come from, myself not being a fan of the "Cornarchs" name (strictly because it sounds ****ing ridiculous), but there's not really a problem with the name Twilight, other then the fact that some mormon housewife later decided to name her book that, and it's something you'd rather not be associated with.

[Tronta]

well, monarch is written on the card, so we really cant do too much about it. but we can change an opinionated name over time with minimal effort.

call it darksworn then. sounds cool to me.

just slip it into conversation at a local card shop. if someone corrects you, tell them that twilight is a gay name, and darksworn is cooler. :P

 

and ill just use zen for whatever light/dark builds i run that dont use lightsworns. like mah fairies.

[The Dark One]

Lol, why does everyone immediately think OMG TWILIGHT IS TEH GAYZEST DING EVAR!!!!

 

How many of you have actually read the book? I'm not supporting it, because I haven't read it myself, but all this bandwagon junk is just ridiculous. Do us all a favor and grow up.

 

 

Onto the actual subject of the name change, I think Twilight sounds just fine. Not to mention, the name DOES fit. Twilight is the time of day where it is growing dark, but is still light enough to see. A BALANCE BETWEEN LIGHT AND DARK.

 

And if some random person decides to name a book (no matter how popular or shitty) the same, who gives?

 

And frankly, if someone created a tournament winning strategy and named it toot-fruity-rainbow-patrol, most people would call it just that. Again, who gives? (Now, it's worth mentioning here that most people would probably only call it that for the lulz.)

 

Also: lol morphtronics

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Read the book, horrible.

 

Twilight's a decent name though. Darksworn just sounds stupid.

[Tronta]

i disagree, but whatever.

 

and while i havent read the whole book, i have read pieces. the writing is of poor, terrible, awful quality. its homoerotic fanfic (redundant) quality at best. its just... awful. read a real book. funking dostoyevsky, james joyce, hell if you want fantasy go with a /real/ writer like george r.r. martin.

ignoring the quality of writing, the content is crap. its about a teenage girl who falls in love with a vampire. its a chick flick, composed into a series of long books. it has no message, it has no meaning, its simply junk writing and junk reading.

its harry potter for teenage girls. and harry potter already was more or less for teenage girls. rowling is a piss poor author. so is tolkien and paolini for that matter. our society is in one hell of a crapper when sheet like potter outsells the bible. even though theyre both fiction, at least the bible has decent writing.

 

no, most people wouldnt call it that. some guy would come along with a catchy name and call it that, most likely. hell, it might not even catch on if the name is terrible, even if it is tourny winning.

marketing, yo.

[CrabHelmet]

so is tolkien

 

[Guest PikaPerson01]

rowling is a piss poor author. so is tolkien and paolini for that matter.

 

[GenzoTheHarpist]

our society is in one hell of a crapper when s*** like potter outsells the bible. even though theyre both fiction' date=' at least the bible has decent writing.

[/quote']

 

Potter>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Bible. The bible is one of the dumbest books i've ever read. God is the ultimate mary sue character.

[Tronta]

pfft.

lotr is full of plotholes, plot devices, and deus's. the actual level of writing is barely beyond middle school. its a collection of cliches and generics, and the only reason it became famous is simply that it was the best combination of cliches and generics at the time. granted the hobbit, save for the ending, was good. the ending of it seemed like tolkien had just written himself into a corner. more plot devices save the day.

 

rowling is terrible. anyone who firmly believes that rowling is a good writer seriously needs to pick up a real book. granted rowling at least came up with original ideas, but ultimately her story was akin to a daytime american tv show. the events of each book were entirely contained within themselves, and every year at hogwarts was a monster-of-the-week motif. her attempts at linking them were pathetic at best, and i didnt for a minute buy that whole wand, stone and cloak sheet. her last ditch efforts to end the series because she really just didnt want to write anymore. anyone who read the epilogue on the last harry potter book and didnt groan is.. sad, really. standards in this country, sheesh.

 

dont even get me started on paolini. hes a two-bit hack. his books got acclaim because he was actually a high school student who wrote a consistent story of over two hundred pages. granted it was mostly generic plot, cliches, and stolen concepts, but it met the length requirements. hes a kid. thats why its famous. unfortunately, hes either a genius and knows exactly how to dumb down his writing to pander to the idiots in our public, or hes never taken an english class in his life. granted, he has read a lot. thats where he gets most of his material.

who hasnt seen a human-elf love dilemma before. or the unstoppable overlord trying to rule the world. suffice it to say, hes awful, and a sell out.

his movie was absolutely terrible, and no self respecting author could allow that abomination to be spawned. that says pages about him in itself.

