Okay, the Steam Summer Sale has ended and my bank account is heaving a sigh of relief.
I figured it out the other night and prior to getting my laptop a couple of years ago it's been about 9-10 years prior to that since I've had a computer beefy enough to play games on. Once I got my lap top I wanted to start getting back in to gaming. Unfortunately my laptop doesn't have an optical drive so all those computer disks of the games that I own I didn't have a way to install them. I could have gone out and bought an external CD drive but there have been other things I've had to spend money on.
This year I couldn't wait any longer and I started buying Steam games when I found something that I liked. I had 7 before the sale started. Games like The Witcher (the original), 7 Days to Die, Dead by Daylight, More or Die, RWBY: Grimm Eclipse, You Must Build a Boat and just prior to the sale Playerunknown's Battleground. Now I have a total of 67 games. I think I went a little overboard.
But the good news is that I really didn't spend all that much money (I love sales). What's even better news is that I got some of my old games that I have on CD so now I don't have to worry about trying to find a way to install them. Games like all the Thief games, the Half-Life games (please make Half-Life 3), and a metric butt-ton of Star Wars games among many, many others. I've even gone back and got original games that started series like Fallout. I always like to play series from the beginning so I can see how the game progressed through the years.
I don't know when I'm going to find the time to play all these new games (although I've have started playing Portal [love that game]). And I don't have the hard drive space to install them all on my laptop. My next goal to complete before my birthday next year is to build a really good gaming PC. Then I'll probably just plant myself in front of it and play until my brain melts. I can't think of a better way to spend my time.
Did you pick up anything in the Steam Summer Sale? I'm curious as what games people got. I know there were a bunch more that I wanted to get but my budget decided it wasn't a wise move. And I was only looking in the "under $5" list. Maybe next time I'll check out the "under $10" list as well. I better start saving up now.
Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts
Friday, July 7, 2017
Monday, May 3, 2010
Poll Results - Organizing my games
Here's the poll results for organizing my games:
The way I had things organized before I got robbed was alphabetical regardless of system. This had some ups and downs. When looking for a particular game I got easily distracted by other games. If I wanted to play a PS game I might find myself pulling out a PS2 game instead. And there was the whole alphabetical problem. How do you file all those Star Wars games. Since "Star Wars" is usually first they would all go together. But I don't think of Bounty Hunter as "Star Wars Bounty Hunter". Those games were all filed by the game title; I left the Star Wars out of it. And that was the same for the Lord of the Rings games.
Some sequels had alphabetical problems as well. Chrono Cross is a sequel (of sorts) to Chrono Trigger, but alphabetically Chrono Cross would get files first. Of those games that had the sequels close in name to the original (Abe's Exodus vs. Abe's Oddysee another example) I filed those chronologically instead of alphabetically. But that created a problem with Final Fantasy Tactics. It's not a sequel to any Final Fantasy game, and is, in fact, a different type of game entirely. where does that one go? I could have put it after Final Fantasy XII (the last one in number order that I owned) but that didn't seem right to have an original PS game after the newest PS2 games. I could have figured out when that game came out in the series and put it there but I didn't want to bother. So Final Fantasy Tactics was filed first. Of course I do have a couple of games that when I think of the title I think of it differently. Like "The Legend of Alan D'ar" I only think of as "Alan D'ar". Makes it hard to find sometimes.
What I liked about filing alphabetical regardless of system was that all games of the same story could be filed together no matter what console you played them one. That way Serious Sam I and II for the original Xbox could be filed with Serious Sam: The Next Encounter for the PS2. The two Hunter: The Reckoning games for Xbox could be filed with the abysmal one for the PS2. If I was in the mood for a particular game world I could flip to those pages (I keep all my games in a disk binder) and then decide which version I wanted to play.
This time however I'm filing them alphabetical by system. Hopefully this might encourage me to play some of my older games for the Playstation since those games are filed first. Unfortunately I'm still replacing games so my filing system isn't accurate. I leave spaces for some games but forget to for others. I guess I'll wait until I've gotten everything back before I put things in their proper place. But then I have to decide what to do with the duplicates. when I started rebuying games I didn't have a good enough system to keep track of ebay auctions bidding/won/paid for so I ended up with several duplicate games. I'll probably sell them back to Gamestop for credit to buy more but I'm really not going to get much for them. One of them will go to kai to try out (Rainbow Six: Vegas 2) and maybe we can get a match together sometime along with anyone else who wants to play.
