Origin's plans fur UIX (long)
Lost Dragon
>PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to the
>wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll be
Dibs on LB!
Mmmm.. . Flesh...
<chomp!>
Dungeon Bane: a shareware CRPG currently in development
http://www.cris.com/~lostdrgn/ E-Mail: lost...@cris.com
Nightfire
[the first part of this post is about the message sent to Sith Dragon by
Robert White, lead designer of UIX]
> 1. We will not discuss the plot or plot relevent issues. We think it
> would detract from the enjoyment of the game. Its the same as reading
> the end of a mystery novel and still expecting to get all of the
> emotional impact of the rest of the book.
Oh, please! The latest real plot info I've found was Brewmeister's
transcript of the Ultima 9 speech at Dragon Con, and that was 1996! Since
then, most of the info was about the engine, about engine improvements, yet
more engine redesigning ... IMO, you would be able to smoothe some ruffled
scales here by giving us some hints to show that you've not forgotten the
plot amidst all that engine, engine, engine talk. A few tidbits of info
would certainly not spoil the fun, more likely whet our appetites!
[snip]
> A little background first...I understand your concerns toward UIX
> "selling out" for additional sales ...
> However a certain eveloution must occur in games or they will become
> stagnant. I think all of the fine features you love about CRPG's will
> be in the game and in spades! Richard and I are making sure that the
> game will remain true to the ideals of an Ultima and we hope what will
> come of this (learned from the lessons of past Ultimas) will be a
> better stronger and more accessable game, without sacrificing the
> qualties we have all come to love.
Well, with every bit of new info, many of us have become more concerned, not
less. Basically, it's just more engine talk, but nothing truly
Ultima-relevant. As for evolution, I do hope Ultima IX won't jump onto the
"interactive movie" bandwagon of improving graphics and sound while more or
less intentionally ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be a GAME, and
a RPG at that. IMO opinion, CRPGs were much more interesting, involving and
well, better, a couple of years back. Now it's mostly CRPG-Lite, possibly
with good graphics and all, but with much less freedom, with linear, boring
plots and generally nothing to keep you interested once you've completed it.
If you learned your lesson from Ultima 8, and say that Ascension will
contain "all the fine features we love about CRPGs", then consider this:
- Will there definitely be a party?
- When it comes to "going solo as other notable Britannians", I think this
is a feature you should be very careful with. Right, you could go solo in
U6, but it didn't really make a difference as whom, and you could always
switch back to the Avatar. We're supposed to be the Avatar in an Ultima,
right? It's hard if not impossible to play as "yourself" when you're forced
to switch characters.
- Please, PLEASE, bring all the old Companions back - IMO, it just wouldn't
be a proper Ultima without Shamino and the rest of the gang joining me in
this quest. And don't forget about Iolo! I'll push him around in a
wheelchair if it comes down to that, he can shoot me in the butt and
complain all that he likes, but I do want him back. Dupre ... now THAT'S a
matter I think could spoil the fun if revealed too early. But please tell us
whether we're going to have our other Companions with us.
- I really, really want to have a female Avatar. This was apparently
planned, but with all the redesigning going on, I am really afraid Origin
will once again decide to "save time" by ditching an option only a fraction
of players would utilize, just as it happened in U8. Especially if the
Avatar is featured in cutscenes, which seems to be the case (quite logical
in the case of the sendings LB gets). Continuing to force us to play a male
character will reduce the possibility of identification (at least for us
Dragon ladies and those guys who play female Avatars).
- For the same reason, I'd like to see the return of character portraits to
choose from. SI, while limited, was quite good in that regard (and many
others) - the brown-haired gal with the intense eyes was, although not my
idea of the Avatar, a really fine portrait I could identify with. Sadly, it
seems Origin is sticking with the white blondie stereotype. Understandable,
as it sure would be some good amount of extra work to include more choices
or even an "Avatar designer", but still sad ...
- Personally, I hope the Avatar won't die at the end of UIX. The "mutual
kill" scenario of Avatar and Guardian annihilating each other might appeal
to certain people, but I think there are also many who identify so closely
with the Avatar that they would feel as if "they" died, and feel not
victorious, but defeated. I certainly would. Also, what's the point of being
the Avatar and the Titan of Ether with all those cool newfound powers
(whatever they'll be) when you hardly get the chance to use them ;)
Retirement maybe, but I hope not the hard way.
- I'm sure the other Dragons could add to this list. Suggestions?
> Now let me answer some of the specific concerns in your e-mail ...
[snip]
> In the past the top down view was a necessity, driven by the
> technolgy, in order to provide the immersiveness of Britannia.
> Now with the full 3D world, this other view (third person, tag-along),
> is more immersive. Once you have the chance to actually move
> around in the enivronment, I think you will find that a top down
> isometric, isn't as "kick-ass" as the tag-along is.
"Kick-ass" is one of the last words I'd apply to a real CRPG, much less to
an Ultima. Again, if you've read the NGs, then you'll know that "cool"
graphics are about the last thing many of us are concerned about. The
immersiveness of a game like Ultima does not have so much to do with the
graphics, but far, far more with the density and depth of the plot, the
character and world interaction, with portraying "real", believable people
... Besides, many fans love the good old isometric view, myself included.
It's just very "Ultima", and in a game where you have a party, it's
certainly the most practical view, as you don't have to spin and zoom in
order to check on your Companions. All right, it might be less "realistic",
but IMO, this aspect of realism doesn't really do all that much for
immersiveness.
I don't want to reincite the quite pointless UIX=TR argument here, let me
just state this: As long as you don't FORCE us to stick to the tag-along
perspective, and as long as you don't waste (yes, waste, IMNSHO, and I'm
sure it's not just me who feels like that) another n years on redesigning
the engine, it should be just fine. Freely rotating and zooming, as
originally planned, is a good idea. Just don't push it too far. Enough said.
> 2. About attracting action gamers...Well I could just say that this is
> a business and the bottom line is still making sales, but I am sure
> you realize this. By attracting action gamers we would obviously
> increase sales, but we are well aware of the possibility of losing
> hard core CRPG players. The way we wish to attract these action gamers
> is to provide a more lively and visually fabulous combat and magic
> system ...
CRPGs will possibly never be "mainstream", and trying to lure action gamers
into role-playing while at the same time satisfying us die-hard Ultima fans
is, I suppose, doomed to failure from the very beginning. I am no marketing
expert or game designer, and don't pretend to be. But what do you really
want? Huge sales - then go make the nth Quake, C&C or even Myst clone. Or
the fine CRPG that you promised us - then MAKE a fine, a REAL CRPG and be
sure that we'll buy it, and enjoy it immensely. Just don't expect stupid
little (and not so little) boys who couldn't tell their brains from their
backsides if you gave them an anatomical atlas and only want to "kill
things" to really get into an Ultima. Who plays an Ultima for the action?
And don't expect US to be enthusiastic about a half-hearted compromise.
BTW, while we're on the topic of the combat interface: I remember from the
2/97 issue of Power Play that the Companions would have kind of
"pre-programmed" tactics, depending on their skills and character. EG, Iolo
would be a helluva archer, but totally useless with a two-handed sword. Now
THAT'S a brilliant idea! As long as you can give them basic orders to keep
them from mindlessly hopping into the fray like they did in U7, I think this
would be a great way to both increase "realism" and make combat easier for
the players. (Just to include some praise here so you won't feel totally
"unappreciated" :) The idea IS good!)
[snip]
> B. Movement within three dimensions that FEELS like moving in three
> dimensions. This was the forte of such first person games like Quake,
> System Shock, etc. Now we have it in Britannia.
Quake? QUAKE?! Uh-oh ... Robert, I'm sure you'll regret that little
inconsiderate remark! I just hope it won't start another panic about how
this comparison is proof that Ascension will be anything, but not an Ultima.
Let me just say this: That was possibly the most ... ah, inappropriate thing
I have yet heard in the new UIX debate. Mentioning UIX and an
action-adventure in the same sentence didn't sit well with many fans of the
former, and now you seem to think that we'd be impressed at any feature from
a mindless 3D-shooter? For your own sake, and to prevent heart attacks among
the fans, I suppose you'd better start choosing your comparisons more
carefully ;)
[snip]
> Now let me address some of the points that I think really make it an
> Ultima rather than meerly the outward appearance ...
> These are the things that really make this game what it is and they
> are all still present in Ultima IX.
You really have to tell us? Remember, it was and IS us who constantly holler
for these things, and for some kind of "proof" that you have not forgotten
them. While the last thing I want to do is accuse you of lying, it would be
damned nice to get some hard facts here ... not just a generalized statement
that they are "still present". They are not simply points that used to make
Ultima such a fine series, they MADE the Ultima series!
> Please save judgement on the game until you get a chance to really see
> what we have done. We will release a demo a few months ahead of the
> game, so keep your eyes open for the announcement.
Hell, as if we weren't waiting for something like this for YEARS. Literally.
And if you want us to judge hard facts, then give them out, and not only the
engine facts, either (yes, the over-emphasize on the engine is a sore spot
for me :)
[all right, now let's get into various other tidbits of new information ...]
> We are currently in the plan of having full speech. The conversations
> are being written with that in mind and the immersive environment just
> wouldn't be the same without it. Text display will also be available.
I won't scream at that one, although I'm sorely tempted. I won't say
anything about further delays, increased size or draining a budget that
would be better spent on creating a CRPG than an "interactive movie" that
many fear UIX to become. Instead, I wish to go into something else:
atmosphere. This, and "immersiveness", is, I think, quite subjectve. I for
one don't want to listen to several dozens of more-or-less would-be actors
who might or might not fit their roles. And even if everyone were cast
perfectly, I know that I have my own idead how people like LB or the
Companions "should" speak. Right, you could always turn it off and go back
to text-only, and, as I said, these are simply my own 2 cents' worth.
But consider this: If you have full speech, no one will ever call the Avatar
by name. It would always be "Avatar", "milady", "hail there", "hey you" or
whatever. Not very immersive, IMO, and not at all realistic either. If I am
to feel I really AM in Britannia, I want people, especially the Companions
and LB, to call me by name. Also, if you include "FULL" speech, will you
have someone to do the Avatar's voice? That would reduce the immersiveness
even further - - it just would not be "me" anymore, just someone talking in
a strange voice I don't know, and possibly in a way I would never speak,
even as the Avatar. So please, DON'T!
Cut scenes are a completely different matter. So I'd suggest you get some
good actors that can really bring their characters to life instead of
featuring full speech - quality over quantity (the old thread of how Patrick
Stewart should be LB was fabulous, IMO, and I would have loved to see Bill
Johnson's return as the Guardian)
Ah yes, one final matter (you can survive than one if you've come so far,
can you :) I'd like to adress. The little thing that went, "Too many
products go back to paper role-playing games and rely upon conversation ..."
Quite knocked me off my rockers. This is supposed to be a CRPG. As in
playing a role. *I* always believed you play a role mainly by interacting
with people and situations in your own way, not by watching movies. Cut
scenes are nice, but that's that. Not really necessary, except of course for
some drama, intros, outros and scenes "you" are not actually present for but
you the player need to know about. Experiment with it, that might spice
things up. But please, do it in ways that make sense, don't overdo it, and
don't forget the role-playing. Detailed conversations with "real" characters
feature prominently in making a true Ultima.
To sum it up, I hope someone of Origin reads this and takes it as what I
mean it to be: concerned criticism of a real, dedicated Ultima-devotee who
has been quite disturbed by the recent news. It's all IMO, of course, but I
think I'm not alone with regard to many statements.
PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to the
wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll be
right in the front. Shade Blade in one claw, Death Scythe in the other, and
I will skin, dress and eat alive the offenders. Just a friendly warning, hmm
... ;)
Nightfire Dragon -===(UDIC)===-
(Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.DE)
UDIC: d+ e-- N T++ Om- U6A!7'!LS'! u+ uC++++ uF uG++++ uLB+ uA+
nC nH+ nS+ nT x LWF a19
Frenetic Dragon
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:35:53 GMT, "Nightfire"
<Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
[MASSIVE SNIP]
I was going to respond to each thing in turn, but I realized I sounded
like a MeToo-bot, and I'm *not* from AOL. ^_^
[Frenetic stands in the aisle.]
Amen, dragon! Preach on!
[He bounds down the aisle, singing.]
I believe...in an Ultima....
*giggle*
<waves claws back and forth>
[Frenetic stands next to Nightfire, still swinging his claws in the
air.]
I believe! I believe, Nightfire! I hear the power of your words!
<waves claws in the air>
;D
>PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to the
>wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll be
>right in the front. Shade Blade in one claw, Death Scythe in the other, and
>I will skin, dress and eat alive the offenders. Just a friendly warning, hmm
>... ;)
Well, I may not fly off for vengeance if they get some of it
right...but if they ignore everything we've been shoutin' since back
after Pagan....nyah ha ha ha! I shall fly at thy right, and I'm not
bringin' nothing but my claws, my mouth, a *whole* load of firestone,
and an appetite! ^_^
Oh, and by the way...
<SPLUT>
Splut me not, and expect no revenge.
<giggle>
<Frenetic resumes waving his claws in the air>
Frenetic Dragon -=(UDIC)=- |D.A.A.M.I.T.|
@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@
| d+++ e- N+ T-- Om+ U56!78! u++ uC+++ uF uG+++ uLB uA++ nC++ |
| nR---- nH+ nP? NI++ nPT++++ nS++++ nT- a18 |
@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@
Sith Dragon
(SNIP)
>Oh, please! The latest real plot info I've found was Brewmeister's
>transcript of the Ultima 9 speech at Dragon Con, and that was 1996! Since
>then, most of the info was about the engine, about engine improvements, yet
>more engine redesigning ... IMO, you would be able to smoothe some ruffled
>scales here by giving us some hints to show that you've not forgotten the
>plot amidst all that engine, engine, engine talk. A few tidbits of info
>would certainly not spoil the fun, more likely whet our appetites!
Well, I definitely agree here. If you take a look at the Baldur's
Gate website, you'll learn how many pages the script is *before* you
hear about the system requirements. A small tidbit like script size
or story length goes a long way to generate consumer interest.
Note: they don't say what the script is about in detail, just how
long it is.
(SNIP)
>Well, with every bit of new info, many of us have become more concerned, not
>less. Basically, it's just more engine talk, but nothing truly
>Ultima-relevant.
Well, to look at it from Robert's point of view, the engine is what he
works on and what he knows about. Since the game's engine is probably
what he eats, sleeps, and breathes it's probably the part of the game
that he's most familiar with and able to comment on. Coming from a
programmer's point of view, it's natural that he might be more
concerned with the technical aspects of the game over the parts that
interest the fans.
(SNIP)
>- Will there definitely be a party?
Origin has always, IIRC, said there was going to be a party or some
sort.
>- When it comes to "going solo as other notable Britannians", I think this
>is a feature you should be very careful with. Right, you could go solo in
>U6, but it didn't really make a difference as whom, and you could always
>switch back to the Avatar. We're supposed to be the Avatar in an Ultima,
>right? It's hard if not impossible to play as "yourself" when you're forced
>to switch characters.
I think this might be an interesting way to actually improve upon the
way the story's being told. Since the Avatar's been out of action on
Britannia for so long there's no way for him (or her) to really know
what the poop is, unless we see it through the eyes of someone who has
to live unheroically under the Guardian's rule.
>- Please, PLEASE, bring all the old Companions back - IMO, it just wouldn't
>be a proper Ultima without Shamino and the rest of the gang joining me in
>this quest. And don't forget about Iolo! I'll push him around in a
>wheelchair if it comes down to that, he can shoot me in the butt and
>complain all that he likes, but I do want him back. Dupre ... now THAT'S a
>matter I think could spoil the fun if revealed too early. But please tell us
>whether we're going to have our other Companions with us.
IIRC, Origin has always said the companions would return in Ultima IX.
>- I really, really want to have a female Avatar. This was apparently
>planned, but with all the redesigning going on, I am really afraid Origin
>will once again decide to "save time" by ditching an option only a fraction
>of players would utilize, just as it happened in U8. Especially if the
>Avatar is featured in cutscenes, which seems to be the case (quite logical
>in the case of the sendings LB gets). Continuing to force us to play a male
>character will reduce the possibility of identification (at least for us
>Dragon ladies and those guys who play female Avatars).
