Author: Dungeon Curmudgeon (---.dreamscape.com)
Date: 07-03-2004 17:37
Overall, a very disappointing article. I have no more understanding about what separates the Nordic scene and the American scene besides a language and an ocean than before I read this.
Critical point were reduced to "read my friend's article." While I can understand not wanting to retread material already covered, a summary of what these element are and how they define the Nordic scene would have been better. Then adding a like of "for more detail on this element, read *this*"
The LARPS are listed but what these things mean to make the Nordic scene a scene unto itself is never explained, nor is what is meant by LARPing or LARPing in the Nortdic style given any explanation. This would be like listing the names of 50's & 60's TV sitcoms to people who've never seen them.
Our Miss Brooks: this one is very funny
My Mother the Car: This one is not so good, but notable because of it's star.
That Girl: This one is very special to me personally because of that time in my life.
Leave It To Beaver: This one is classic. Everyone knows this one.
The Honeymooners: How can you go wrong with this one?
The Donna Reed Show: This show is funny for so many reasons.
Understand the sitcoms of the 50's and 60's? No? Then you know how I feel. the difference here is there's a chance you've seen an episode or two of at least one of these show. I have no fricking clue about the LARPS except what was in the article. In most cases, no more information about the larps was given than what I had just given about these shows.
Finally, two theory were named, Nordic and Forge, and the author's game was considered the fruit of the Nordic game theory, but what this theory is was not explained.
I suspect that many of the holes here are because of the linking to the other articles. The result is noise without much signal.
|
|