I have picked up some new games that I didn't have before but I'll wait to list those once I'm done shopping. And I've started the process of redownloading all my Arcade games to my new hard drive. Unfortunately I've got DRM issues with some of them so I have to change the rights to my new machine. But if there's anything you guys want to play with me just send me a note or an invite. If I've got, I'm game.
How should I organize my games?
alphabetical (regardless of system) = 1 vote
alphabetical (by system) = 5 votes
52-card pickup = 0 votes
alphabetical (by genre) = 0 votes
The way I had things organized before I got robbed was alphabetical regardless of system. This had some ups and downs. When looking for a particular game I got easily distracted by other games. If I wanted to play a PS game I might find myself pulling out a PS2 game instead. And there was the whole alphabetical problem. How do you file all those Star Wars games. Since "Star Wars" is usually first they would all go together. But I don't think of Bounty Hunter as "Star Wars Bounty Hunter". Those games were all filed by the game title; I left the Star Wars out of it. And that was the same for the Lord of the Rings games.
Some sequels had alphabetical problems as well. Chrono Cross is a sequel (of sorts) to Chrono Trigger, but alphabetically Chrono Cross would get files first. Of those games that had the sequels close in name to the original (Abe's Exodus vs. Abe's Oddysee another example) I filed those chronologically instead of alphabetically. But that created a problem with Final Fantasy Tactics. It's not a sequel to any Final Fantasy game, and is, in fact, a different type of game entirely. where does that one go? I could have put it after Final Fantasy XII (the last one in number order that I owned) but that didn't seem right to have an original PS game after the newest PS2 games. I could have figured out when that game came out in the series and put it there but I didn't want to bother. So Final Fantasy Tactics was filed first. Of course I do have a couple of games that when I think of the title I think of it differently. Like "The Legend of Alan D'ar" I only think of as "Alan D'ar". Makes it hard to find sometimes.
What I liked about filing alphabetical regardless of system was that all games of the same story could be filed together no matter what console you played them one. That way Serious Sam I and II for the original Xbox could be filed with Serious Sam: The Next Encounter for the PS2. The two Hunter: The Reckoning games for Xbox could be filed with the abysmal one for the PS2. If I was in the mood for a particular game world I could flip to those pages (I keep all my games in a disk binder) and then decide which version I wanted to play.
This time however I'm filing them alphabetical by system. Hopefully this might encourage me to play some of my older games for the Playstation since those games are filed first. Unfortunately I'm still replacing games so my filing system isn't accurate. I leave spaces for some games but forget to for others. I guess I'll wait until I've gotten everything back before I put things in their proper place. But then I have to decide what to do with the duplicates. when I started rebuying games I didn't have a good enough system to keep track of ebay auctions bidding/won/paid for so I ended up with several duplicate games. I'll probably sell them back to Gamestop for credit to buy more but I'm really not going to get much for them. One of them will go to kai to try out (Rainbow Six: Vegas 2) and maybe we can get a match together sometime along with anyone else who wants to play.
I have picked up some new games that I didn't have before but I'll wait to list those once I'm done shopping. And I've started the process of redownloading all my Arcade games to my new hard drive. Unfortunately I've got DRM issues with some of them so I have to change the rights to my new machine. But if there's anything you guys want to play with me just send me a note or an invite. If I've got, I'm game.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Zombies!? Are you kididng me?
Okay, I promised you a post about zombies . . . and it's going to be a whopper. But first I think you need some back ground info.
On a writing forum I'm a member of we've been having a discussion about the appeal of vampires (and how they've changed through history) as they're portrayed in the media (books, movies, etc.) these days. The more we talked about it the more I realized that from a geek/nerd perspective, it's not vampires, but zombies. We love our undead. Just look at all the zombie killing games that are out there. Hunter the Reckoning, Resident Evil, Left for Dead, Zombie Apocalypse, Dead Space and even Call of Duty: World at War. Just to name a few.
But unlike vampires, the undead have remained creepy. There's no love story between a lonely female human and the undead, but handsome, creature she stumbles across. If one of the undead (handsome or not . . . and usually not) stumbled across a human (male or female) the only thing going through whatever passes for their brains would be "Mmmmm, warm flesh, me hungry". And that doesn't bode well for the human.