It would be nice to have the option (one that I would not use,
admittedly), but I really don't see it being included. If you
considerer that to change the Avatar would necessitate doing more than
one version of the cinematics it rapidly becomes very expensive.
>- For the same reason, I'd like to see the return of character portraits to
>choose from. SI, while limited, was quite good in that regard (and many
>others) - the brown-haired gal with the intense eyes was, although not my
>idea of the Avatar, a really fine portrait I could identify with. Sadly, it
>seems Origin is sticking with the white blondie stereotype. Understandable,
>as it sure would be some good amount of extra work to include more choices
>or even an "Avatar designer", but still sad ...
My understanding is that instead of character portraits, during
conversation the camera will zoom in on the other character's face and
a animated bitmap superimposed on the character's face will take the
place of a portrait.
>- Personally, I hope the Avatar won't die at the end of UIX. The "mutual
>kill" scenario of Avatar and Guardian annihilating each other might appeal
>to certain people, but I think there are also many who identify so closely
>with the Avatar that they would feel as if "they" died, and feel not
>victorious, but defeated. I certainly would.
IMHO, I think the mutual kill scenario is probably the only way that
the series can end. The Arthurian legends seem to hold a particular
significance for Lord British, and there are more than enough
parallels between the end of the Arthurian legends and what we already
know about the plot of Ultima IX to support the mutual kill ending.
The only problem is that to completely parallel the Arthurian legends
Lord British would be the one that would have to die, and I really
don't see LB writing himself out of Ultima.
I personally expect to see the Avatar and Guardian somehow coalesce
into a single being at the end, a being of balance or somesuch, much
like the ending of The Dark Crystal, since the Avatar and Guardian
seem to be a matching set.
>Also, what's the point of being the Avatar and the Titan of Ether with all those cool newfound powers
>(whatever they'll be) when you hardly get the chance to use them ;)
>Retirement maybe, but I hope not the hard way.
I think the point of the powers is to fight evil, not to enjoy having
the powers.
>"Kick-ass" is one of the last words I'd apply to a real CRPG, much less to
>an Ultima.
I would definitely call Fallout "kick-ass." Hell, I call a hot
Cinnabon before work "kick-ass."
> Again, if you've read the NGs, then you'll know that "cool"
>graphics are about the last thing many of us are concerned about. The
>immersiveness of a game like Ultima does not have so much to do with the
>graphics, but far, far more with the density and depth of the plot, the
>character and world interaction, with portraying "real", believable people
I'm concerned about the graphics. I don't want to get a game that
doesn't look nice. If you don't think that graphics detract from
gameplay and/or immersion give Descent to Undermountain a spin.
>... Besides, many fans love the good old isometric view, myself included.
>It's just very "Ultima", and in a game where you have a party, it's
>certainly the most practical view, as you don't have to spin and zoom in
>order to check on your Companions. All right, it might be less "realistic",
>but IMO, this aspect of realism doesn't really do all that much for
>immersiveness.
Since the companions are always following behind you (at since since
Ultima VII), there's no real reason to have to check on them.
Personally I would prefer that Origin returns to having a single
figure represent the party when not in combat because I always felt
like I was more of a gang than anything else when my group of eight
folks would stomp around Britannia.
>I don't want to reincite the quite pointless UIX=TR argument here, let me
>just state this: As long as you don't FORCE us to stick to the tag-along
>perspective, and as long as you don't waste (yes, waste, IMNSHO, and I'm
>sure it's not just me who feels like that) another n years on redesigning
>the engine, it should be just fine. Freely rotating and zooming, as
>originally planned, is a good idea. Just don't push it too far. Enough said.
Robert said they're not and haven't redesigned the engine.
>CRPGs will possibly never be "mainstream", and trying to lure action gamers
>into role-playing while at the same time satisfying us die-hard Ultima fans
>is, I suppose, doomed to failure from the very beginning. I am no marketing
>expert or game designer, and don't pretend to be. But what do you really
>want? Huge sales - then go make the nth Quake, C&C or even Myst clone. Or
>the fine CRPG that you promised us - then MAKE a fine, a REAL CRPG and be
>sure that we'll buy it, and enjoy it immensely. Just don't expect stupid
>little (and not so little) boys who couldn't tell their brains from their
>backsides if you gave them an anatomical atlas and only want to "kill
>things" to really get into an Ultima. Who plays an Ultima for the action?
I do. Sometimes I want to run around and wipe evil off the face of
Britannia. There's no reason why a CRPG can't sucessfully include
"action" into it -- I think Fallout does an excellent job in it's
combat system.
>And don't expect US to be enthusiastic about a half-hearted compromise.
>BTW, while we're on the topic of the combat interface: I remember from the
>2/97 issue of Power Play that the Companions would have kind of
>"pre-programmed" tactics, depending on their skills and character. EG, Iolo
>would be a helluva archer, but totally useless with a two-handed sword. Now
>THAT'S a brilliant idea! As long as you can give them basic orders to keep
>them from mindlessly hopping into the fray like they did in U7, I think this
>would be a great way to both increase "realism" and make combat easier for
>the players. (Just to include some praise here so you won't feel totally
>"unappreciated" :) The idea IS good!)
While I grant that the idea is good, I do think that it's going to be
how CRPGs go from this year on. If you look at Baldur's Gate, they
too will have a similar scripting for party members.
>Quake? QUAKE?! Uh-oh ... Robert, I'm sure you'll regret that little
>inconsiderate remark! I just hope it won't start another panic about how
>this comparison is proof that Ascension will be anything, but not an Ultima.
>Let me just say this: That was possibly the most ... ah, inappropriate thing
>I have yet heard in the new UIX debate. Mentioning UIX and an
>action-adventure in the same sentence didn't sit well with many fans of the
>former, and now you seem to think that we'd be impressed at any feature from
>a mindless 3D-shooter? For your own sake, and to prevent heart attacks among
>the fans, I suppose you'd better start choosing your comparisons more
>carefully ;)
I don't think the comparison was inconsiderate, if you happen to
actually read what he was saying instead of reading what you wanted to
see. He was comparing the feeling of the 3D movement in Ultima IX to
the feeling of the 3D movement in Quake 2 and concluding that they had
the same "feel." Since, imho, Quake 2 does an excellent job of giving
the player the impression they're in a real 3D world this is a *good*
thing.
>You really have to tell us? Remember, it was and IS us who constantly holler
>for these things, and for some kind of "proof" that you have not forgotten
>them. While the last thing I want to do is accuse you of lying, it would be
>damned nice to get some hard facts here ... not just a generalized statement
>that they are "still present". They are not simply points that used to make
>Ultima such a fine series, they MADE the Ultima series!
At some point people have to be taken at their word, and things have
to be taken on faith. Since they've made it clear what they will and
won't comment on, this seems like one of those times.
>Hell, as if we weren't waiting for something like this for YEARS. Literally.
>And if you want us to judge hard facts, then give them out, and not only the
>engine facts, either (yes, the over-emphasize on the engine is a sore spot
>for me :)
<sigh>
>I won't scream at that one, although I'm sorely tempted. I won't say
>anything about further delays, increased size or draining a budget that
>would be better spent on creating a CRPG than an "interactive movie" that
>many fear UIX to become. Instead, I wish to go into something else:
>atmosphere. This, and "immersiveness", is, I think, quite subjectve. I for
>one don't want to listen to several dozens of more-or-less would-be actors
>who might or might not fit their roles. And even if everyone were cast
>perfectly, I know that I have my own idead how people like LB or the
>Companions "should" speak. Right, you could always turn it off and go back
>to text-only, and, as I said, these are simply my own 2 cents' worth.
>But consider this: If you have full speech, no one will ever call the Avatar
>by name. It would always be "Avatar", "milady", "hail there", "hey you" or
>whatever. Not very immersive, IMO, and not at all realistic either. If I am
>to feel I really AM in Britannia, I want people, especially the Companions
>and LB, to call me by name. Also, if you include "FULL" speech, will you
>have someone to do the Avatar's voice? That would reduce the immersiveness
>even further - - it just would not be "me" anymore, just someone talking in
>a strange voice I don't know, and possibly in a way I would never speak,
>even as the Avatar. So please, DON'T!
If you don't want full speech, then turn it off. Simple request,
simple solution.
>Cut scenes are a completely different matter. So I'd suggest you get some
>good actors that can really bring their characters to life instead of
>featuring full speech - quality over quantity (the old thread of how Patrick
>Stewart should be LB was fabulous, IMO, and I would have loved to see Bill
>Johnson's return as the Guardian)
But the cutscene dialog was recorded last year, if you recall. They
do have some (imho) great folks who did it.
(SNIP)
>To sum it up, I hope someone of Origin reads this and takes it as what I
>mean it to be: concerned criticism of a real, dedicated Ultima-devotee who
>has been quite disturbed by the recent news. It's all IMO, of course, but I
>think I'm not alone with regard to many statements.
To sum it up, you actually sound like you've already made your mind up
about the game, and the only way they could actually please you is to
remake a previous Ultima.
That might work for some Dragons, but the fact remains is that for the
genre to remain relevant it has to move forward or it will die. We
should encourage new ways of trying to tell a story, or new ways to
increase immersion and not automatically view such things with
suspicion. At some point it becomes necessary to accept that all
things evolve, and sometimes become things that you no longer like.
If you recognize this happening, then it's time to get off the train
-- it happened to me with Ultima Online so I stopped playing, it might
happen to you with Ultima IX, or might have already happened (or so it
seems), so it might be time for you to move on as well. What is
important to remember, though, is that this continuing evolution is
something that we are completely unable to stop and regardless of our
personal biases it is something that is good.
Sith Dragon Visit my webpage at http://www.walrus.com/~sith for the
-==(UDIC)==- latest in Ultima IX news plus the Ultima IX FAQ.
Lost Dragon
>something that we are completely unable to stop and regardless of our
>personal biases it is something that is good.
It is not necessarily good.
I still have yet to see anything from any of the producers that
persuades me to think that the "trilogy of trilogies" will be what
they claim - much less what I hope for.
For a moment there, I saw a glimmer of light. A blaze quickly
overshadowed by all the typical buzzwords: "like quake", "full
speech", "action combat", "3d", "simple interface"..
Eh..
For myself it is a question of whether or not to continue reading this
newsgroup after the series which once sustained it falls into
obscurity.
/| .oo__. .-----.=- Lost Dragon -=.-----. U
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ |==- Dungeon Bane: A New Shareware CRPG -==| _O_ | D
`,_/'(_)\_ | | |===-- http://www.cris.com/~lostdrgn/ --===| | | I
<...{_)_)_''`-----`=====-- Currently in Development --====='-----' C
Sith Dragon
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:54:49 -0600, lost...@cris.com (Lost Dragon)
wrote:
>>something that we are completely unable to stop and regardless of our
>>personal biases it is something that is good.
>
>It is not necessarily good.
Sure it is. Akalabeth brought us Ultima I. I brought us II. III
brought us III. III brought us IV. IV brought us V. V brought VI.
VI brought VII as well as SE and MD. VII brought Serpent Isle. SI
brought Pagan. Pagan brings Ascention.
Just because you, or myself, may not like some of the elements that
have come into the evolving nature of Ultima doesn't mean that they're
not *good*, just that they do not meet our preconceived notions of
what an Ultima should be. This is what I feel happened with Pagan --
it's nowhere near to being a bad game, it's just not what most
expected in an Ultima. Most can't detach themselves from their
preconceived notions and actually judge something on its own merits.
>I still have yet to see anything from any of the producers that
>persuades me to think that the "trilogy of trilogies" will be what
>they claim - much less what I hope for.
But, honestly, is there *anything* anyone could say that would change
your mind short of "Lost, we want you to design Ultima IX?" You have
to admit that you are entrenched in your conviction that Ultima IX
will not kick ass. :-)
>For a moment there, I saw a glimmer of light. A blaze quickly
>overshadowed by all the typical buzzwords: "like quake", "full
>speech", "action combat", "3d", "simple interface"..
Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
you refuse to take what he says at face value and insist on reading
into every word then of course you're setting yourself up for
disappointment.
I can't think of anything being wrong with the game having full
speech, especially if they're adding the option to turn it off.
Are you going to tell me that combat in Black Gate and Serpent Isle
wasn't "action combat?"
And of course it is apparent to all just how awful a thing having a
simple interface is. In fact, I think Derek Smart should be hired to
do the keyboard interface for Ultima IX.
Finally, being put off by the fact that Robert used the word 3D to
describe a 3D world really seems odd. How should he describe it?
It think it would be interesting to see how you would react if
Origin/LG was developing the Underworld games today for the first
time. By your logic and suspicion, I would fully expect them to be
nothing more than a Quake 2 TC.
>For myself it is a question of whether or not to continue reading this
>newsgroup after the series which once sustained it falls into
>obscurity.
I honestly don't think Ultima has fallen into obscurity, but it's
clear that one of two things has happened: 1.) You grew out of
Ultima, or 2.) Ultima grew out of you.
Nightfire
[ahem]
<DISCLAIMER>
I did not mean to incite yet another new "Gawds, UIX will suck, and that's
it!"-thread with my post. To the contrary. So, if I made it sound as if I
were completely retro and only want to complain, I'm sorry. I AM concerned,
but I thought I had made it clear it's all IMO, and that I really only want
to 1. hear anything official about anything BESIDES the game engine, and 2.
express concern that Orirgin's ways to increase "immersiveness" might
backfire, and actually hinder enjoyment for a number of people.
</DISCLAIMER>
Then again, what do you expect from a post written at three in the morning?
I was practically sleepwalking when I wrote that, so it might not be as
clear as I would have liked it to be, although I went over it for hours :)
I've read anything about Ultima IX that I could find, printed or on the Web,
so I am always up to date. So if I occasionally sounded uninformed, I'm
sorry. I'm NOT in the habit of screaming out baseless suppositions, rather,
I DO make an effort to know my topic before I speak up.
Sadly, I've never been that good with words. So, just to clarify matters a
little for Sith and others who possibly didn't get all of my meaning:
1. I KNOW Orirgin said there would be a party, that the Companions would be
back, etc. Then again, they also said there would be a female Avatar, but
that was way back, and as both Sith and I have pointed out, Origin might
just throw that option overboard AGAIN, because it's "too much extra work".
And this would upset me, because I myself would have a hard time identifying
with a predefined male character. ALL IMO, right?
2. When talking about character portraits, I was referring to the Avatar. I
thought that at least was obvious.
3. As for the retirement issue: see the smilie? I just wanted to say I would
not like to see the Avatar die. Hell, if my Avatar had a second name, it
would be "responsibility". She would be the last to go around casting
Ethereal fireworks just for fun while the Guardian had a ball in Britannia.
4. Graphics ... yeah, maybe I did complain a little there. However, what I
mean is they should finally give out some more info about gameplay and plot,
not just engine, engine, engine. A freely definable view will be great ...
but then, I never doubted Ascension would be "kick-ass" with regard to sound
and graphics. Origin's good at that. I loved the screenshots. And I will
love a good UIX even more when the graphics are as good as they promise to
be. I'm not a retro who would choose 16-color tile grahics over the stuff
Origin's working on (I'm too young for that, anyway). But I don't want
further delays, and I finally want some non-engine info. I'm starving for
this info :)~ Again, I though that was clear.
5. I didn't mean to hint that I want Ascension to be a "pacifist game". To
the contrary - - I finally wanna kick the Guardian's but for good, and I
think combat's an important part in an RPG, one that I enjoy immensely if
it's well done. What I mean is that IMO, no one would buy or play an Ultima
simply because of the "cool" combat interface. Yes, Robert's statement about
"attracting action gamers" didn't sit so well with me, I'll admit that.
Perhaps I am overreacting.
[shrug]
6. The "Quake" issue. Right, Sith, I did read what Robert said, and I'm not
so stupid to only make of it what I want to, not even in the dead of the
night. Perhaps you did not get my meaning. I said, "I hope it won't start
another panic". I said the UIX=TR debate was pointless, and I KNOW neither
the Quake nor the TR perspective will be enforced, nor will they mean
Ascension's gonna be like these games. And I realize Robert's enthusing
about the engine because that's his job (creating a good engine, I mean).
The very last thing to worry me is how one of many possible perspectives
could spoil the game ... but we all know that there are those who seem to
fear exactly that. For that reason, the whole passage was supposed to be a
"forecast" of what might happen, and not a totally serious one at that (but
neither a pointless one, IMO). See the winky smilie?
