Well, except that it's a Graphic Novel and thus a visual medium, so if the visuals are all off-putting you're just reading dialogue bubbles. They'd have to be pretty insanely good bubbles to enjoy it.

Not to split hairs, but X Wing vs. Tie Fighter was practically an online-only title even for it's time. That was the largely MP-only deathmatch style game. I mean, you could fight bots and play a handful of canned scenarios, but it wasn't Tie Fighter. Wasn't until the expansion that they even added a story.

So, I…

As someone going through what the letter-writer is asking I have two small bits of advice for a similar situation I've went through (with a grandparent) and am going through (with a parent).

FUCK. YES.

Ugh, apparently I can't edit. *You should not. In fact,

Scientists shouldn't use figures of speeches that set up expectations for Scientists to make declaritive statements, ones that most Scientists avoid like the plague because the very foundations of the Scientific Method kind of lay out that you shouldn't make that kind of declarative statement, no. You should not. in…

Still interesting that you'd identify as a Scientist one minute and than choose to make a figure of speech that is, by the very nature of Science, not something that you could ever achieve.

You're a scientist, yet you insist that you can prove claim with 100% perfect certainty.

Compared to what? Go forward 6 years: Was GURPS any better? GURPS could take many, many re-reads to even begin to understand. ALL RPGs were like that around then, an artifact of being born out of the historical wargame genre, which was in and of itself a niche hobby that was entirely more complex than it had to be…

This is the equivalent to saying "I don't know what all the fuss about the original Nintendo was about. Compared to modern games the graphics are terrible, the sounds are little more than blips and boops and the gameplay is absurdly simple. Why do people still go on about how great retro games are?"

Yeah, you know, I was just thinking. "You know, people have been too nice to Carrie Fisher."

What's weird is he even introduced big status quo changes In Ghost Story that were essentially retconned in the same book. Why even introduce them at that point?

That was the first thing I thought of 'Well what about the first contact war?' But the problem is that's not a really good intro to the universe proper. Anderson/Saren would probably be a bit better (and avoids having to deal heavily with Shepard and still introduce bits like the Reapers) but I dunno.

I actually agree with you, but the topic of the ending is sort of another matter separate from the film adaptation. I will say that if the film went in a TOTALLY different direction, I would not be upset.

You can adapt a book and while you might lose something in the experience, you might gain something as well.

As much as I loved ME, I'm not sure a movie adaptation would be good for anyone. The main story is told (Though I freely admit they're going to have to come up with something for the new franchise). Side stories would be great for ME fans, but it's not just ME fans you're trying to sell to in a film. I'm not wild…

The bite does something different from whatever is reanimating you. It's not a version of the Zombie virus, it's not a cause of the plague, it's just something the zombies do. They bite, they scratch, you die. It's something that happens when you reanimate. And, if the comics are much indication... Only when you…

Actually, Lovecraft is still pretty firmly in 'cult' territory. Most people venerate him for his ideas: I honestly don't see much praise for his actual writing. With admittedly pretty good reason.

Probably a nihilistic big bad hinted to back in Avengers. You know, the guy who's magic macguffin was just hanging around Asgard in their movie?

And what if the battle takes place in a Dungeon!? If the poor little Red Dragon can't take to the skies to avoid damage? What then, sir!?