With that said, that very same night I had that brilliant epiphany (I thought it was brilliant) I got an email from Borders Books with the subject line "Star Wars and Zombies". Eh? At first glance I thought they were trying to put those two ideas together, but then I figured it was poor editing/proofreading on someone's part and what they were trying to say was "we have new Star Wars books and new Zombie books". It is, after all, the Halloween season. And there's no shortage of suckers for anything Star Wars. As a geek AND a nerd (and a sucker) when it comes to Star Wars I opened up the email and found this book:
My first thought was "Oh, it looks creepy". Then I read the plot details.
Apparently the subject line of the email was not an error, but in fact there are now zombies inhabiting the Star Wars universe. Zombies? In Star Wars? Are you kidding me?
The story is about some virus that spreads rapidly through a prison transport space barge and turns troopers/prisoners into zombies. Seriously? We've seen that before. Hunter the Reckoning happens with inmates in a prison. Dead Space has zombies in space. Now you mix those two together, throw them into the Star Wars Universe and WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT? Are you kidding me?
Have the geeks and nerds of this world become so infatuated with zombies (like teen girls and the Twilight novels/movies) that we have to tarnish the most Holy of all geek/nerd-doms with zombies? Is that what is going to keep the Star Wars universe relevant to today's kids? Or is Lucas Arts that hard pressed for fresh original ideas that they decided one day "let's add zombies to Star Wars and see what the fans think"?
Well, this fan (and one who buys everything/anything Star Wars related) was revolted. I wanted to throw up. I felt like my innocent childhood of big dreams and epic space operas had been violated . . . by a lurching mass of the undead. Yes, I will most likely read this book. After all I am a Star Wars geek/nerd to the tenth power. Do I think this book will be an entertaining read? Possibly. Will it be great literature? I doubt it. But then again someone did put zombies in Pride and Prejudice. I guess they had to do something to get kids these days to read.
On a writing forum I'm a member of we've been having a discussion about the appeal of vampires (and how they've changed through history) as they're portrayed in the media (books, movies, etc.) these days. The more we talked about it the more I realized that from a geek/nerd perspective, it's not vampires, but zombies. We love our undead. Just look at all the zombie killing games that are out there. Hunter the Reckoning, Resident Evil, Left for Dead, Zombie Apocalypse, Dead Space and even Call of Duty: World at War. Just to name a few.
But unlike vampires, the undead have remained creepy. There's no love story between a lonely female human and the undead, but handsome, creature she stumbles across. If one of the undead (handsome or not . . . and usually not) stumbled across a human (male or female) the only thing going through whatever passes for their brains would be "Mmmmm, warm flesh, me hungry". And that doesn't bode well for the human.
With that said, that very same night I had that brilliant epiphany (I thought it was brilliant) I got an email from Borders Books with the subject line "Star Wars and Zombies". Eh? At first glance I thought they were trying to put those two ideas together, but then I figured it was poor editing/proofreading on someone's part and what they were trying to say was "we have new Star Wars books and new Zombie books". It is, after all, the Halloween season. And there's no shortage of suckers for anything Star Wars. As a geek AND a nerd (and a sucker) when it comes to Star Wars I opened up the email and found this book:
My first thought was "Oh, it looks creepy". Then I read the plot details.
Apparently the subject line of the email was not an error, but in fact there are now zombies inhabiting the Star Wars universe. Zombies? In Star Wars? Are you kidding me?
The story is about some virus that spreads rapidly through a prison transport space barge and turns troopers/prisoners into zombies. Seriously? We've seen that before. Hunter the Reckoning happens with inmates in a prison. Dead Space has zombies in space. Now you mix those two together, throw them into the Star Wars Universe and WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT? Are you kidding me?
Have the geeks and nerds of this world become so infatuated with zombies (like teen girls and the Twilight novels/movies) that we have to tarnish the most Holy of all geek/nerd-doms with zombies? Is that what is going to keep the Star Wars universe relevant to today's kids? Or is Lucas Arts that hard pressed for fresh original ideas that they decided one day "let's add zombies to Star Wars and see what the fans think"?
Well, this fan (and one who buys everything/anything Star Wars related) was revolted. I wanted to throw up. I felt like my innocent childhood of big dreams and epic space operas had been violated . . . by a lurching mass of the undead. Yes, I will most likely read this book. After all I am a Star Wars geek/nerd to the tenth power. Do I think this book will be an entertaining read? Possibly. Will it be great literature? I doubt it. But then again someone did put zombies in Pride and Prejudice. I guess they had to do something to get kids these days to read.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Poll Results - OVERALL best movie franchise
Here are the poll results:
I think two of you are letting one good movie (released this summer) sway your opinions, but I won't mention which one.