7. One word about "full speech" (and then I'll be done with that and never
touch it again, I promise). Even if you turned it off and played in text
only, you'd never be called by name, unless they included that in text-only
mode, which I think unlikely. And that is my main point against full
speech - - you would not really be you, just "Avatar". As if even your
closest friends had forgotten your name. A minor point for many, I realize,
and again, that was IMO only, although I KNOW I'm not the only one who is
sceptical about this. Remember, not long ago, OSI said full speech would not
be included and would only bloat the number of CDs needed.
And finally, I've NOT made my mind up that Ascension will be crap unless
it'll use the SI engine or whatever. I thought people were overreacting
about things like the "innocent" mentioning of TR. So now I seem to become
paranoid myself? Well, a little. But not because of perspective. And not
because I "view everything new with suspicion". And I DID NEVER state I
hated the game engine on principle, or anything like that, which would be
stupid anyway, because we have not seen it in action, not even new
screenshots. I love good graphics and epic music and beautiful cutscenes. I
just don't think they should try to impress us SOLELY with info about the
engine, because, as I said, we all know Origin's good at that.
Hellfire, I WANT Ascension to be the greatest CRPG of all time. I'm so
looking forward to this game, to anything that will tell me more about the
actual game. But I also DEMAND Origin make a really fine, a worthy
conclusion to the "trilogy of trilogies", because that's what they said they
would do, a game that would be a real Ultima. My suggestions and fears are
just that, and all IMO. I would not force OSI to do UIX "my way", but I do
want them to keep the promises they made after U8.
I believe Ascension WILL be good. I just don't know (because we have no
information to work with yet) if they will be able to "beat" U7/SI", as LB
once said he wants to, with regard to character portrayal, story density and
such matters. It will be hard. But I hope they will do it, and then I'll
cancel my plans of retribution immediately and instead sing their praises
for all eternity for creating the Ultima of Ultimas, and shower them with
cream pies, and host "UDIC loves Origin" parties, and ...
[ahem]
Uh-oh, two giant posts in two days. Right, unless I feel I've been
misunderstood again, I'll now lean back, try to relax and wait for the 2/97
issue of Power Play and the interview with LB himself. Hope that will
somehow help to smooth my and other dragon's scales a little.
[climbs off soapbox and tiredly heads for her weyr to get some badly-needed
sleep]
Niklas Matthies
[Nightfire's long post, which IMHO was one of the best responses so far]
Well, I second everything Nightfire said!
And I'll add:
1. I wont buy UIX if it doesn't have isometric view (e.g. a la Syndicate).
This is because the only games where "real" 3d works for me are xmaze,
Tron and X-Wing. Ultima with Quake or TR view makes as little sense to
me as a 3d xblast, 3d mahjongg or the 3d lemmings that was made.
2. I won't buy UIX if it *requires* a 3d accelerator, because I won't buy
one for just one game. Note that this is unrelated to the above, because
3d accelerators can also be used to speed up isometric view (and even
2d view -- it's just a question of where and how you place the polygons).
3. I won't buy UIX if it has full speech, because this means there will
be too little dialogue in the game (no matter the compression -- mp3
will not suffice, unless UIX comes out on two dozen CDs...), plus some
other drawbacks that were already stated.
4. I won't buy UIX if it's not significantly more complex than UVIII, i.e.
in the range of UVII. This includes world size, quests, conversations,
and what I call "freedom of action" -- that you are free to do almost
everything that you could do in real life.
From what we hear from Origin, I'm afraid that means that I won't buy UIX.
Kinda sad.
-- Elf Dragon
Nightfire
> In an Ultima-ecstasy (inadvertedly induced by my person), Frenetic
proclaimed thusly:
>I was going to respond to each thing in turn, but I realized I sounded
>like a MeToo-bot, and I'm *not* from AOL. ^_^
Glad you see my point. My, I needed to blow off some steam. I still hope and
think Ascension will be great, but I really wish they'd be telling us
something about the plot or gameplay or whatever. And although I feel the
actual "free" perspective has some great promise, I sure hope UIX won't set
a new world record for hardware requirements. (Just in case, though, I'm
already saving money for yet ANOTHER upgrade. D'ya sometimes feel as if
Origin's made a deal with the hardware industry, too? :)
>[Frenetic stands in the aisle.]
>Amen, dragon! Preach on!
>[He bounds down the aisle, singing.]
>I believe...in an Ultima....
>*giggle*
><waves claws back and forth>
>[Frenetic stands next to Nightfire, still swinging his claws in the
>air.]
>I believe! I believe, Nightfire! I hear the power of your words!
><waves claws in the air>
>;D
<ROFL>
<bows to Frenetic, blushing>
Thank you, brother, for your wonderful testimony.
No, seriously.
Fren, I might just be a hatchling, but I believe this NG would lose a lot if
you would suddenly be gone. And Samurai, too. Y'know, Kender told me there
used to be more of your likes around ... <sigh> Wish I hatched earlier!
Reading the old threads on Deja News is just not the same. Anyway, hang on.
Some plain old fun is exactly what this NG needs at the moment.
>Oh, and by the way...
><SPLUT>
>Splut me not, and expect no revenge.
><giggle>
><Frenetic resumes waving his claws in the air>
As I said. Ahh, there's nothing like a little splutting to dispel one's
moody spells. So take this!!
*SPLUT*
BTW, that was a chocolate cream pie. EXTRA chocolate. 'S suppose to brighten
one's mood, chocolate. Thought you might appreciate it. Heh.
<ducks and runs>
Shawn Hazel
Well written, listen up Origin
Sith Dragon
On 10 Jan 1998 21:01:51 GMT, Niklas Matthies
<matt...@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>Well, I second everything Nightfire said!
>And I'll add:
>
>1. I wont buy UIX if it doesn't have isometric view (e.g. a la Syndicate).
> This is because the only games where "real" 3d works for me are xmaze,
> Tron and X-Wing. Ultima with Quake or TR view makes as little sense to
> me as a 3d xblast, 3d mahjongg or the 3d lemmings that was made.
Robert already said that the game will have an isometric point of
view, along with basically any other view you want, depending on where
you want to place the camera.
>2. I won't buy UIX if it *requires* a 3d accelerator, because I won't buy
> one for just one game. Note that this is unrelated to the above, because
> 3d accelerators can also be used to speed up isometric view (and even
> 2d view -- it's just a question of where and how you place the polygons).
I think it would be silly to buy a card for just *one* game, but there
are many games out there that support 3D acceleration that really do
make a card worth buying. I was skeptical at first, but when I saw a
non-accelerated verion of a game next to the accelerated version I
never looked back.
>3. I won't buy UIX if it has full speech, because this means there will
> be too little dialogue in the game (no matter the compression -- mp3
> will not suffice, unless UIX comes out on two dozen CDs...), plus some
> other drawbacks that were already stated.
Well, since the game does (or will) have full speech....
>4. I won't buy UIX if it's not significantly more complex than UVIII, i.e.
> in the range of UVII. This includes world size, quests, conversations,
> and what I call "freedom of action" -- that you are free to do almost
> everything that you could do in real life.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to guage the complexity of a game before
one plays it, since each person's definition of complexity is
different.
>From what we hear from Origin, I'm afraid that means that I won't buy UIX.
>Kinda sad.
Yes, it is kinda sad that someone would already write off a game that
they've waited four years for almost a year before it comes out.
Arnulf Guenther
Sith,
you have a hard time defending Origin here.
I think they've maneuvered themselves into this position.
I witnessed the whole thing like this:
First, Ultima VIII. Not a bad game, but not a good Ultima in the
"Ultima" sense of its forerunners. Then came a patch and a letter from
Lord British which could be seen as an apologize to the fans of the
Ultima series. Along with this LB makes promises that UIX will more of
an Ultima than Ultima VIII. Half a year later Brian Martin makes a
request what the Ultima fans wish for UIX. I myself replied and got an
answer from Brian that -- judging from my proposals -- UIX would be a
game that I would really like. We were told that the plot is finished.
There would be no FMV, only computer generated cutscenes.
OK, I was satisfied then. After some time news trickled in how the game
would look like. The first screenshots appeared. Isometric view that
could be rotated and zoomed in and out. Nice idea I thought. It looked
like UIX was almost ready. Then came Ultima Online. We heard that the
whole UIX team was drawn off to help with UO. OK, that's a company
thing. Origin had to manage their resources.
And now? For me it looks like they ditched the "old" engine or did a
complete rewrite. Why? If the isometric view is there why is the tag
along view necessary? Why not a first person view like in Daggerfall or
Ultima Underworld? Does it add really so much? Well, we'll have to see
it to judge it. As I see it, it makes a late project only later. The
same with full speech. The trade off will be space. Less story or
dialogue for this effect. After all these promises about an epic story
and in-depth game? They'll have to cram it on more than two CDs for
this.
Ultima IX: Ascension will have a hard competition:
The Ultima Collection with its prominent feature: Ultima VII!
I wish them Good Luck
-Arnulf
Sith Dragon wrote:
>
> On 10 Jan 1998 21:01:51 GMT, Niklas Matthies
> <matt...@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>
> >Well, I second everything Nightfire said!
> >And I'll add:
> >
> >1. I wont buy UIX if it doesn't have isometric view (e.g. a la Syndicate).
[snip]
--
arn...@inf.fu-berlin.de Invisible Dragon
--=(UDIC)=--
Riff-Raff
>Just because you, or myself, may not like some of the elements that
>have come into the evolving nature of Ultima doesn't mean that they're
>not *good*, just that they do not meet our preconceived notions of
>what an Ultima should be. This is what I feel happened with Pagan --
>it's nowhere near to being a bad game, it's just not what most
>expected in an Ultima. Most can't detach themselves from their
>preconceived notions and actually judge something on its own merits.
Origin's intention for Ultima 8: Pagan, as Garriott stated, was to
attract a more action-focused audience. This, in effect, gave us a
game which did not have the 'feel' of a traditional Ultima and thus
alienated veteran Ultima players. By what has been 'said' recently
about Ultima IX's engine, it seems they are going down a similiar
path. So much time has passed since Pagan it would appear Origin have
forgotten their 'promise' to deliver Ascension as a more traditional
Ultima (ie a plot-driven, highly-immersive virtual world without the
arcade-elements of Ultima 8). We've been sorely disappointed once
before, and we'de like for that not to happen again. Obviously if we
have concerns we will make a noise in the hope that Origin will
listen. And yes, on the flipside, it is your right to support Ultima
IX. :)
>>For a moment there, I saw a glimmer of light. A blaze quickly
>>overshadowed by all the typical buzzwords: "like quake", "full
>>speech", "action combat", "3d", "simple interface"..
>
>Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
>2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
>you refuse to take what he says at face value and insist on reading
>into every word then of course you're setting yourself up for
>disappointment.
_Everything_ we read is tainted by our own biases and perceptions.
>
>I can't think of anything being wrong with the game having full
>speech, especially if they're adding the option to turn it off.
>
>Are you going to tell me that combat in Black Gate and Serpent Isle
>wasn't "action combat?"
And this is one the few areas a lot of people will agree where the
Ultima VIIs failed. But it was tolerable, IMO, because there were also
so many outstanding CRPG elements within those games.
>Finally, being put off by the fact that Robert used the word 3D to
>describe a 3D world really seems odd. How should he describe it?
I guess we associate '3D' with 'action-oriented', and yes perhaps we
are wrong in this regard. Daggerfall is 3D and no-one can dispute that
game's RPGness. :)
>I honestly don't think Ultima has fallen into obscurity, but it's
>clear that one of two things has happened: 1.) You grew out of
>Ultima, or 2.) Ultima grew out of you.
That is always a possibility.
Riff-Raff
We need optimists, if only to argue with them. ;)
Riff-Raff
>5. I didn't mean to hint that I want Ascension to be a "pacifist game". To
>the contrary - - I finally wanna kick the Guardian's but for good, and I
>think combat's an important part in an RPG, one that I enjoy immensely if
>it's well done. What I mean is that IMO, no one would buy or play an Ultima
>simply because of the "cool" combat interface. Yes, Robert's statement about
>"attracting action gamers" didn't sit so well with me, I'll admit that.
>Perhaps I am overreacting.
On this point I don't think you're over-reacting. Ultima 8 was
specifically targeted at an action-oriented audience, and, as a
result, a focus was made on visuals and arcade-elements AT THE EXPENSE
of the other RPG elements we loved about the previous Ultimas. For
this reason if they are once again aiming Ultima toward the action
gamers then of course we're going to feel insecure...
> Remember, not long ago, OSI said full speech would not
>be included and would only bloat the number of CDs needed.
Precisely, and this is a very worrying point, IMO. It illustrates
their willingness to abandon their original intentions for Ultima IX,
which were better than good.
>I believe Ascension WILL be good. I just don't know (because we have no
>information to work with yet) if they will be able to "beat" U7/SI", as LB
>once said he wants to, with regard to character portrayal, story density and
>such matters. It will be hard. But I hope they will do it, and then I'll
>cancel my plans of retribution immediately and instead sing their praises
>for all eternity for creating the Ultima of Ultimas, and shower them with
>cream pies, and host "UDIC loves Origin" parties, and ...
[grin]
Riff-Raff.
Richard Congdon
Sith Dragon wrote:
> Just because you, or myself, may not like some of the elements that
> have come into the evolving nature of Ultima doesn't mean that they're
> not *good*, just that they do not meet our preconceived notions of
> what an Ultima should be. This is what I feel happened with Pagan --
> it's nowhere near to being a bad game, it's just not what most
> expected in an Ultima. Most can't detach themselves from their
> preconceived notions and actually judge something on its own merits.
>
I heartily disagree. In as much as it is being billed as _Ultima_ IX,
we, their customers, should expect that the game will be a worthy
entry in a great series. If OSI wants to bill it as something else,
then I am more than willing to judge it on it's own merits. Otherwise,
they had better sell me an Ultima.
> I honestly don't think Ultima has fallen into obscurity, but it's
> clear that one of two things has happened: 1.) You grew out of
> Ultima, or 2.) Ultima grew out of you.
>
I am rather afraid that 2) is more likely. The bottom line (i.e. money)
seem to pop up much too often in interviews with the UIX team, other
than Brian. It was not always so, and this, I think, is the real
problem. They (at any rate, those in control) are no longer making
games for fun. Robert White's note was nothing but depressing.
---
Richard Congdon
Jiveguy
I have never written in this news group, but have been an Ultima fan since VI
(first game I bought when I got a computer on a friend's reccomendation). I
have since acquired the rest of the Ultimas, and am upset by this dialogue
filling the newsgroup. All I can think of is the old posts on prodigy before
UVII came out. There were updates on the engine. environmental sound. Full
screen map. Mouse interface (lack of a typing parser interface even). real
time combat. This was NOT the ultima we knew and loved! But no one cared. We
trusted our pals at OSI to do right by us, and we were given the sweetness that
is Ultima VII. I will admit that I was sorely disappointed by
UVIII, but we can grant a misstep to a company that has entertained us for so
many years. The one constant throughout Ultima's evolution has been a
different engine with every game. If you look at Wing Commander--Prophesy,
MANY of the features fans have been asking for were supported design-wise (more
emphasis on gameplay, less on FMV, etc.) Many have had complaints, but Origin
advanced the engine WHILE RELEASING WHAT THE FANS ASKED FOR! This makes me
think that Origin might know exactly what they are doing. All of this arguing
is pointless. We will get Ultima IX, and it may not be what we were
expecting, but has any Ultima so far, really? Are we right, in bashing origin
before the game is even released. I'm going to take my $50 dollars and
preorder UIX, and I'm guessing LB and the guys will take care of us. Just
open your mind, and trust in the man who has brought you 20 years of quality
entertainment. Please respond intelligently and discuss my oversights. I
honestly believe what I have just written, and am tired of seeing a U group
filled with bickering and whining instead of discussions of fantasy and
mystery.
(But if UIX does suck, NO REMORSE! lets lynch 'em!!!!!!!!!)
Jive Dragon (can I just give myself a name, or is this a private club?)
Lost Dragon
>VI brought VII as well as SE and MD. VII brought Serpent Isle. SI
>brought Pagan. Pagan brings Ascention.
SI brought Pagan and that is good? Like I said, change is not
necessarily good.
