Anyway, getting back to the main question of the topic...I see it as more parallel development. As others have said here, Conan is a low fantasy world that is supposed to be set in our world at a forgotten age. As such the Vanir, and Aesir (proto-Norse/Germanic) and the Cimmerians (proto-Celtic) are somewhat familiar but a flare of alienness. Similarly, the Nords of Skyrim being based off of the Germanic Pagans (and not just the Vikings, please remember that) will naturally resemble our views of northern barbarians.

In summary, just like the Germanic languages of English and Frisian resemble each other in many respects, they developed parallel from a root source and may have had limited exchange through their existence. In the case of these games, the Germanic Pagan cultures are the root source, so there will obviously be some similarities and perceived influences despite being different.



Oh, and of note Tolkien's Middle Earth was also supposed to be pre-historic earth. I think a major difference between why Tolkien is seen as high fantasy and Conan as low fantasy is because in Tolkien the reader is relatively omnipotent (especially with the Simarillion [spell?]) whereas in Conan you see the world more on the ground level and through Conan's eyes for the most part. Personally I would qualify Tolkien as low fantasy, but that's me.

That's a fantastic animation. Well worth a watch for any Skyrim fans who haven't heard of, or seen it yet.

Re the high/low fantasy debate: I think you guys are arguing different things entirely. While I agree with what Heloween's saying, generally speaking it doesn't matter how muddled or vague a definition we have for "low fantasy" - it's just a common (admittedly, over-used) term that sums up, for most people, the nature of a setting and/or story being discussed. Most people will immediately grasp what is meant by "low fantasy," while few are willing or able to fully articulate their interpretation of a particular setting or style. As meaningless as the term might be once broken down, it's much more convenient than detailing all of the defining traits and quirks of the fiction we discuss.

Anyway, Fire and Ice reminded me of a likely influence that I consider to be far more important than Howard's sword & sorcery, as far as everything but the story is concerned: the art of Frank Frazetta (http://frankfrazetta.org/). I'm sure I spotted a Frazetta book in the background during one of the GI Skyrim videos...

I think R.E. Howard would love what is being done based upon his imaginings. I myself can only imagine what amazing forms of entertainment we would have if he did not succumb to his depression.

I think Todd will do him justice, he is a very intelligent man when it comes to visioning all that has been done in the name of fantasy and creating an enjoyable world to experience.

I think we have to remember that when visonary writers like Howard, Tolkien, Lovecraft and their peers were writing, there was no such thing as genre, or high and low fantasy. These writers were pioneers, each a genius. All of these labels that people keep using are marketing tools. Labels so that shop owners know what shelf to put a book onto. Perhaps these labels apply to the legions of copycats that followed with their, for the most part, mediocre plagerism. Let us accord the original visionaries with the respect that they deserve.

The same applies to artists like Frank Frazzeta.