I will admit that I tried to cheat with my vote on this poll. I voted from my computer at work. At home I was going to vote from that computer. I wasn't going to vote for the same movie either. I just couldn't make up my mind which one I wanted to cast a final vote for.
I never got around to voting from home so only my vote at work counted. That was for Star Wars. How could I NOT vote for Star Wars? I have a whole bookcase dedicated to Star Wars books, a closet full of Star Wars toys and I own the original trilogy in at least 4 different versions/formats . . . possibly more.
What made me doubt the overall integrity of the Star Wars films was there were some very horrid things about the last two that I didn't like. I'll get to that later.
My other vote would have gone for Lord of the Rings. I think those are great movies. They're engrossing, entertaining, imaginative, beautifully filmed and solidly cohesive as a franchise. They are long (especially if you get the extended, director's cut editions) and are not for those with bladder control issues who can't sit still long to watch them uninterrupted. And they're worth every minute too. I would have gladly sat through a four hour movie in the theaters if the results would have been the same. I will admit that I might be a little biased about these movies, but not in the way that you think.
See, I haven't read the Lord of the Rings trilogy yet. I've read The Hobbit at least 3 times, but I've never gotten around to reading the other books. I own them, just haven't read them. So why does that make me biased? Because I haven't read the books I don't have any expectations to the story. No, what did they leave out? Or, that doesn't happen in that order. I walked into those movies with no preconceived notions as to what to expect. And I wasn't disappointed.
I wasn't surprised at getting votes for Star Trek. Although I haven't seen all those movies I hear they are either really good or just plain horrible. Since this question asked for the "overall" result I had to eliminate Star Trek (and not because I'm a Star Wars fan).
I was a little surprised that Rocky got one vote and Alien didn't get any. These are two other franchises where I haven't seen all the movies. I heard Rocky movies went downhill fast, except for this last one which I heard was okay. The first Alien movie scared the bejeezies out of me. There was no way I was going to see a sequel . . . especially in a theater. But I've heard they're pretty good. And I'm not counting the Alien vs. Predator movie as part of that franchise. I thought for sure that Alien would get at least one vote because of how well it did at the box office and the scary/creepy factor. Oh well.
But back to Star Wars.
I loved the first trilogy (I think I've already established that) and I couldn't wait for The Phantom Menace to come out. I think I saw it 30 times in the theaters that summer before I stopped saving my ticket stubs. It was different than the original movies (they were so much more chatty) but I liked it. And Jar Jar Binks doesn't bother me as much as he does other people.
When The Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith came out I equally as excited. And then I was disappointed. I don't want to get into a debate about every little detail of the films but let me point out some high (or should that be low) lights as I saw them.
1) I don't think Hayen Christenson did a very good job as Anakin. It's more than his hair is curly where as Jake Lloyds was straight. He over acted his part. I would have much preferred to see Ryan Phillipe in the role instead. I think he would have brought that quiet menacing aura to him that I think Darth Vadar needs to have (even though he wasn't Darth Vadar yet).
2) the dialogue was horrible. The worst line (at least to me) is when Obi-Wan and Anakin are trying to rescue the Chancellor and they finally get surrounded by droidekas. Obi-Wan says "Come on, we're better than this". Cheesy. Lame. And so unlike the witty, sharp dialogue of the other movies. And so unlike the Jedi. I cringe every time I hear it. And unfortunately that isn't the only line that is bad. There are many more so I won't quote them. I wish those that helped make the first trilogy so great could have worked on the scripts for the second trilogy.
3) the movies looked too digital. The first trilogy was shot on location, real people were used in real costumes, that may or may not have been easy to move in. The movies looked like they were full of real life, in a real galaxy, far, far away. For the most part the second trilogy (especially the last two movies) were all shot on a sound stage and the backgrounds filled in digitally. TPM had locations shots and maybe that's why I like it better than the others. When Padme and Anakin frolic through the hills of Naboo it's almost the only scene shot outside. I think the whole of the last movies was shot inside. Yes, I know they can do things with lighting and digital effects to make it look they are outside, but to me it comes off more as a painting than an actual place teeming with life. I just miss that in the later films. Not filming "on location" might have kept those costs down so they could apply that money to the digital budget, but I don't think it necessarily made the movies better.