>expected in an Ultima. Most can't detach themselves from their
>preconceived notions and actually judge something on its own merits.
Well of course they can't. That's why sequels usually do fairly well
- because you don't have to relearn everything to get anything out of
a sequel. It MEETS your expectations. That is part of what sequels
are about.
>But, honestly, is there *anything* anyone could say that would change
>your mind short of "Lost, we want you to design Ultima IX?" You have
Maybe. If they told me about the Avatar's party and how it works. If
I could see for myself that combat isn't a click-fest. If I had some
kind of proof that OSI isn't selling out the series to make a quick
buck. All I have from them is standard PR - nothing special,
everything in generalities.
>to admit that you are entrenched in your conviction that Ultima IX
>will not kick ass. :-)
Yah, I am. I like to base my opinions on prior (and recent)
experience instead of hoping that OSI will somehow magically get to be
better.
>Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
>2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
It's not informative in any manner. All he did was compare U9 to
previously (successfully) marketed products. Comparing it to Quake,
regardless of what he meant, merely shows to me that he doesn't
understand a thing about how to market to an cRPG audience. From
that, I can also assert that he knows nothing about what an
established fan wants from the series. If he had, he wouldn't have
made the mistake of comparing U9 to anything remotely resembling
Quake.
If he wanted to say how "realistic" the 3D atmosphere is, he should
have compared the game to Ultima Underworld.
>into every word then of course you're setting yourself up for
>disappointment.
On the contrary. I protect myself from disappointment. It is those
who swallow hook, line, and sinker that set themselves up for
disappointment.
>I can't think of anything being wrong with the game having full
>speech, especially if they're adding the option to turn it off.
Other than the fact that "the money could have been spent on something
else" I have little objection to full speech provided that I can
disable it without disabling everything else.
>Are you going to tell me that combat in Black Gate and Serpent Isle
>wasn't "action combat?"
I didn't recall really liking U7's combat either. At least I didn't
have to wave my mouse around, jump, duck, or roll. U7's combat does
not fit my ideal standard for CRPG combat, nor does it necessarily fit
my idea of "action RPG" combat.
>And of course it is apparent to all just how awful a thing having a
>simple interface is. In fact, I think Derek Smart should be hired to
>do the keyboard interface for Ultima IX.
Do not confuse complex interface with poor interface.
>It think it would be interesting to see how you would react if
>Origin/LG was developing the Underworld games today for the first
>time. By your logic and suspicion, I would fully expect them to be
>nothing more than a Quake 2 TC.
If they included words like "kick-ass" then yes I probably would.
>I honestly don't think Ultima has fallen into obscurity, but it's
>clear that one of two things has happened: 1.) You grew out of
>Ultima, or 2.) Ultima grew out of you.
If Ultima has grown out of me it is because Origin has made it so.
xxyzz
Jiveguy wrote:
> preorder UIX, and I'm guessing LB and the guys will take care of us. Just
> open your mind, and trust in the man who has brought you 20 years of quality
> entertainment. Please respond intelligently and discuss my
Ok two things: Ultima 8 and Ultima Online.
These two Ultimas were IMHO crap. U9 will either redeem the Ultima
series or be strike 3. I really hope U9 will be good but I am really
losing faith in OSI.
Andrew Charlton
Arnulf Guenther writes:
>And now? For me it looks like they ditched the "old" engine or did a
>complete rewrite.
No, that's exactly what they did not do. The U9 engine was from the start
(Or quite near the start) a 3D engine. This means that you can put the
"camera" anywhere you want, from floating above the world looking down at
the party, to down near the ground following the party around.
Some bits would have to be re-written to make the camera avoid walls and
such (More of a problem when you're down in the thick of it, than up above
the world), but nowhere near a complete rewrite.
>Why? If the isometric view is there why is the tag along view necessary?
>Why not a first person view like in Daggerfall or Ultima Underworld?
First person views are very claustrophobic, since they deny you your
peripheral vision. The trailer-camera essentially gives it back as well as
is possible with a computer monitor.
First person views also give (Me at least) a feeling of disembodiment.
Strangely enough, I feel more like I have a body if I can see it in front
of me. This is, I guess, just another aspect of the peripheral vision
problem. In a first person view, I can see my hands and that's it, but
IRL, I can see my whole body out of the corner of my eye.
>Does it add really so much? Well, we'll have to see
>it to judge it. As I see it, it makes a late project only later.
Probably not as much later as you might think. Still, I prefer not to
think in terms of lateness. If U9 turns out to be "kick-ass", will it
really matter how long it was in development?
>The
>same with full speech. The trade off will be space. Less story or
>dialogue for this effect. After all these promises about an epic story
>and in-depth game? They'll have to cram it on more than two CDs for
>this.
I agree with your fears about full speech. We have heard about "magical"
compression formats (Ort Bet Ylem?) that could shrink it down to miniscule
proportions. I wonder, though, if it would be enough. As an excercise, it
might be interesting to try and work out how much space the total of U5
speech would take up in MP3 format.
--
____/\___ Erraticus
___/__\__) -==(UDIC)==-
(__/ \__ \\//
/ \ \/
Andrew Charlton
Lost Dragon writes:
>Sith Dragon writes:
>>Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
>>2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
>
>If he wanted to say how "realistic" the 3D atmosphere is, he should
>have compared the game to Ultima Underworld.
Ah yes, an ancient game that's less immersive and realistic than Quake. It
was more immersive and realistic than Doom, however.
I really don't understand your objection to cross-genre comparisons.
mieu
>Yes, it is kinda sad that someone would already write off a game that
>they've waited four years for almost a year before it comes out.
>
>
>Sith Dragon Visit my webpage at http://www.walrus.com/~sith for the
>-==(UDIC)==- latest in Ultima IX news plus the Ultima IX FAQ.
Q:When is a Dragon not a Dragon?
A: When they no longer buy Ultimas!
Excuse the sig. but i can use it as it is my birthday (as discussed on
the UDIC last year.
Bye,bye
MIEU DRAGON
--~~#^$^##/ \##^$^#~~~--_
_-~#######\/#/\ ( ) /\#\/#######~-_
-############// :\^^/: \\############-
~############// ~(@::@)~ \\############~
~#############(( \\// ))#############~
<###############\\ (oo) //###############>
#################\\ /\<>/\ //#################
<###################\\/ \//###################>
#/:##########/\######( /\ )######/\##########:\#
</ :#/\#/\#/\/ \#/\##\ : : /##/\#/ \/\#/\#/\#: \>
\#\: : : :/#/
"What news Corwin? \ : : / __
Thy lie shall have /|\ /|\ \/
brought thee low?" (||||UDIC||||()|}
(Baron Olmrick UW1) /\
/__\
Incoherent Dragon
Andrew Charlton wrote:
}Lost Dragon writes:
}
}>Sith Dragon writes:
}>>Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
}>>2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
}>
}>If he wanted to say how "realistic" the 3D atmosphere is, he should
}>have compared the game to Ultima Underworld.
}
}Ah yes, an ancient game that's less immersive and realistic than Quake. It
}was more immersive and realistic than Doom, however.
Ummm... I thought Underworld was far more immersive than Quake, despite
the dated engine and small viewing window.
Incoh
--
Incoherent Dragon | UDIC: d+ e- N++ T+ Om+ U12345678AL u- uC+++ uF-
-=(UDIC)=- | uG+ uLB++ uA+ nC nH+ nP nI nPT nS+++ nT y a19
Chris Chapman |
Uni. of Nottingham| "It's origin and purpose, still a total mystery."
Steve McKinney
And on 11 Jan 1998 04:54:21 GMT, Jiveguy inscribed across the sky, in
letters of fire a mile high:
>Jive Dragon (can I just give myself a name, or is this a private club?)
The only requirements for joining the UDIC (Ultima Dragons Internet
Chapter) are that you have played (not necessarily completed) an
Ultima, and that you provide your real name. Go to
<http://www.udic.org/> for information on how to join. Unfortunately,
there appears to be a Jive Dragon already on the roster, but I'm sure
you can come up with a good name.
--
(~| _ _ _|_. _ _ | |~\ _ _ _ _ _
_)|<(/_|_) | |(_(_|| |_/| (_|(_|(_)| |
| -==(UDIC)==- _|
<mailto:sj...@bellsouth.net>
Ibn al-Hazardous
The story goes that Frenetic Dragon wrote something like this on Sat, 10
Jan 1998 11:58:52 GMT:
">PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to the
">wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll be
">right in the front. Shade Blade in one claw, Death Scythe in the other, and
">I will skin, dress and eat alive the offenders. Just a friendly warning, hmm
">... ;)
Or at the very least, do better ourselves. There has been some
mentioning about licensing the U6 (?) engine and do a UDIC Ultima (if
OSI would let us). Otherwise there are other engines, and a couple of
programmers in our midst. We could change the names slightly...
"Well, I may not fly off for vengeance if they get some of it
"right...but if they ignore everything we've been shoutin' since back
"after Pagan....nyah ha ha ha! I shall fly at thy right, and I'm not
"bringin' nothing but my claws, my mouth, a *whole* load of firestone,
"and an appetite! ^_^
Amen!
"Oh, and by the way...
"
"<SPLUT>
"
"Splut me not, and expect no revenge.
"
"<giggle>
Exactly what do you mean Fren? Well, I guess I should stay on the safe
side...
*SPLUT* [Mother's redcurrant pie, delicious!]
"If thou leavest unsplutted, that wich shouldst have beenth splutted,
it beeth worse than splutting the innocent!" (Swedish saying)
"<Frenetic resumes waving his claws in the air>
[Blinded by the pie, he waves rather violently]
*Thud!*
[Fren hits Ibn off the top of the head. Ibn falls headlong, with stars,
planets and little singing birds flying around his head]
Could the world stop moving, please?
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon (!)
-==(UDIC)==-
Remove the CREAMPIE to send me a mail.
Ibn al-Hazardous
The story goes that Sith Dragon wrote something like this on Sat, 10 Jan
1998 14:21:29 GMT:
I'm just speculating but so are most of us, right? Since they are going
to use a 3D engine, do they necessarily have to record the movie
sequencies in advance? IMO it ought to be possible to do those scenes
with a scripting language (which they would need anyway, right?), and in
that case it should be possible to feature different character portraits
(or rather 3D characers) as well as different sets of companions in the
movie parts. IMO this is one of the points with a 3D engine in a CRPG.
The limitation IMO is the full speech thing, unless they have some kind
of really cool language synthesis software at there hands, but seems
unlikely since a cool enough language synthesis does not even exist. :(
Sith Dragon
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:16:33 -0500, Richard Congdon <con...@tiac.com>
wrote:
>I heartily disagree. In as much as it is being billed as _Ultima_ IX,
>we, their customers, should expect that the game will be a worthy
>entry in a great series. If OSI wants to bill it as something else,
>then I am more than willing to judge it on it's own merits. Otherwise,
>they had better sell me an Ultima.
But Origin *is* selling you an Ultima -- what *they* think an Ultima
is. After all, Ultima is Lord British's vision and he can take it in
whatever direction he wants. The problem is that LB's vision and the
vision of any given Dragon might be two entirely different animals,
and that's where the conflict begins imho.
>I am rather afraid that 2) is more likely. The bottom line (i.e. money)
>seem to pop up much too often in interviews with the UIX team, other
>than Brian. It was not always so, and this, I think, is the real
>problem. They (at any rate, those in control) are no longer making
>games for fun. Robert White's note was nothing but depressing.
As you might have guessed, I'm going to disagree here. I didn't find
the letter depressing at all, because I wasn't reading it expecting
Robert to say X and then become depressed when he said Y. I merely
wanted to read what he had to say, but maybe I'm too entrenched in my
wait-and-see attitude about things.
Maybe it's because I've been playing these games since Akalabeth first
came out hundreds of years ago, so maybe that's why I have the
willingness to give LB the benefit of the doubt, but nothing that's
being bandied about for Ultima IX is any more radical or earthchanging
than any of the changes that came out in the series in the past:
- The introduction of a party;
- The loss of the demi-humans;
- The move from top-down to isometric;
- The move from tiles;.
- The move from turn-based to real-time combat, etc.,;
All these moves were equally as radical as the things now being talked
about for Ultima IX, and, ultimately (npi), they turned out to be
things that actually improved the games. (For most, I still have a
friend who won't forgive LB for dumping the Fuzzies.)
So, I'm figuring that the folks who really don't want Ultima to
continue changing are the ones who weren't around from the beginning
and wouldn't necessarily recognize that Ultima has *always* been
constantly evolving. Ultima has never been one, fixed vision, has
never been one, fixed way of telling a story, but has been an ongoing
experiment in storytelling that has had its successes as well as its
failures.
Christopher A Tew
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 22:47:33 -0600, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from lost...@cris.com (Lost Dragon):
>>PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to the
>>wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll be
>
>Dibs on LB!
>
>Mmmm.. . Flesh...
>
><chomp!>
I dunno if you'd find any OSI employee too tasty, as if U9 is ruined,
I'll urinate on the lot of them.
-Cat
-------------------------------------------------
This post has come from the mind of Sir SMOO
"I'll take you down the only road I've been down,
y'know, the one that sets you to the place where
all the things meet, yeah."
-The Verve, Bittersweet Symphony
Frenetic Dragon
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:41:38 GMT, fi...@CREAMPIE.flippsoft.a.se (Ibn
al-Hazardous) wrote:
>The story goes that Frenetic Dragon wrote something like this on Sat, 10
>Jan 1998 11:58:52 GMT:
>
>">PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to the
>">wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll be
>">right in the front. Shade Blade in one claw, Death Scythe in the other, and
>">I will skin, dress and eat alive the offenders. Just a friendly warning, hmm
>">... ;)
>
>Or at the very least, do better ourselves. There has been some
>mentioning about licensing the U6 (?) engine and do a UDIC Ultima (if
>OSI would let us). Otherwise there are other engines, and a couple of
>programmers in our midst. We could change the names slightly...
Really? There are programs that could allow alterations to Ultima VI
on a macro/microscopic scale? I knew there were some map editors...Oh
my...
<giggle>
Wow...
>"Well, I may not fly off for vengeance if they get some of it
>"right...but if they ignore everything we've been shoutin' since back
>"after Pagan....nyah ha ha ha! I shall fly at thy right, and I'm not
>"bringin' nothing but my claws, my mouth, a *whole* load of firestone,
>"and an appetite! ^_^
>
>Amen!
<waves claws in the air>
^_^
>"Oh, and by the way...
>"
>"<SPLUT>
>"
>"Splut me not, and expect no revenge.
>"
>"<giggle>
>
>Exactly what do you mean Fren? Well, I guess I should stay on the safe
>side...
>
>*SPLUT* [Mother's redcurrant pie, delicious!]
AAAAH!
I've been splutted!
<lick>
Mmmmmmm.....
>"If thou leavest unsplutted, that wich shouldst have beenth splutted,
>it beeth worse than splutting the innocent!" (Swedish saying)
Wha? Oh yeah?
Well...pooh...
>"<Frenetic resumes waving his claws in the air>
>
>[Blinded by the pie, he waves rather violently]
>
>*Thud!*
Whoops....
>[Fren hits Ibn off the top of the head. Ibn falls headlong, with stars,
>planets and little singing birds flying around his head]
>
>Could the world stop moving, please?
<Frenetic turns>
No, if we stop the world, we all go flying off.
<giggle>
[Frenetic hauls Ibn to his hindclaws, and dusts him off.]
Better?
<resumes waving claws>
Voyd
Frenetic Dragon wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:41:38 GMT, fi...@CREAMPIE.flippsoft.a.se (Ibn
> al-Hazardous) wrote:
>
> >The story goes that Frenetic Dragon wrote something like this on Sat, 10
> >Jan 1998 11:58:52 GMT:
> >
> >">PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to the
> >">wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll be
> >">right in the front. Shade Blade in one claw, Death Scythe in the other, and
> >">I will skin, dress and eat alive the offenders. Just a friendly warning, hmm
> >">... ;)
Nice try, but they're both two-handed. :P
However, if thou seest fit to fathom handing me one, mabye I couldst lay
some waste myself, no?