 

 

@ the troll who doesnt respect the literary quality of the bible, if not its religious content:

first, mary sue? really? you know the bible is like, one of the first pieces of literature right? you cant really make that argument... it doesnt work... the generic character type was invented ages later...

second, can you even explain to me the spell system in harry potter? why do the specific words of a spell and a particular hand motion cause a reaction that produces the effect known as magic in that world? funk the great gaps in the world construction, how about this?

in harry potter, the protagonist decides spontaneously and with no reasoning to make out with his best friends little sister, who at that point was nothing more than a fangirl of him, in front of the whole god damned house. why? because rowling wanted it to happen, but couldnt figure out how to write it in. when your lovely little flat succinct characters cant even follow their predetermined actions correctly, you know you have a bad author.

sheet man, how can you call the god as portrayed by the bible a mary sue, when all of the harry potter cast is generic flat characters? rons the retarded friend, his brothers are generic jokers. hermione is the smart chick. draco is the generic bully/rival/jabroni. crabbe and goyle? come on. funking dumbledore is just the token deus of the series. wise old man who never, ever helps directly, but occasionally uses his infinite power to vaguely aid the hero. sheet man, hes gandalf. funking jiraiya. hes freaking yoda man.

cardboard cutout characters.

mark of a bad writer.

[CrabHelmet]

pfft.

lotr is full of plotholes' date=' plot devices, and deus's. the actual level of writing is barely beyond middle school. its a collection of cliches and generics,

[/quote']

 

Stopped reading there. If you can't tell what's wrong with that statement (you can't), you aren't qualified to say anything (you aren't).

[Tronta]

ah yes, the crab helmet steps in to tell me im wrong without providing a counter argument.

what a refreshingly new experience. maybe you know childrens card games better than me, but you do /not/ know literature if you believe tolkien is a good writer.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

lol you call Dumbledore a Deus ex Machina when the god of the bible is the worst case of that in all of history. Literally. When the main character of your story can resolve any conflict just by wanting to but doesn't because "he works in mysterious ways" that is the WORST you can get in terms of characterization. The majority of bible stories have exceedingly flat characters and unexplained concepts, more so than anything in Harry Potter. A lot of it isn't even literature but rather a rulebook. Look at some of the villains and how deep they are:

 

Satan: "who am I again? Oh wait the bible doesn't say."

 

Pharoah: "Hmm even though these plagues will ravage my country without end i'm sure god will back down if I just do nothing."

 

Serpent: "rah i'm just evil."

 

and the others are just as bland, uninteresting, and illogical. The heroes are just as bad. And god as i've mentioned is just a ridiculous character who removes all conflict and tension from the story.

[Tronta]

... thats because hes god.

according to the plot, hes actually allowed to do that. its kind of his job.

if dumbledore could be explained as a small magical troll who hid behind the scenes waiting to help in some stupid way, then itd be a much better character.

 

a lot of that god working in mysterious ways is just priest rabble.

 

also...

ya, it kind of /is/ a rulebook.

regardless, i dont think they were actually trying to characterize god at all. i think he was supposed to be pretty ambiguous and undefined. what kind of characterization could you possibly give god? geez.

regardless, im not here to defend the bible. its crap anyway. its simply better than harry potter. less entertaining to be sure, but its not written like its appealing to a prepubescent girl.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If Dumbledore was a little troll that could solve any problem it would be ridiculous writing serving no purpose but to bail the writer out of situations that got too grim. Which is how a lot of the bible reads. Look at Exodus: The Israelites are completely without hope... do they bravely unite and escape? No actually god shows up and fixes everything. The Egyptians never even stood a chance. Talk about deus ex machina. The whole book is like that. It's like those old superman comics where he'd invent any power he needed for the situation. Bad writing at it's finest.

[CrabHelmet]

ah yes' date=' the crab helmet steps in to tell me im wrong without providing a counter argument.

what a refreshingly new experience. maybe you know childrens card games better than me, but you do /not/ know literature if you believe tolkien is a good writer.

[/quote']

 

I was hoping you could figure out your mistake for yourself once I pointed it out, but since that seems impossible for you, I suppose I'll need to spell it out for you:

 

The elements of Lord of the Rings are often considered generic and cliche now, but were not so when it was written. In its time, it was not old and overdone; in fact, the reason it seems generic and cliche now is that it was just so brilliant and popular that other writers stole all sorts of ideas from it. Almost all aspects of modern fantasy - the stock fantasy races like elves waging wars against one another, settings that are based on England in the Middle Ages except with more magic and goblins, and so on - are derived from Lord of the Rings, to the point where you can basically define modern fantasy as "fantasy written since Tolkien". It had that big an impact.

 

Unfortunately, idiots like you don't understand any of this. You only see it as a cliched ripoff of everything else you've seen, not realizing that everything else is actually borrowing from it.

 

To call Tolkien generic is to say "he sucks because he was super-popular and everyone copied him" - a statement that even someone of your limited intellect should notice is fallacious. It would be like calling Doyle a bad writer because Sherlock Holmes-esque characters, like Hercule Poirot, are so commonplace nowadays.