I could go on, but I won't. I don't hate the Star Wars movies. I think they offer more to imagine and wonder at than the Lord of the Rings movies. Besides, those were based on an existing story. The blueprint to the tell the story was already created. Star Wars, on the other hand, was created especially for the screen. It wasn't based on anything so it could be free to explore or do things without being constrained to an existing structure. For that imaginative quality (have you watched the movie just to stare at the people going to the theater, or in the bar scene?) I have to say Star Wars gets the edge over Lord of the Rings. Even if I tried to cheat and vote for both of them.
What movie franchise has the best OVERALL movies?
Lord of the Rings = 3 votes
Star Wars = 3 votes
Alien = 0 votes
Rocky = 1 vote
Star Trek = 2 votes
I think two of you are letting one good movie (released this summer) sway your opinions, but I won't mention which one.
I will admit that I tried to cheat with my vote on this poll. I voted from my computer at work. At home I was going to vote from that computer. I wasn't going to vote for the same movie either. I just couldn't make up my mind which one I wanted to cast a final vote for.
I never got around to voting from home so only my vote at work counted. That was for Star Wars. How could I NOT vote for Star Wars? I have a whole bookcase dedicated to Star Wars books, a closet full of Star Wars toys and I own the original trilogy in at least 4 different versions/formats . . . possibly more.
What made me doubt the overall integrity of the Star Wars films was there were some very horrid things about the last two that I didn't like. I'll get to that later.
My other vote would have gone for Lord of the Rings. I think those are great movies. They're engrossing, entertaining, imaginative, beautifully filmed and solidly cohesive as a franchise. They are long (especially if you get the extended, director's cut editions) and are not for those with bladder control issues who can't sit still long to watch them uninterrupted. And they're worth every minute too. I would have gladly sat through a four hour movie in the theaters if the results would have been the same. I will admit that I might be a little biased about these movies, but not in the way that you think.
See, I haven't read the Lord of the Rings trilogy yet. I've read The Hobbit at least 3 times, but I've never gotten around to reading the other books. I own them, just haven't read them. So why does that make me biased? Because I haven't read the books I don't have any expectations to the story. No, what did they leave out? Or, that doesn't happen in that order. I walked into those movies with no preconceived notions as to what to expect. And I wasn't disappointed.
I wasn't surprised at getting votes for Star Trek. Although I haven't seen all those movies I hear they are either really good or just plain horrible. Since this question asked for the "overall" result I had to eliminate Star Trek (and not because I'm a Star Wars fan).
I was a little surprised that Rocky got one vote and Alien didn't get any. These are two other franchises where I haven't seen all the movies. I heard Rocky movies went downhill fast, except for this last one which I heard was okay. The first Alien movie scared the bejeezies out of me. There was no way I was going to see a sequel . . . especially in a theater. But I've heard they're pretty good. And I'm not counting the Alien vs. Predator movie as part of that franchise. I thought for sure that Alien would get at least one vote because of how well it did at the box office and the scary/creepy factor. Oh well.
But back to Star Wars.
I loved the first trilogy (I think I've already established that) and I couldn't wait for The Phantom Menace to come out. I think I saw it 30 times in the theaters that summer before I stopped saving my ticket stubs. It was different than the original movies (they were so much more chatty) but I liked it. And Jar Jar Binks doesn't bother me as much as he does other people.
When The Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith came out I equally as excited. And then I was disappointed. I don't want to get into a debate about every little detail of the films but let me point out some high (or should that be low) lights as I saw them.
1) I don't think Hayen Christenson did a very good job as Anakin. It's more than his hair is curly where as Jake Lloyds was straight. He over acted his part. I would have much preferred to see Ryan Phillipe in the role instead. I think he would have brought that quiet menacing aura to him that I think Darth Vadar needs to have (even though he wasn't Darth Vadar yet).
2) the dialogue was horrible. The worst line (at least to me) is when Obi-Wan and Anakin are trying to rescue the Chancellor and they finally get surrounded by droidekas. Obi-Wan says "Come on, we're better than this". Cheesy. Lame. And so unlike the witty, sharp dialogue of the other movies. And so unlike the Jedi. I cringe every time I hear it. And unfortunately that isn't the only line that is bad. There are many more so I won't quote them. I wish those that helped make the first trilogy so great could have worked on the scripts for the second trilogy.