--
=Michael Christopher Maggio
***********************************
Please remove SPAMFREE | Voyager Dragon -=(UDIC)=- |
to reply by email. | -Christopher, UO Beta |
=============================================================
| Voyager's Cavern |
| http://core.raritanval.edu/~voyager/ |
-------------------------------------------------------------
d+ e N+ T- Om UK1!2!3!4!5!6!A!7'!L!S'!8! u+++ uC++++ uF uG++
uLB+ uA+ nC nR nH++ nP nI+ nPT nS+ nT+ o+ oA+++ oE++ y- a20
Paul Gilham
Quoth si...@walrus.com (Sith Dragon):
[munch]
>I think it would be silly to buy a card for just *one* game, but
>there are many games out there that support 3D acceleration that
>really do make a card worth buying. I was skeptical at first,
But now you're Sith, presumably?
:D Sorry, I couldn't resist!
____________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Paul Gilham ~~ Samurai Dragon ~~ (remove fish to reply)
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e-N T--Om++U1467'8u-uC++uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++
\ `^--^ uR nH+nP+++nI++nPT++nS+++nT--wM-wC oA++y+a22
\ \ \ AFD: DC.D f+s+h--CK^K a $-m-d++WL++ Fr^L12m BW e+g--i--!U!
ksj ^--^ ____________________________________________________________
Paul Gilham
[posted and mailed]
Quoth jiv...@aol.com (Jiveguy):
>I have never written in this news group,
Well, you have now! A heart welcome!
>but have been an Ultima fan since VI (first game I bought when I got a
>computer on a friend's reccomendation).
The best in the series, according to Frenetic and myself, anyway. :)
[munch interesting discussion of U9 worries]
>I honestly believe what I have just written, and am tired of seeing a
>U group filled with bickering and whining instead of discussions of
>fantasy and mystery.
*G* How long have you been reading rgcud, just out of interest?
Bickering is a staple here! ;)
>(But if UIX does suck, NO REMORSE! lets lynch 'em!!!!!!!!!)
*puts on the funny Boba Fett-like helmet from 'Crusader'*
>Jive Dragon (can I just give myself a name, or is this a private club?)
Membership is open to anyone who's played an Ultima, which you
obviously have, but you must register your Dragon name -- someone else
may already be using it. To check it isn't, and register it, swing by
the Dragons' website: http://www.udic.org but be warned -- there'll be
a bit of a wait while the Grand Roster loads. :)
Lost Dragon
>So, I'm figuring that the folks who really don't want Ultima to
>continue changing are the ones who weren't around from the beginning
>and wouldn't necessarily recognize that Ultima has *always* been
>constantly evolving.
Yeah, that must be it. I missed Ultima 1 and 2, so obviously, I've no
idea how the series has changed over the past decade.
Please.
I only fuss and fume when a change is for the detriment of what *used*
to be a good series of games.
There is such a thing as over-engineering a product. Origin ought to
consider that sometime.
Lost Dragon
>Ummm... I thought Underworld was far more immersive than Quake, despite
>the dated engine and small viewing window.
Ultima Underworld is more immersive than Quake 2, Quake, Duke Nukem
and all other 3D shooters put together.
Walker
Walker looks up from his tome. In article
<34b8fcd5...@news.wineasy.se>, fi...@CREAMPIE.flippsoft.a.se
says...
<snip>
> Or at the very least, do better ourselves. There has been some
> mentioning about licensing the U6 (?) engine and do a UDIC Ultima (if
> OSI would let us). Otherwise there are other engines, and a couple of
> programmers in our midst. We could change the names slightly...
>
>
over the next few years.
--
[The candle flickers as Walker once again resumes his poring over
the Histories] Walker -==(UDIC)==-
d+++ e-- N+ T?;) Om++ U6!7'!S'!8 u+++ uC++ uF++ uG++++/--- uLB+ uA- nC++
nH+ nP nPT nS+++ nT+
Gaseous Dragon
Jiveguy wrote in message <19980111045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>I have never written in this news group, but have been an Ultima fan since
VI
>(first game I bought when I got a computer on a friend's reccomendation).
I
>have since acquired the rest of the Ultimas, and am upset by this dialogue
>filling the newsgroup
<snip>
Are we right, in bashing origin
>before the game is even released. I'm going to take my $50 dollars and
>preorder UIX, and I'm guessing LB and the guys will take care of us. Just
>open your mind, and trust in the man who has brought you 20 years of
quality
>entertainment. Please respond intelligently and discuss my oversights. I
>honestly believe what I have just written, and am tired of seeing a U group
>filled with bickering and whining instead of discussions of fantasy and
>mystery.
>(But if UIX does suck, NO REMORSE! lets lynch 'em!!!!!!!!!)
>
>Jive Dragon (can I just give myself a name, or is this a private club?)
>
For what it's worth, I agree. Ultima VIII certainly had its problems;
Origin and LB have acknowledged this, and they promise that Ultima IX will
be the best yet.
Let's wait and see. I will also be preordering (I've been pestering my
local shop since Christmas 96!!)
As lava swirls around you and sulphurous clouds obliterate consciousness,
you realise - too late - that this message is from <== Gaseous Dragon==>
aka<== Ron Windeyer ==> r...@wantree.com.au
"Non carborundum Illegitimata" (Don't let the bastards grind you down)
Scorch Dragon
>- For the same reason, I'd like to see the return of character portraits to
>choose from. SI, while limited, was quite good in that regard (and many
>others) - the brown-haired gal with the intense eyes was, although not my
>idea of the Avatar, a really fine portrait I could identify with. Sadly, it
>seems Origin is sticking with the white blondie stereotype. Understandable,
>as it sure would be some good amount of extra work to include more choices
>or even an "Avatar designer", but still sad ...
That would be neat if you can design your own avatar face. Then they
can take that one step further and make it like the barbie dress up
software thing. I can just imagine the packaging:
"The New UIX comes with a synthetic cloth map, a cheap coin with the
red muppet's face embossed on it, and an Avatar doll, complete with a
tin can helmet. With the extra software included on CD #9, you can
print out avatar costumes and dress up the doll!"
>- Personally, I hope the Avatar won't die at the end of UIX. The "mutual
>kill" scenario of Avatar and Guardian annihilating each other might appeal
>to certain people, but I think there are also many who identify so closely
>with the Avatar that they would feel as if "they" died, and feel not
>victorious, but defeated. I certainly would. Also, what's the point of being
>the Avatar and the Titan of Ether with all those cool newfound powers
>(whatever they'll be) when you hardly get the chance to use them ;)
>Retirement maybe, but I hope not the hard way.
Maybe LB will get his bucket kicked by the red muppet and the Avatar
will have to become the next, and the first competent ruler of
Britannia... wishful thinking....
>"Kick-ass" is one of the last words I'd apply to a real CRPG, much less to
>an Ultima. Again, if you've read the NGs, then you'll know that "cool"
>graphics are about the last thing many of us are concerned about.
I think the keyword is "if you've read the NGs". There's too much
evidence to the contrary. I don't expect them to read every post that
comes along, but we've been griping about the same things for years,
and they keep shoving other things at us, all the while never
addressing the issues we're concerned about (plot, not engine).
¸.·´¯`·.¸_¸.·´¯`·.¸_[Scorch Dragon]_¸.·´¯`·.¸_¸.·´¯`·.¸
(xxx][========> -==UDIC==- <========][xxx)
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
"Speak when you are angry and you will make the
best speech you will ever regret."-Ambrose Pierce-
Niklas Matthies
In rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons Sith Dragon <si...@walrus.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 1998 21:01:51 GMT, Niklas Matthies
> <matt...@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>
>>Well, I second everything Nightfire said!
>>And I'll add:
>>
>>1. I wont buy UIX if it doesn't have isometric view (e.g. a la Syndicate).
>> Tron and X-Wing. Ultima with Quake or TR view makes as little sense to
>> me as a 3d xblast, 3d mahjongg or the 3d lemmings that was made.
>
> Robert already said that the game will have an isometric point of
> view, along with basically any other view you want, depending on where
> you want to place the camera.
I just reread Robert's letter on your web site, and actually it's not clear
how this new view works. There is mention of Quake/System Shock style, freely
rotatable view. That sounds like a perspectively correct view (what I call
"real 3d"), and even if you turn the camera so that you have a top down view,
it won't become isometric by that; things farther away will still be smaller.
I'm quite curious about that engine, I wish they would be more precise about
it.
>>2. I won't buy UIX if it *requires* a 3d accelerator, because I won't buy
>> one for just one game. Note that this is unrelated to the above, because
>> 3d accelerators can also be used to speed up isometric view (and even
>> 2d view -- it's just a question of where and how you place the polygons).
>
> I think it would be silly to buy a card for just *one* game, but there
> are many games out there that support 3D acceleration that really do
> make a card worth buying.
Maybe worth buying for the gfx, but not for the gameplay. The last games
I bought were Earthworm Jim 1&2, Albion, Diablo & Fallout. Yes, I've seen
and test-played Quake 2, Jedi Knight, Hexen 2, Pandemonium and some car
racing games on 3d accelerators in the past months, but that's just not the
kind of game I like gameplay-wise. And I doubt there will be many 3d-
accelerated CRPGs coming out the next two years.
>>3. I won't buy UIX if it has full speech, because this means there will
>> be too little dialogue in the game (no matter the compression -- mp3
>> will not suffice, unless UIX comes out on two dozen CDs...), plus some
>> other drawbacks that were already stated.
>
> Well, since the game does (or will) have full speech....
Well, I think it's quite simple: If it will have full speech, it won't
have near as much dialogue text as U7. And that's a very important factor,
I would say.
>>4. I won't buy UIX if it's not significantly more complex than UVIII, i.e.
>> in the range of UVII. This includes world size, quests, conversations,
>> and what I call "freedom of action" -- that you are free to do almost
>> everything that you could do in real life.
>
> Unfortunately, it's difficult to guage the complexity of a game before
> one plays it, since each person's definition of complexity is different.
Right. But I guess it won't be too difficult to tell whether it's more like
U7 or more like U8 in complexity.
>>From what we hear from Origin, I'm afraid that means that I won't buy UIX.
>>Kinda sad.
>
> Yes, it is kinda sad that someone would already write off a game that
> they've waited four years for almost a year before it comes out.
I certainly don't write it off. I'm sure I will play some demo version of
the game, read the tests in game mags, read what will be said on the
newsgroup here; and then decide. But what I've heard lately isn't too
reasuring, and I wanted to state the points that are most critical to me.
-- Elf Dragon
Christopher A Tew
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:59:03 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
> As an excercise, it
>might be interesting to try and work out how much space the total of U5
>speech would take up in MP3 format.
MP3 takes a little more than a meg a minute at 44.1KHz witha 128Mb/s
transfer rate. Depending on speech patterns, I imagine that there's
hours of speech in U5's various conversation paths.
Of course, most of those paths were facilitated by the text parser,
which won't be in option in full blather games (until we get a game
with dialouge by David Mamet, I will hold that by and large, game
dialouge is utter crap) until good speech synthesis is developed.
Christopher A Tew
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:58:59 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
>Lost Dragon writes:
>
>>Sith Dragon writes:
>>>Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
>>>2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
>>
>>If he wanted to say how "realistic" the 3D atmosphere is, he should
>>have compared the game to Ultima Underworld.
>
>Ah yes, an ancient game that's less immersive and realistic than Quake. It
>was more immersive and realistic than Doom, however.
Fook?! As a game and as an enviroment, UUW was far more immersive
than Quake or its sequel. It had several small societies, a complex
world to explore, and people to talk to. It had a non-linear, multi
path plot. Quake has corrindors that you run around and shoot stuff
in. Quake has no plot, or people to talk to. That's the scope of
Quake's immersivity (another word invented by me!). As for
realism...uh, UUW has a better functioning physics system, and it has
more realistic combat and weapons. In UUW, inventory bogged you
down...in Quake, you can carry around 500 pounds of shit and wander
around just as fast.
The only thing that Quake has on UUW is graphics. That's it.
Somehow I get the feeling that you won't have many people here
agreeing with you on this one.
Andrew Charlton
Ibn al-Hazardous writes:
>I'm just speculating but so are most of us, right? Since they are going
>to use a 3D engine, do they necessarily have to record the movie
>sequencies in advance? IMO it ought to be possible to do those scenes
>with a scripting language (which they would need anyway, right?), and in
>that case it should be possible to feature different character portraits
>(or rather 3D characers) as well as different sets of companions in the
>movie parts. IMO this is one of the points with a 3D engine in a CRPG.
They could do it like that, which has both advantages and disadvantages.
No matter how realistic looking the world will be, a pre-rendered cutscene
would look better, but keeping the look of the cutscenes the same as normal
play (Just as U8 did - one of the good decisions of that game IMO) helps
keep the player immersed.
--
Andrew Charlton
Christopher A Tew writes:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:59:03 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
>from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
>> As an excercise, it
>>might be interesting to try and work out how much space the total of U5
>>speech would take up in MP3 format.
>
>MP3 takes a little more than a meg a minute at 44.1KHz witha 128Mb/s
>transfer rate. Depending on speech patterns, I imagine that there's
>hours of speech in U5's various conversation paths.
So 650 megs = 650 minutes = over 10 hours.
The transcript of U5, from Underworld's site, is 155k (Including HTML tags)
For comparison, Hamlet, from Project Gutenberg, is 205k (Plain text)
If Hamlet is 4 hours long (Does anyone know?) then that would make U5 three
hours long.
Andrew Charlton
Christopher A Tew writes:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:58:59 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
>from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
>
>>Lost Dragon writes:
>>
>>>Sith Dragon writes:
>>>>Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
>>>>2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
>>>
>>>If he wanted to say how "realistic" the 3D atmosphere is, he should
>>>have compared the game to Ultima Underworld.
>>
>>Ah yes, an ancient game that's less immersive and realistic than Quake. It
>>was more immersive and realistic than Doom, however.
[...]
>The only thing that Quake has on UUW is graphics. That's it.
That's what we (Or at least, I) were talking about. See Sith's original
comment.
Ibn al-Hazardous
The story goes that Frenetic Dragon wrote something like this on Sun, 11
Jan 1998 20:50:51 GMT:
"On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:41:38 GMT, fi...@CREAMPIE.flippsoft.a.se (Ibn
"al-Hazardous) wrote:
<SNIP>
">"<Frenetic resumes waving his claws in the air>
">
">[Blinded by the pie, he waves rather violently]
">
">*Thud!*
"
"Whoops....
"
">[Fren hits Ibn off the top of the head. Ibn falls headlong, with stars,
">planets and little singing birds flying around his head]
">
">Could the world stop moving, please?
"
"<Frenetic turns>
"
"No, if we stop the world, we all go flying off.
"
"<giggle>
"
"[Frenetic hauls Ibn to his hindclaws, and dusts him off.]
"
"Better?
"
"<resumes waving claws>
Yes, I suppose I should stop splutting people in the eyes... ;)
Voyd
Paul Gilham wrote:
> Quoth jiv...@aol.com (Jiveguy):
> >I have never written in this news group,
>
Aye, a welcome indeed! Mayhaps I shouldst bring out the festivities!
[Voyager whistles back into his den. Several women come pouring out of
his cave bearing native fruits and exotic cocktails and Hawaiian leis,
celebrating all the way.]
> >but have been an Ultima fan since VI (first game I bought when I got a
> >computer on a friend's reccomendation).
>
> The best in the series, according to Frenetic and myself, anyway. :)
Ah, might I join thee in that toast? 'Twas my first and favorite as
well.
> [munch interesting discussion of U9 worries]
> >I honestly believe what I have just written, and am tired of seeing a
> >U group filled with bickering and whining instead of discussions of
> >fantasy and mystery.
Ah, but we do have fantasy!
[Voyager looks at the beautiful woman standing at his side. She smiles
sweetly and hands him a pie.]
Imagine this!
<Splut!>
Welcome to the NG, Jiveguy! ;)
MUAHAHAHA!!!
> >(But if UIX does suck, NO REMORSE! lets lynch 'em!!!!!!!!!)
>
> *puts on the funny Boba Fett-like helmet from 'Crusader'*
[Puts on metal cap from Pagan.]
> >Jive Dragon (can I just give myself a name, or is this a private club?)
>
> Membership is open to anyone who's played an Ultima, which you
> obviously have, but you must register your Dragon name -- someone else
> may already be using it. To check it isn't, and register it, swing by
> the Dragons' website: http://www.udic.org but be warned -- there'll be
> a bit of a wait while the Grand Roster loads. :)
Ah! A quest is declared for the Ng newbie to seek out the UDIC homepage
and join the Dragons, if he wouldst so dare! Return to us when thy
quest is complete and you shall receive your [un]official induction!