[Tronta]

lets pretend for a moment that he invented fantasy, and that there are no cliche concepts in lotr, because he invented them all. sure, whatever.

the writing is still full of plot holes and plot devices, with a handful of deus thrown in to make the good guys win. thats not good writing.

 

and im not defending the bible. i dont care about it. harry potter is still bad.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

lets pretend for a moment that he invented fantasy' date=' and that there are no cliche concepts in lotr, because he invented them all. sure, whatever.

the writing is still full of plot holes and plot devices, with a handful of deus thrown in to make the good guys win. thats not good writing.

 

and im not defending the bible. i dont care about it. harry potter is still bad.

[/quote']

 

List at least 3 plot holes from LotR.

Where's the DEM?

What's so wrong about plot devices?

[CrabHelmet]

lets pretend for a moment that he invented fantasy' date=' and that there are no cliche concepts in lotr, because he invented them all. sure, whatever.

[/quote']

 

The phrase "lets pretend" implies that this is not actually the case. Care to support that claim, or are you just being stubborn to avoid admitting your own foolishness?

 

the writing is still full of plot holes

 

The only plot hole I can think of off the top of my head is why One Does Not Simply Fly Into Mordor' date=' which can easily be handwaved with some sort of evil magic that prevents them from doing so - which is presumably the case, since constructing large black gates would be pointless otherwise.

 

and plot devices,

 

Nothing wrong with a plot device here and there, especially when you're building an entire genre from the ground up. Even then, it depends very heavily on your definition of "plot device" and how justified each individual "plot device" is.

 

with a handful of deus thrown in to make the good guys win.

 

Such as...?

 

thats not good writing.

 

Good writing can easily contain such elements. Fahrenheit 451' date=' [i']Brave New World[/i], One Hundred Years of Solitude - in fact, the vast majority of what is commonly considered "good" writing are laden with plot devices, plot holes, and deus ex machina. Especially Candide, where you could insert the phrase "By amazing coincidence," at the start of every sentence of a plot summary.

[Tronta]

there are plot devices, and then there are armies of undead soldiers that just /happen/ to be waiting in a cave to be called to fight a /real/ army of orcs. thats pretty weak.

 

speaking of flying into morder, that was another weak ass plot device.

 

aside from flying into mordor, one of the other lovely ones was whats-his-name the brown and the 2 or 3 rings of power. there were large implied orders of wizards and the rings that were never developed and mostly ignored.

 

 

 

whatever. tldr at this point.

 

to my present knowledge, i know of no fantasy novel predating lotr, but then again i also dont know/care when lotr was even published. its on a shelf roughly 5 feet away from me, but how little i care is evidenced in my refusal to get up and go look. tldr. i would like to believe that tolkien didnt simultaneously invent elves, dwarves, dragons, wizards, and all that sheet.

 

i think eragon is evidence enough that a piece of literature doesnt have to be good to be famous. just because lotr may have been one of the first majorly famous pieces of fantasy, does not mean it had to be the first. while i cannot think of a counter example, i also dont really care enough to.

 

i may be stubborn, but that doesnt mean im wrong. hypocrite.

[A●O●J]

What was this thread about again?

[The Dark One]

Ok, for Tronta's argument about cliched character roles..... Have you ever read the book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces"?

 

All literature, or just about all literature follows the epic formula. It was happening LONG before the Bible (even if it wasn't written down, but instead spoken.)

 

It's not such a terrible thing to follow, or at least be comparable to, this formula. It's the way human literature developed.

 

Oh, and while the Lord of the Rings was certainly no a "quick, fun, read" (I find the books to be very dry. There's far too much description, etc.) they are certainly not only a literary masterpiece, but THE FOREFATHERS of modern fantasy. Today everything looks like LOTR, that's because, well, LOTR just had that much of an impact.

 

The Bible was written by multiple authors with competing interests and views of God (Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly). Thus God has a contradicting personality. The stories themselves are contradictory.

 

eg.

 

Abel and Cain are the sons of Adam and Eve. There should only be four people on Earth.

 

After Abel kills Cain and God exiles him from Eden, WAIT! He's afraid of being waylaid by HUMAN bandits along the road. Additionally, the practice of giving sacrifice to God was already implemented, but when did this happen? Adam and Eve didn't do that. How and when did their sons get the idea to? Oh, and God said that if Abel was waylaid, God would avenge him sevenfold. And that is an awesome band. :)

 

Now, parts of the Bible are decent writing, but it's a collection of random stories with absolutely no coherency and an unbelievable number of "plot holes." Additionally, talk about plot devices! A random talking snake to tempt Adam and Eve? The "forbidden fruit" that just gives God an excuse to throw them out of Eden? I mean, seriously!

 

Paolini's writing IS very cliched. I agree. It's not terrible (I do like the series), it's just not original.

 

And if you're that desperate for originality, it DOES exist. Go read Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series, if you have time. Very unique system. Very good series.