3) the movies looked too digital. The first trilogy was shot on location, real people were used in real costumes, that may or may not have been easy to move in. The movies looked like they were full of real life, in a real galaxy, far, far away. For the most part the second trilogy (especially the last two movies) were all shot on a sound stage and the backgrounds filled in digitally. TPM had locations shots and maybe that's why I like it better than the others. When Padme and Anakin frolic through the hills of Naboo it's almost the only scene shot outside. I think the whole of the last movies was shot inside. Yes, I know they can do things with lighting and digital effects to make it look they are outside, but to me it comes off more as a painting than an actual place teeming with life. I just miss that in the later films. Not filming "on location" might have kept those costs down so they could apply that money to the digital budget, but I don't think it necessarily made the movies better.
I could go on, but I won't. I don't hate the Star Wars movies. I think they offer more to imagine and wonder at than the Lord of the Rings movies. Besides, those were based on an existing story. The blueprint to the tell the story was already created. Star Wars, on the other hand, was created especially for the screen. It wasn't based on anything so it could be free to explore or do things without being constrained to an existing structure. For that imaginative quality (have you watched the movie just to stare at the people going to the theater, or in the bar scene?) I have to say Star Wars gets the edge over Lord of the Rings. Even if I tried to cheat and vote for both of them.
Monday, July 27, 2009
New Poll - What movie franchise has the best OVERALL movies?
Here's the new poll:
Vote and tell me why in the comments.
What movie franchise has the best OVERALL movies?
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
Alien
Rocky
Star Trek
Vote and tell me why in the comments.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Revoking my Star Wars fan license
I'm a self proclaimed Star Wars fan. I saw The Phantom Menace more than 32 times in the theatre. How do I know? I stopped saving the ticket stubs when I got up to 32. Yet I goofed with a reference to Star Wars in an earlier post.
It's not Sabacc.
It's Pazaak.
An honest mistake to be sure. Especially since I hadn't played Knights of the Old Republic for at least a year. But can you blame me? They even sound the same.
I know Sabacc is the card game that Lando lost the Millennium Falcon to Han Solo in. I know that the cards in Sabacc can change value. It's very similar to Pazaak. And since Pazaak is a game during Knights of the Old Republic it's quite possible that Pazaak is a precursor to Sabacc of Han Solo's era.
I played Knights tonight and my error was pointed out to me. Both games deal with playing cards. Both games become important to the story in some small way. Both have cards that can change value. Some Pazaak cards can be positive or negative. Can you blame me if I got those two games mixed up?
I hope my Star Wars fan license doesn't get revoked over this. It's just a minor issue right? Then again since when is something concerning the lore of Star Wars ever minor. Not to this fan anyway.
It's not Sabacc.
It's Pazaak.
An honest mistake to be sure. Especially since I hadn't played Knights of the Old Republic for at least a year. But can you blame me? They even sound the same.
I know Sabacc is the card game that Lando lost the Millennium Falcon to Han Solo in. I know that the cards in Sabacc can change value. It's very similar to Pazaak. And since Pazaak is a game during Knights of the Old Republic it's quite possible that Pazaak is a precursor to Sabacc of Han Solo's era.
I played Knights tonight and my error was pointed out to me. Both games deal with playing cards. Both games become important to the story in some small way. Both have cards that can change value. Some Pazaak cards can be positive or negative. Can you blame me if I got those two games mixed up?
I hope my Star Wars fan license doesn't get revoked over this. It's just a minor issue right? Then again since when is something concerning the lore of Star Wars ever minor. Not to this fan anyway.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
I am a Jedi . . .
I've always known I prefered Star Wars over Star Trek. The only thing Captian Kirk does for me is send shivers of revulsion down my spine. Now, Obi-Wan Kenobi on the other hand, well . . . I'm a sucker for a guy in a cowl. And after a recent jaunt to a SciFi/Fantasy convention those life long beliefs have only gotten stronger.
Call 'em trekkie, trekkers or just plain nerds, Star Trek fans are weird. Now I'm sure some people will say Star Wars fans are just the same but at least we know what to call ourselves.
I am a Jedi.
May the Force be with you.
Call 'em trekkie, trekkers or just plain nerds, Star Trek fans are weird. Now I'm sure some people will say Star Wars fans are just the same but at least we know what to call ourselves.
I am a Jedi.
May the Force be with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