[Voyager hides a pie behind his back.]
Jive Dragon is already taken, it seems. Let us know by what name you
shall be called.
We'll be waiting. ;)
Steve McKinney
And on Sun, 11 Jan 1998 23:38:02 GMT, Paul Gilham inscribed across the
sky, in letters of fire a mile high:
>Quoth si...@walrus.com (Sith Dragon):
>[munch]
>>I think it would be silly to buy a card for just *one* game, but
>>there are many games out there that support 3D acceleration that
>>really do make a card worth buying. I was skeptical at first,
>
>But now you're Sith, presumably?
No, no. You're completely wrong! _I'm_ Sith. That's Frenetic.
>:D Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Nor I, alas.
--
Steve McKinney | The Pigeonhole Principle--If m male pigeons
a Skeptical Dragon | have sex with n female pigeons and m > n,
-==(UDIC)==- | then at least two male pigeons must
<sj...@bellsouth.net>| have sex with the same female pigeon.
*.Young
Niklas Matthies wrote:
> > Robert already said that the game will have an isometric point of
> > view, along with basically any other view you want, depending on
> where
> > you want to place the camera.
>
> I just reread Robert's letter on your web site, and actually it's not
> clear
> how this new view works. There is mention of Quake/System Shock style,
> freely
> rotatable view. That sounds like a perspectively correct view (what I
> call
> "real 3d"), and even if you turn the camera so that you have a top
> down view,
> it won't become isometric by that; things farther away will still be
> smaller.
> I'm quite curious about that engine, I wish they would be more precise
> about
> it.
When we say "Isometric View", I think we're discarding the traditional
Isometric View idea that there is no diminishing - of course there is
diminishing! Can you imagine drawing a picture of a world where nothing
diminished? Sure, in U8 things didn't get smaller when further away, but
as soon as you were to (hypothetically) move the camera anywhere NEAR a
TR-view, ie, you can see where the horizon should be, everything would
look nuts.
David Young.
Joshua J. Cantrell
> Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
> 2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
> you refuse to take what he says at face value and insist on reading
> into every word then of course you're setting yourself up for
> disappointment.
I think another problem with Robert comparing Ultima IX's feeling of 3D
to Quake's is that we were expecting more. Quake handles relatively
small rooms and closed in areas well, but you can't say the same to
outdoors terrain. I'd hope the towns and cities didn't become dense
because of it. He also needs to describe how much more interaction
does it have over Quake. Comparing it to Ultima Underworld and System
Shock seem to be good possibilities (has he played these?). Then
he'd need to make sure it had a simple interface in a "good" way (not
that it limits what you can do, for example in Quake you use items
by running into them, which I hate).
Otherwise, I was getting excited about Ultima IX just before they said
(after UO was released) it was going to be changed. I figured that
it sounded great before, so what kind of changes can they make that
wouldn't damage it. :-)
Impossible Dragon
j...@cory.berkeley.edu
Joshua J. Cantrell
Erraticus writes:
> Lost Dragon writes:
> >Sith Dragon writes:
> >>Just because Robert compared Ultima IX's feeling of 3D-ness to Quake
> >>2's means nothing more than exactly that, except in your own mind. If
> >
> >If he wanted to say how "realistic" the 3D atmosphere is, he should
> >have compared the game to Ultima Underworld.
> I really don't understand your objection to cross-genre comparisons.
I think part of the argument is that he didn't compare it to anything
inside the same genre. :-) When I visited Fallout's WWW site, I was
enthused to learn that the people in the programming team posting about
Fallout excitedly said they had really enjoyed Wasteland (a CRPG
by Interplay) and were working toward making it share the best aspects
of Wasteland and also making it better. This certainly convinces
Wasteland fans that Fallout isn't your run-of-the-mill game (being
designed by Wasteland fans).
The problem here is that everyone complaining has a problem with Quake
and aren't thrilled about having a Quake fan programming the game they
are waiting (im)patiently for. If they had someone who enjoyed the
pervious Ultimas or worked on them, for example Dr. Cat or Warren Spector
(just picking some names), they'd feel much more comfortable. If Origin
could show that the main programmers really enjoyed Ultima games and that
the programmers couldn't wait to best the previous episodes, then I think
the Dragons would change their tune! :-O
In the end, it's a matter of priorities. Wasteland fans designing a
game are more likely to design a game Wasteland fans will enjoy because
they put more effort and time into what they enjoyed the most playing
Wasteland. The same goes for Ultima fans designing a game, and for
Quake fans designing a game. We don't want a Quake fan designing
Ultima IX. :-) It's a scary thought to most of us!
Have fun,
Impossible Dragon
j...@cory.berkeley.edu
Andrew Charlton
Joshua J. Cantrell writes:
>Erraticus writes:
>> I really don't understand your objection to cross-genre comparisons.
>
>I think part of the argument is that he didn't compare it to anything
>inside the same genre. :-)
The thing about Ultima is that it's so leading edge, there's nothing in the
CRPG genre to compare it to. It's always been this way. When U7 came out,
about the only CRPG it could really be compared to, visually, was U6, and
that comparison wouldn't exactly do the game justice.
[...]
>The problem here is that everyone complaining has a problem with Quake
>and aren't thrilled about having a Quake fan programming the game they
>are waiting (im)patiently for. If they had someone who enjoyed the
>pervious Ultimas or worked on them, for example Dr. Cat or Warren Spector
>(just picking some names), they'd feel much more comfortable.
From Bob White's email:
"I have played and enjoyed Ultima's
since Akalabeth. Richard and I grew up together and I remember playing
Akalabeth at a time when it would have been in the state now refered
to as "pre-Alpha"."
(BTW, at a guess I'd say ~90% of gamers, including CRPG fanatics, are Quake
fans. I don't think we should hold it against them.)
Nightfire
Voyager wrote:
>> >">PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to
the
>> >">wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll
be
>> >">right in the front. Shade Blade in one claw, Death Scythe in the
other, and
>> >">I will skin, dress and eat alive the offenders. Just a friendly
warning, hmm
>> >">... ;)
>
>Nice try, but they're both two-handed. :P
>However, if thou seest fit to fathom handing me one, mabye I couldst lay
>some waste myself, no?
OF COURSE they're both two-handed! For humans. That's the fun in it. We're
talking DRAGONS here, remember, not puny human forms!
<breathes flames>
Eat cream pie, smartass! :)
*SPLUT*
<giggles>
Hey, in here a few weeks, and I'm already addicted to pie fights. Now get
thee hence, infidel, and disturb not my divine musings, lest I turn Frenetic
loose on thee. If I could get him to stop waving his claws in the air and
knocking innocent bystanders over, that is. ;)
Ahem. Regardless, thy noble offers of assitence are most appreciated.
Nightfire Dragon -===(UDIC)===-
(Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.DE)
UDIC: d+ e-- N T++ Om- U6A!7'!LS'! u+ uC++++ uF uG++++ uLB+ uA+
nC nH+ nS+ nT x LWF a19
*.Young
Joshua J. Cantrell wrote:
> I think another problem with Robert comparing Ultima IX's feeling of
> 3D
> to Quake's is that we were expecting more. Quake handles relatively
> small rooms and closed in areas well, but you can't say the same to
> outdoors terrain. I'd hope the towns and cities didn't become dense
> because of it. He also needs to describe how much more interaction
> does it have over Quake. Comparing it to Ultima Underworld and System
> Shock seem to be good possibilities (has he played these?). Then
> he'd need to make sure it had a simple interface in a "good" way (not
> that it limits what you can do, for example in Quake you use items
> by running into them, which I hate).
Can we PLEASE stop reading so much into a comparison, people? I remember
reading Bob say _3D immersion and movement like in Quake_. Before that,
OSI said there could be above-behind views _like in Tomb-Raider_. How
else are they supposed to say anything specific AT ALL, if they don't
compare things. After they have said these things, the entire UDIC seems
to be complaining about how the game is now a Tomb-Raider-Quake clone or
something. Look, Ultima Underworld was pretty darn good (my favourite!)
but it didn't MOVE like Quake, it didn't have the smooth, good-looking
engine Quake has.
This is getting so damned silly! In both cases, OSI compared _features_.
Not GAMES!!!
It is certainly a concern that OSI may be putting too much time into
flashy features, but other than that, what on Earth is wrong with
implementing a game that looks, sounds, and plays well?
SlightlyMad Dragon.
Impossible Dragon
> >> I really don't understand your objection to cross-genre comparisons.
> >
> >I think part of the argument is that he didn't compare it to anything
> >inside the same genre. :-)
> The thing about Ultima is that it's so leading edge, there's nothing in the
> CRPG genre to compare it to. It's always been this way. When U7 came out,
> about the only CRPG it could really be compared to, visually, was U6, and
> that comparison wouldn't exactly do the game justice.
Just a thought. They could compare it with Twinsen's Odyssey which
is a 3D adventure game. I thought it was graphically pleasing and
well worth playing. At least it's a lot closer to what I was expecting
the Ultima IX engine to be (except that they were going to have a
moveable camera, and seemed to be leaning towards a following camera
rather than one that constantly switched position when you moved out
of view). :-)
Impossible Dragon
-==UDIC==-
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Sith Dragon saying...
[Snip]
> But Origin *is* selling you an Ultima -- what *they* think an Ultima
> is. After all, Ultima is Lord British's vision and he can take it in
> whatever direction he wants. The problem is that LB's vision and the
> vision of any given Dragon might be two entirely different animals,
> and that's where the conflict begins imho.
My problem is that Ultima _isn't_ LB's vision any more. LB's
vision is somewhere these days.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=={MDLAM}==- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: http://www.ponyexpress.net/~xyzzy/index.html
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Christopher A Tew saying...
[Snip]
> MP3 takes a little more than a meg a minute at 44.1KHz witha 128Mb/s
> transfer rate. Depending on speech patterns, I imagine that there's
> hours of speech in U5's various conversation paths.
>
> which won't be in option in full blather games (until we get a game
> with dialouge by David Mamet, I will hold that by and large, game
> dialouge is utter crap) until good speech synthesis is developed.
Don't forget about the FM-Towns (Japanese) version of Ultima VI.
It had full speech on the one CD.
Phillip S Zibilich
> Impossible Dragon
> -==UDIC==-
Now THAT is not a bad idea! I rather liked Twinsen's graphics and that
would be good. In fact, Twinsen ran VERY well on my old POS 2D card, mabey
Origin could help people save money by using something similar so they
wouldn't need to get a 3D card...
Nah.
--
--------------------------------------
Darkling Dragon --==(UDIC)==--
Phillip Zibilich - Ultima Dragon and
ps...@gnofn.org Emulation enthusiast
"Have you driven a FNORD lately?"
--------------------------------------
Michael Carmack
Andrew Charlton (char...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
: Lost Dragon writes:
: >If he wanted to say how "realistic" the 3D atmosphere is, he should
: >have compared the game to Ultima Underworld.
: Ah yes, an ancient game that's less immersive and realistic than Quake. It
: was more immersive and realistic than Doom, however.
But I think Lost is very right about this. Sure, Underworld is less
immersive visually (but ONLY visually) than Quake; the technology is
ancient. But a lot of good feeling could have been generated simply by
mentioning the game, something along the lines of:
"Imagine a rich 3D world as immersive as the classic Underworld games, but
updated to use modern 3D acceleration technologies often found in modern
favorites such as Quake and Myth."
See the difference? First, comparing the U9 engine to the immersivness of
Underworld is keeps the Ultima geek in all of us interested. Second, Myth
was mentioned as well as Quake to reinforce the notion that the use of 3D
technology does not necessarily make it an action game.
I am by no means a marketing person, but it took me all of one minute to
come up with that sentence. So when the guy (forget his name...oops)
doesn't take the same care with his wording, I am forced to conclude either:
1. It really *is* like Quake, since that was the only reference he made; or
2. The guy has no marketing skills, and it would probably be best to
let someone else do the writing from now on.
: I really don't understand your objection to cross-genre comparisons.
Although a cross-genre comparision does not imply a cross-genre game, it
is the conclusion most (myself included) will draw.
--
Mike Carmack mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Vulcan Dragon -==(UDIC)==- mr_...@ix.netcom.com
*** Howdie Ho! *** http://www.netcom.com/~mr_worf/vulcan.htm
Sith Dragon
>My glass typewriter shows Sith Dragon saying...
>> But Origin *is* selling you an Ultima -- what *they* think an Ultima
>> is. After all, Ultima is Lord British's vision and he can take it in
>> whatever direction he wants. The problem is that LB's vision and the
>> vision of any given Dragon might be two entirely different animals,
>> and that's where the conflict begins imho.
>
> My problem is that Ultima _isn't_ LB's vision any more. LB's
>vision is somewhere these days.
Let me clarify:
I think that, storywise, Ultima remains LB's vision. He may not get
involved in the nitty-gritty, but overall I think the direction comes
from him.
Regarding technology issues, I'm certain that he's probably pretty far
out of the loop since his programming days. This isn't surprising,
though, considering that he'd be hard-pressed to stay current with
programming while running a company the size of Origin.
Sith Dragon Visit my webpage at http://www.walrus.com/~sith for the
-==(UDIC)==- latest in Ultima IX news plus the Ultima IX FAQ.
Niklas Matthies
Right, that's why I don't believe that the new view is isometric.
"iso-metric" = "same length". What would be the difference between
an 'isometric' diminishing view, and standard Quake-style 3d, in
your opinion?
-- Elf Dragon
Andrew Charlton
Michael Carmack writes:
>I am by no means a marketing person, but it took me all of one minute to
>come up with that sentence. So when the guy (forget his name...oops)
>doesn't take the same care with his wording, I am forced to conclude either:
>
>1. It really *is* like Quake, since that was the only reference he made; or
He also compared it to Tomb Raider ;-) And it presumably is somewhat like
those games, but only in the areas where the comparisons were made.
But most importantly, he compared the feel of the game to Ultima. Which is
the one thing he _should_ be comparing it to. It wouldn't inspire much
confidence in me if he compared it to any other CRPG. (Well, any is a
little harsh, but the rest are so far behind the Ultimas - even U8 - that
comparing them could hardly do an Ultima justice)
>2. The guy has no marketing skills, and it would probably be best to
> let someone else do the writing from now on.
You want to replace him with some bullshitting PR guy? I think the fault
is on the recieving end, for reading too much into his words.
--
____/\___ Erraticus
___/__\__) -==(UDIC)==-
(__/ \__ |\/|
/ \ \/
Christopher A Tew
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 07:00:02 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
>Christopher A Tew writes:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:59:03 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
>>from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
>>> As an excercise, it
>>>might be interesting to try and work out how much space the total of U5
>>>speech would take up in MP3 format.
>>
>>MP3 takes a little more than a meg a minute at 44.1KHz witha 128Mb/s
>>transfer rate. Depending on speech patterns, I imagine that there's
>>hours of speech in U5's various conversation paths.
>
>So 650 megs = 650 minutes = over 10 hours.
>
>The transcript of U5, from Underworld's site, is 155k (Including HTML tags)
>For comparison, Hamlet, from Project Gutenberg, is 205k (Plain text)
>
>If Hamlet is 4 hours long (Does anyone know?) then that would make U5 three
>hours long.
About. However, Ultima 5 was pretty barren of conversation when
compared to Ultima 6 or 7. I think that most of us here want dialouge
that is as good or better than Ultima 7 (Whole sentences instead of
keywords would be a start, as would a more interesting and unique mode
of speech), and U7's dialouge transcript would likely be huge.
Also, Origin is planning on U9 being graphically intensive, and
loading a MP3 and starting it takes up 38% of my processor time and
about 1 meg of memory on my 96mb PPro200. Loading every sound in the
game as a MP3 would bog down damn near any machine. If you're walking
through a town, and all of a sudden 20 MP3 decompressions and outputs
spawn, the game will likely halt for the processor to do all of the
sounds. The only way to really do it without killing the game's speed
would be to preload all of the MP3 files needed for a certain sector
of the game into memory, which would eat up memory, especially since
decompressing them first would probably be necessary. This just makes
them into simple wav files.
Of course, all of this doesn't answer how full speech would benefit
this game enough to justify the resources spent on it. I'd rather
they spend more time making the world better instead of recording the
voices of drunks pulled off of 6th Street in Austin.
Michael Carmack
Sith Dragon (si...@walrus.com) wrote:
: But Origin *is* selling you an Ultima -- what *they* think an Ultima
: is. After all, Ultima is Lord British's vision and he can take it in
: whatever direction he wants. The problem is that LB's vision and the
: vision of any given Dragon might be two entirely different animals,
: and that's where the conflict begins imho.
How much of it is really LB's vision these days, though? From the rumors
that have been going around, LB is almost a puppet with no real authority
over the games anymore. Just rumors and speculation, of course.
: As you might have guessed, I'm going to disagree here. I didn't find
: the letter depressing at all, because I wasn't reading it expecting
: Robert to say X and then become depressed when he said Y. I merely
: wanted to read what he had to say, but maybe I'm too entrenched in my
: wait-and-see attitude about things.
I wasn't reading it expecting it to say X either; I also maintain a
wait-and-see attitude. However, I was still disturbed when he said Y, and
I hope that after waiting-and-seeing, Y will turn out to be somewhat of a
misrepresentation of the truth.
: Maybe it's because I've been playing these games since Akalabeth first
: came out hundreds of years ago, so maybe that's why I have the
: willingness to give LB the benefit of the doubt, but nothing that's
: being bandied about for Ultima IX is any more radical or earthchanging
: than any of the changes that came out in the series in the past:
Oh, come come; many of us have been playing since Akalabeth.
: - The introduction of a party;
A result of the evolution of LB's programming skills, definitely an
improvement. Score one for Ultima. However, they later removed this
improvement (U8), so lose one point, score zero.
: - The loss of the demi-humans;
Bad idea. Score -1.
: - The move from top-down to isometric;
I think it sucked. Isometic is *not* a good view IMHO unless it is a
rotating isometric view. Since U8's view was not rotatable, I again score
-1, total score -2.
: - The move from tiles;.
Technically, they are still using tiles in all released games including U8
and UO. U9 will of course not be tile based, but it has not yet been
released, no I'll only award half a point. Total score -1.5.
: - The move from turn-based to real-time combat, etc.,;
This is good? The real time combat blows. I will score TWO points for
the move from the U5 turn-based engine to the fully configurable U6 combat
engine, but take one back for the bonehead move of going real-time only in
U7. Total score -0.5.
Let me add one of my own: The change from keyboard conversation to
point-and-click. I think it's bad, it loses a lot of the immersion. Even
though keying in your own words is still executing a predefined
conversation tree, it at least gives the illusion of real conversation far
better than pointing and clicking. Score -1, final score -1.5.
So IMO, the changes to the basic engine design have hurt the game more
then helped it in the long run. In the short run, it appears that things
were improving up through U6 and began declining beginning with U7.
: All these moves were equally as radical as the things now being talked
: about for Ultima IX, and, ultimately (npi), they turned out to be
: things that actually improved the games. (For most, I still have a
: friend who won't forgive LB for dumping the Fuzzies.)
Never liked using Fuzzies, but I agree with the sentiment. The move to a
human-only party took away a lot of the fantasy flavor.
: So, I'm figuring that the folks who really don't want Ultima to
: continue changing are the ones who weren't around from the beginning
: and wouldn't necessarily recognize that Ultima has *always* been
: constantly evolving.
On the contrary. Most of the improvements over the years have been a
result of either 1) the designers/programmers becoming better at what they
do from Akalabeth through U5; or 2) requiring newer and more powerful
hardware in order to implement new features (U6-UO). U6 is IMHO the last
*pure* Ultima since it was the last one that actually improved upon the
existing design that worked so darn well. U7 totally redesigned the
engine, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it was definitely a step
into the unknown. Since then, the changes they have been making seem more
along the lines of creating brand new whiz-bang engines rather than
improving on a proven design.
: Ultima has never been one, fixed vision, has
: never been one, fixed way of telling a story, but has been an ongoing
: experiment in storytelling that has had its successes as well as its
: failures.
But there weren't any failures until they started playing around with the
proven formula, were there? Can not U1-6 all be considered runaway
successes? The Worlds of Ultima games are probably the first real
commercial failures for Origin, and that was probably more bad marketing
than anything else (that's pure speculation on my part).
Michael Carmack
Ibn al-Hazardous (fi...@CREAMPIE.flippsoft.a.se) wrote:
: Or at the very least, do better ourselves. There has been some
: mentioning about licensing the U6 (?) engine and do a UDIC Ultima (if
: OSI would let us). Otherwise there are other engines, and a couple of
: programmers in our midst. We could change the names slightly...
There was a Dragons Ultima project around a while ago. AFAIK it's still
alive, but you don't hear much about it these days.
FWIW, as soon as I finish learning how to program DirectX (i.e. DirectDraw
and DirectSound) I'll probably start writing a U6 or U7 like engine
myself. It will be a while though, I'm just now getting my feet wet.
Lost Dragon
>There was a Dragons Ultima project around a while ago. AFAIK it's still
>alive, but you don't hear much about it these days.
We have a crude alpha of a smooth scrolling engine ala Ultima 7. When
it's done, it'll have variable tile sizes, 20+ frames of animation per
character, objects, real containers, 16 bit color (I think), 640x480
or higher, roofs that go away when you walk under 'em, etc, etc, etc..
But it's only in early alpha right now. Not all features have been
implemented yet and most of the artwork is not finished. Nothing is
ready for public consumption.
Plot and story have probably had the most work done on them.
Give it another 6 months or so and maybe we'll have some more screen
shots ;).
That same software will also be the next engine for Dungeon Bane "2".
Sith Dragon
On 14 Jan 1998 10:02:14 -0500, mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
(Michael Carmack) wrote:
>How much of it is really LB's vision these days, though? From the rumors
>that have been going around, LB is almost a puppet with no real authority
>over the games anymore. Just rumors and speculation, of course.
While I doubt he's involved in any of the technology issues in the
games, I'm fairly sure that his involvment is heavily geared toward
the storylines in the game.
(SNIP)
>Oh, come come; many of us have been playing since Akalabeth.
Many have, yes, but the vast majority haven't. My point was that
Ultima has a long history of radical departures, but that history
might not be as evident to folks who haven't been around from the
beginning.
>: - The introduction of a party;
>
>A result of the evolution of LB's programming skills, definitely an
>improvement. Score one for Ultima. However, they later removed this
>improvement (U8), so lose one point, score zero.
I always thought they removed the party because the story they were
telling in Pagan almost required it.
>: - The loss of the demi-humans;
>
>Bad idea. Score -1.
I've always been ambilvalent about the loss of the non-humans from
Ultima, but it seems to have been a trend in CRPGs. Outside of the
AD&D CRPGs I can't remember the last mainstream CRPG that I played
that included non-humans.
>: - The move from top-down to isometric;
>
>I think it sucked. Isometic is *not* a good view IMHO unless it is a
>rotating isometric view. Since U8's view was not rotatable, I again score
>-1, total score -2.
While I am sentimentally attached to the top-down view, I do feel that
(at least for me) an isometric view does increase the feel of being
immersed in the world. Losing things behind walls is a definite
drawback, but with a rotating perspective (a la Syndicate Wars) or
transparancy bubbles (like in Fallout or Ultima Online) it becomes
much more pleasing.
(SNIP)
>: - The move from turn-based to real-time combat, etc.,;
>
>This is good? The real time combat blows. I will score TWO points for
>the move from the U5 turn-based engine to the fully configurable U6 combat
>engine, but take one back for the bonehead move of going real-time only in
>U7. Total score -0.5.
I don't know if I would say that real-time blows, but in some ways it
does add an amount of visceral excitement to the game. I agree that
U6 was Ultima's highpoint as far as the combat style goes, and in
Ultima IX I definitely would like to have a choice. Although I'm used
to real-time, I've been spoiled by Fallout and really, really want
turn-based.
>Let me add one of my own: The change from keyboard conversation to
>point-and-click. I think it's bad, it loses a lot of the immersion. Even
>though keying in your own words is still executing a predefined
>conversation tree, it at least gives the illusion of real conversation far
>better than pointing and clicking. Score -1, final score -1.5.
Personally, I enjoy using the mouse for conversation far more than
having to key in hot words. Maybe because I'm not that great a
speller and don't like to have to guess at the correct spelling of
something or another because, for me, having to think of how to spell
something really kills immersion.
>So IMO, the changes to the basic engine design have hurt the game more
>then helped it in the long run. In the short run, it appears that things
>were improving up through U6 and began declining beginning with U7.
I'm going to have to disagree. I thought that, in many ways, the
design in Ultima VI insinuated itself between the player and the game
far more than I cared for. I felt that the engine in Ultima VII was
far more transparent, and even moreso in Serpent Isle.
(SNIP)
>But there weren't any failures until they started playing around with the
>proven formula, were there? Can not U1-6 all be considered runaway
>successes? The Worlds of Ultima games are probably the first real
>commercial failures for Origin, and that was probably more bad marketing
>than anything else (that's pure speculation on my part).
But what is the definition of "failure" in this sense? For my money,
The Black Gate and Serpent Isle delivered what I thought to be one
hell of a story, so in that sense they were complete successes.
However, they didn't probably sell as well as Origin hoped, so they
can also be considered failures.
Pagan also had a story that I feel is good, but was marred by design
elements I consider intrusive. So it succeeds because it entertained
me, but also fails because parts of it ticked me off.
Michael Carmack
Sith Dragon (si...@walrus.com) wrote:
: On 14 Jan 1998 10:02:14 -0500, mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
: (Michael Carmack) wrote:
: >So IMO, the changes to the basic engine design have hurt the game more
: >then helped it in the long run. In the short run, it appears that things
: >were improving up through U6 and began declining beginning with U7.
: I'm going to have to disagree. I thought that, in many ways, the
: design in Ultima VI insinuated itself between the player and the game
: far more than I cared for.
Really? The interface in U6 was almost exactly the same as that in U3-5,
with the addition of mouse input and the use of graphical buttons to
complement keyboard input. Do you think U3-5's interface was also
intrusive? Or do you perhaps just give it more leeway because they are
older?
: I felt that the engine in Ultima VII was far more transparent, and even
: moreso in Serpent Isle.
The *interface* was transparent. I have said as much in reply to Robert's
letter in which he stated that they wanted to simplify the interface. I
don't see how it can be simplified any more than it is in U7/U8.
But the *engine* itself introduced all sorts of new features I find
aggravating, such as the real time combat with party members far too
stupid to fight for themselves; the backpack inventory system (slotted is
easier to manage IMO); and the point-n-click conversations.
So let's be sure we are separating the two here. The exact same game
engine found in U7 could be presented with a U6-style interface. It would
play the same but look somewhat different.
: >But there weren't any failures until they started playing around with the
: >proven formula, were there? Can not U1-6 all be considered runaway
: >successes? The Worlds of Ultima games are probably the first real
: >commercial failures for Origin, and that was probably more bad marketing
: >than anything else (that's pure speculation on my part).
: But what is the definition of "failure" in this sense? For my money,
: The Black Gate and Serpent Isle delivered what I thought to be one
: hell of a story, so in that sense they were complete successes.
: However, they didn't probably sell as well as Origin hoped, so they
: can also be considered failures.
I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by "failure", so I took it to mean
the commercial success. That's the only measure than is truly
quantifiable. Everyone has their own measure of success from game to
game. For me, the first failure was Serpent Isle; I really didn't like
it at all. And they have *all* been failures to me since. Hopefully U9
will finally be a success in my eyes.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Sith Dragon saying...
> I think that, storywise, Ultima remains LB's vision. He may not get
> involved in the nitty-gritty, but overall I think the direction comes
> from him.
I don't think so, unless it is on some very high level. He seems
to have moved from the heart and soul of Ultima to "a very influential
beta-tester" (to steal words from Sir SMOO).
Personally, I would prefer to see him involved in the nitty-gritty
instead of babbling about his loyal subjects. ;)
> Regarding technology issues, I'm certain that he's probably pretty far
> out of the loop since his programming days. This isn't surprising,
> though, considering that he'd be hard-pressed to stay current with
> programming while running a company the size of Origin.
As a CEO, I think he is a hell of a programmer. He should stick to
what he is best at.
William Wueppelmann
Sith Dragon wrote:
> >: - The loss of the demi-humans;
> >
> >Bad idea. Score -1.
>
> I've always been ambilvalent about the loss of the non-humans from
> Ultima, but it seems to have been a trend in CRPGs. Outside of the
> AD&D CRPGs I can't remember the last mainstream CRPG that I played
> that included non-humans.
We can see the influence of the original paper RPGs dissapearing. The
loss of nomhuman PCs, a less combat and treasure-oriented storyline, and
so forth. You can even see elements of CRPGs like Ultima in more recent
paper RPGs, so things have come around full circle in a way. And as much
as I like AD&D, I don't miss the nonhumans in Ultima -- after all, they
never added anything significant to the story, even in Ultima III.
> >Let me add one of my own: The change from keyboard conversation to
> >point-and-click. I think it's bad, it loses a lot of the immersion. Even
> >though keying in your own words is still executing a predefined
> >conversation tree, it at least gives the illusion of real conversation far
> >better than pointing and clicking. Score -1, final score -1.5.
>
> Personally, I enjoy using the mouse for conversation far more than
> having to key in hot words. Maybe because I'm not that great a
> speller and don't like to have to guess at the correct spelling of
> something or another because, for me, having to think of how to spell
> something really kills immersion.
Ultima VI had mouse and keyboard support, and it had the best interface
of all the games. I found Ultima VII to be very clumsy, and I would have
killed for a half dozen decent key commands. They put the (T)alk into
Serpent Isle which would freeze the game until you clicked on the person
you wanted to talk to, which helped alot (or am I just hallucinating?)
Keep the mouse support, it is useful for some things, but you should be
able to play the game without one, and there should be some thought
going into the key commands.
> >So IMO, the changes to the basic engine design have hurt the game more
> >then helped it in the long run. In the short run, it appears that things
> >were improving up through U6 and began declining beginning with U7.
>
> I'm going to have to disagree. I thought that, in many ways, the
> design in Ultima VI insinuated itself between the player and the game
> far more than I cared for. I felt that the engine in Ultima VII was
> far more transparent, and even moreso in Serpent Isle.
I agree on the transparency issue, but in other ways, Ultima VI allowed
you to get on with the business of playing the game. For example, there
was no difficult manouvering and guessing how to do things like get up
onto ledges and walk along narrow fences and pathways in U6, owing to
the large base tile size that gave you a clear indication of where you
were and where you were going. There's nothing I hate more than dying or
getting stuck because I can't walk properly through a forest or cave or
whatnot.
I also wonder what could be done with an Ultima VI-style engine with a
flat memory model and SVGA graphics. Ultima VI was constrained by the
number of tiles it could afford to keep in memory at once (I'd guess it
probably could only keep about 200Kb or so worth of graphics in memory
at any one time, so there wasn't much room for variety of tiles or for
lots of animation frames) as well as the speed of XT and 286 machines. I
suspect you could still make a really nice 1998 version of the basic
engine, with a few design innovations from later games added in of
course.
The Silly Dragon
-------------------
It is pitch black. You are likely to receive spam from a grue.
Chris Mathieu
Mark Filipas wrote:
> I believe you're right. Because of the "TR-style" 3D engine, and it's
> reported ability to zoom in, UIX is definitely not isometric in the
> technical, strict sense.
>
> >> When we say "Isometric View", I think we're discarding the traditional
> >> Isometric View idea that there is no diminishing - of course there is
> >> diminishing! Can you imagine drawing a picture of a world where nothing
> >> diminished? Sure, in U8 things didn't get smaller when further away, but
> >> as soon as you were to (hypothetically) move the camera anywhere NEAR a
> >> TR-view, ie, you can see where the horizon should be, everything would
> >> look nuts.
There is one game on the market that has the kind of view control I think
Origin's aiming for with UIX. (Mind you I've only seen a couple official
statements from them, but it didn't take me long to figure out.)
Dungeon Keeper.
At the start it looks like a typical isometric view. (I'm talking the
engineering/CAD version of isometric, where parallel lines stay parallel and
all that.) But you press a key, and the view rotates. As much as you want it
to. Another set of keys zooms the view in and out. Sounds a lot like that
Origin's looking for huh? Granted, the graphics were kinda pixelated (but then
again, all I had was the demo), but there's no doubt they can put in the detail
they want.
Forget Womb Raider.
Forget Qwake.
(sp)
Think DK.
--
Confident Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
Shining beacon in the darkness of pessimism!
d++ e-- N T-- Om++ U3!456!7'!S'A! u++ uC++ uF++
uG++++ uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nP nI+ nPT nS+ nT y a25
Patrik Åstrand
Sith Dragon wrote:
>
>
> I've always been ambilvalent about the loss of the non-humans from
> Ultima, but it seems to have been a trend in CRPGs. Outside of the
> AD&D CRPGs I can't remember the last mainstream CRPG that I played
> that included non-humans.
What about the Realms of Arkania games? The had 3-4 different elves,
orcs and so on.Or the Wizardry games or Might and Magic (except the
forthcoming) or Daggerfall?
> While I am sentimentally attached to the top-down view, I do feel that
>
> (at least for me) an isometric view does increase the feel of being
> immersed in the world. Losing things behind walls is a definite
> drawback, but with a rotating perspective (a la Syndicate Wars) or
> transparancy bubbles (like in Fallout or Ultima Online) it becomes
> much more pleasing.
Here I much prefer 1愀t person view. It gives you a feeling of being
there. But I must admit that U7 view was rather good too.
> I don't know if I would say that real-time blows, but in some ways it
> does add an amount of visceral excitement to the game. I agree that
> U6 was Ultima's highpoint as far as the combat style goes, and in
> Ultima IX I definitely would like to have a choice. Although I'm used
>
> to real-time, I've been spoiled by Fallout and really, really want
> turn-based.
I totally agree. I love Daggerfall but I would love it even more if it
was turn based.
> Personally, I enjoy using the mouse for conversation far more than
> having to key in hot words. Maybe because I'm not that great a
> speller and don't like to have to guess at the correct spelling of
> something or another because, for me, having to think of how to spell
> something really kills immersion.
Second that. And the keyboard makes it hard for non-native-english
speakers to finish the game.
>
Patrik
*.Young
Niklas Matthies (Elf Dragon) wrote:
> Right, that's why I don't believe that the new view is isometric.
> "iso-metric" = "same length". What would be the difference between
Really? I didn't know that - but I think the point is, people don't
think of it that way. Gamers think of an isometric view as the kind we
had in Ultima 8 or Relentless (Little Big Adventure).
> an 'isometric' diminishing view, and standard Quake-style 3d, in
> your opinion?
Well... just the point of view. Which in U9, it looks like from what OSI
has said, will be changing all the time.
SlightlyMad Dragon.
Niklas Matthies
>
>> Right, that's why I don't believe that the new view is isometric.
>> "iso-metric" = "same length". What would be the difference between
>
> Really? I didn't know that - but I think the point is, people don't
> think of it that way. Gamers think of an isometric view as the kind we
> had in Ultima 8 or Relentless (Little Big Adventure).
Well, these *are* both isometric!
>> an 'isometric' diminishing view, and standard Quake-style 3d, in
>> your opinion?
>
> Well... just the point of view. Which in U9, it looks like from what OSI
> has said, will be changing all the time.
You mean that U9 will have Quake-style 3d, but with more freedom where to
put the camera? As in car racing or 3d sports games, for example?
I still have no clue why you'd call the new view isometric, i.e. what
isometric actually means for you.
-- Elf Dragon
*.Young
Niklas Matthies wrote:
> You mean that U9 will have Quake-style 3d, but with more freedom where
> to
> put the camera? As in car racing or 3d sports games, for example?
That's the impression I have.
> I still have no clue why you'd call the new view isometric, i.e. what
> isometric actually means for you.
To me isometric is when you put the camera in the position of U8 or
Relentless, regardless of whether or not there is perspective involved.
SlightlyMad.
Mark Filipas
I believe you're right. Because of the "TR-style" 3D engine, and it's
reported ability to zoom in, UIX is definitely not isometric in the
technical, strict sense.
Mark
Niklas Matthies <matt...@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de> wrote:
>In rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons *.Young <yo...@uq.net.au> wrote:
>> Niklas Matthies wrote:
>>
>>> > Robert already said that the game will have an isometric point of
>>> > view, along with basically any other view you want, depending on
>>> where
>>> > you want to place the camera.
>>> I just reread Robert's letter on your web site, and actually it's not
>>> clear
>>> how this new view works. There is mention of Quake/System Shock style,
>>> freely
>>> rotatable view. That sounds like a perspectively correct view (what I
>>> call
>>> "real 3d"), and even if you turn the camera so that you have a top
>>> down view,
>>> it won't become isometric by that; things farther away will still be
>>> smaller.
>>> I'm quite curious about that engine, I wish they would be more precise
>>> about
>>> it.
>>
>> When we say "Isometric View", I think we're discarding the traditional
>> Isometric View idea that there is no diminishing - of course there is
>> diminishing! Can you imagine drawing a picture of a world where nothing
>> diminished? Sure, in U8 things didn't get smaller when further away, but
>> as soon as you were to (hypothetically) move the camera anywhere NEAR a
>> TR-view, ie, you can see where the horizon should be, everything would
>> look nuts.
>
>Right, that's why I don't believe that the new view is isometric.
>"iso-metric" = "same length". What would be the difference between
>an 'isometric' diminishing view, and standard Quake-style 3d, in
>your opinion?
>
>-- Elf Dragon
Led Mirage
In article <34bcdfd7....@news.mxol.com>, si...@walrus.com says...
>>But there weren't any failures until they started playing around with the
>>proven formula, were there? Can not U1-6 all be considered runaway
>>successes? The Worlds of Ultima games are probably the first real
>>commercial failures for Origin, and that was probably more bad marketing
>>than anything else (that's pure speculation on my part).
>
>But what is the definition of "failure" in this sense? For my money,
>The Black Gate and Serpent Isle delivered what I thought to be one
>hell of a story, so in that sense they were complete successes.
>However, they didn't probably sell as well as Origin hoped, so they
>can also be considered failures.
Consider that U7 spawned an add-in disk and a full blown sequel (and an add-in
with SI), I don't think one can consider U7 a "failure". As a matter of fact,
I think there were probably more people discovering Ultima through U7 than any
other Ultimas.Changes are a neccessary evil. I think CRPGers are the most
stubborn with regard to changes.
Andrew Charlton
Michael Carmack writes:
>So IMO, the changes to the basic engine design have hurt the game more
>then helped it in the long run. In the short run, it appears that things
>were improving up through U6 and began declining beginning with U7.
Yet most people seem to list one of the U7s as their favourite.
[...]
>Never liked using Fuzzies, but I agree with the sentiment. The move to a
>human-only party took away a lot of the fantasy flavor.
IMO, fantasy tends to be very samey. Losing the traditional fantasy races
set Ultima apart as something more than the Tolkien clone that everything
else seems to be.
Andrew Charlton
Sith Dragon writes:
>On 14 Jan 1998 10:02:14 -0500, mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
>(Michael Carmack) wrote:
>>: - The loss of the demi-humans;
>>
>>Bad idea. Score -1.
>
>I've always been ambilvalent about the loss of the non-humans from
>Ultima, but it seems to have been a trend in CRPGs. Outside of the
>AD&D CRPGs I can't remember the last mainstream CRPG that I played
>that included non-humans.
Gargoyles, Gwani, Emps. They're proper, original non-humans, not just the
Tolkien staples. And they are individuals. None of this "I'm an elf, so I
must be at one with nature" crap.
Andrew Charlton
Michael Carmack writes:
>Sith Dragon (si...@walrus.com) wrote:
>: I felt that the engine in Ultima VII was far more transparent, and even
>: moreso in Serpent Isle.
>
>The *interface* was transparent. I have said as much in reply to Robert's
>letter in which he stated that they wanted to simplify the interface. I
>don't see how it can be simplified any more than it is in U7/U8.
In one of the online interviews, this is clarified somewhat:
"It will also be a more user-friendly Ultima. One of the main complaints
about the series since it went graphical has been the complexity of its
controls, which require several mouse clicks and moves to perform what a
single key press once achieved."
This suggests to me something with more keyboard shortcuts. Feeding party
members with a single keypress ala Silver Seed. Whether all of us would
actually classify this as "simpler" is not important (We all use words
differently). It would be more convenient.
"Ultima IX solves this by using a so-called smart inventory. "All items of
a kind go into a special area--reagents in specific holders, for instance,"
says Del Castillo. "Money and food will be freely shared among your party.
"
Again, going back to the U1-5 way of doing things. Remember the U3 command
"Pool Gold". I wish I'd had that one in U7. In U4 and U5, spell mixing
was handled on a seperate screen, where all the reagents you had were
listed, this approach sounds similar to that.
In other words, I guess it's simplifying inventory management, which was
bad enough in U6, and absolutely hideous in U7. Somewhat improved in U8
(Since stuff actually stayed where you put it). This approach sounds best
to me.
Arnulf Guenther
>>>>> "*" == * Young <yo...@uq.net.au> writes:
*> Niklas Matthies wrote:
>> You mean that U9 will have Quake-style 3d, but with more
>> freedom where to put the camera? As in car racing or 3d sports
>> games, for example?
*> That's the impression I have.
>> I still have no clue why you'd call the new view isometric,
>> i.e. what isometric actually means for you.
*> To me isometric is when you put the camera in the position of
*> U8 or Relentless, regardless of whether or not there is
*> perspective involved.
*> SlightlyMad.
Relentless (or Little Big Adventure for us europeans) is a good
example, because I'd ideally prefer this system over a tag-along or
first person view as announced for U9. Maybe a little bit more
top-down than from the side as in Relentless.
But, here's the catch, Relentless' view is isometric. In the true
sense. If you look at Relentless' towns you notice that figures with
greater distance to the "camera" keep exactly the same size when they
get nearer to the camera. No diminishing occurs. That's not correct
perspective. However, it works, because you see a limited portion of
the whole map, switching from place to place as you move Twinsen
along. This wouldn't work for a tag-along or first person view,
because you need diminishing for far distance objects that are
"nearer" to the horizon. It would just look plain odd with isometric
objects.
That means no isometric view for U9. It would rather look like Myth
or Incubation. The disadvantage is here that you cannot zoom out far,
because of the perspective correction the computer arrives fast to his
limits. Even with 3D acceleration. Not so with isometric view. You
could almost zoom out indefinitely 'til the whole map of Britannia
would be displayed. Rotating the view would also be faster.
-Arnulf
David Schmidt
Michael Carmack wrote:
[snip]
> Really? The interface in U6 was almost exactly the same as that in U3-5,
> with the addition of mouse input and the use of graphical buttons to
> complement keyboard input.
Disagree. U3-5 had more than 20 distinct keyboard commands each. U6
simplified it down to 6 or 7.
> Do you think U3-5's interface was also
> intrusive?
I think, though good for their time, each Ultima had a better interface
than
the one before it. Except U3 and U8 which were, IMO steps backward as
UI
goes.
> : I felt that the engine in Ultima VII was far more transparent, and even
> : moreso in Serpent Isle.
>
> The *interface* was transparent. I have said as much in reply to Robert's
> letter in which he stated that they wanted to simplify the interface. I
> don't see how it can be simplified any more than it is in U7/U8.
>
> But the *engine* itself introduced all sorts of new features I find
> aggravating, such as the real time combat with party members far too
> stupid to fight for themselves;
Agree. U6's combat was best, IMO.
> the backpack inventory system (slotted is
> easier to manage IMO);
Easier, but less realistic.
> and the point-n-click conversations.
True, these are horrid.
Chocolate Breathing Dragon
Niklas Matthies
In rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons Mark Filipas <fil...@slip.net> wrote:
> I believe you're right. Because of the "TR-style" 3D engine, and it's
> reported ability to zoom in, UIX is definitely not isometric in the
> technical, strict sense.
Yeah, but what I'm wondering now is, what do you call isometric in
non-technical, non-strict sense?
-- Niklas
Niklas Matthies
In rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons Chris Mathieu <ki...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Mark Filipas wrote:
>
>> I believe you're right. Because of the "TR-style" 3D engine, and it's
>> reported ability to zoom in, UIX is definitely not isometric in the
>> technical, strict sense.
>>
>> >> Isometric View idea that there is no diminishing - of course there is
>> >> diminishing! Can you imagine drawing a picture of a world where nothing
>> >> diminished? Sure, in U8 things didn't get smaller when further away, but
>> >> as soon as you were to (hypothetically) move the camera anywhere NEAR a
>> >> TR-view, ie, you can see where the horizon should be, everything would
>> >> look nuts.
>
> Origin's aiming for with UIX. (Mind you I've only seen a couple official
> statements from them, but it didn't take me long to figure out.)
>
> Dungeon Keeper.
>
> At the start it looks like a typical isometric view. (I'm talking the
> engineering/CAD version of isometric, where parallel lines stay parallel and
> all that.) But you press a key, and the view rotates. As much as you want it
> to. Another set of keys zooms the view in and out.
This view is still isometric, parallel lines stay parallel, as you say,
and I'd be glad if UIX will have that view. The difference to real 3d is
that you can't look up, e.g. to look at the horizon.
-- Elf Dragon
Niklas Matthies
In rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons Arnulf Guenther <arn...@inf.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>>>>> "*" == * Young <yo...@uq.net.au> writes:
>
> >> I still have no clue why you'd call the new view isometric,
> >> i.e. what isometric actually means for you.
>
> *> To me isometric is when you put the camera in the position of
> *> U8 or Relentless, regardless of whether or not there is
> *> perspective involved.
Okay, but in UIX the camera will be freely positionable (or so they say),
so there won't be a fixed point of view. Therefor I wouldn't call the
view isometric in any sense.
> Relentless (or Little Big Adventure for us europeans) is a good
> example, because I'd ideally prefer this system over a tag-along or
> first person view as announced for U9. Maybe a little bit more
> top-down than from the side as in Relentless.
Me too.
> But, here's the catch, Relentless' view is isometric. In the true
> sense. If you look at Relentless' towns you notice that figures with
> greater distance to the "camera" keep exactly the same size when they
> get nearer to the camera. No diminishing occurs. That's not correct
> perspective. However, it works, because you see a limited portion of
> the whole map, switching from place to place as you move Twinsen
> along. This wouldn't work for a tag-along or first person view,
> because you need diminishing for far distance objects that are
> "nearer" to the horizon. It would just look plain odd with isometric
> objects.
He's absolutely right, and that's the reason why I think UIX won't have
isometric view (in the true sense).
> That means no isometric view for U9. It would rather look like Myth
> or Incubation. The disadvantage is here that you cannot zoom out far,
> because of the perspective correction the computer arrives fast to his
> limits. Even with 3D acceleration. Not so with isometric view. You
> could almost zoom out indefinitely 'til the whole map of Britannia
> would be displayed. Rotating the view would also be faster.
True, and objects constantly changing their size to fit the right
perspective when moving around might be more realistic, but IMHO
completely changes the feel of the world and is less comfortable
gameplay-wise.
-- Elf Dragon
Michael Carmack
William Wueppelmann (wi...@magma.delete.these.four.words.ca) wrote:
: And as much
: as I like AD&D, I don't miss the nonhumans in Ultima -- after all, they
: never added anything significant to the story, even in Ultima III.
Oh, I think they did. Because each race had particular strenghts and
weaknesses, each race was better suited towards different character
classes. Sure, a fuzzy made a hell of a wizard, but you had better make
sure he never got into hand-to-hand combat or he was toast. This sort of
trade off made the party more diverse.
Now in an old game like U3, this diversity was only visible in the numbers
and in our minds. But in modern games with these fancy new whiz-bang
processers and graphics cards, the different races would look different,
could act different, could tak different, etc. That sort of diversity
would make the game more interesting, plus it could add some real replay
value to an RPG; the game might seem totally different and have different
solution sets based on the races and classes in your party.
: I agree on the transparency issue, but in other ways, Ultima VI allowed
: you to get on with the business of playing the game. For example, there
: was no difficult manouvering and guessing how to do things like get up
: onto ledges and walk along narrow fences and pathways in U6, owing to
: the large base tile size that gave you a clear indication of where you
: were and where you were going. There's nothing I hate more than dying or
: getting stuck because I can't walk properly through a forest or cave or
: whatnot.
Yeah, I hate that too. I don't think it's a problem of using smaller
tiles, but rather the designers use the better graphics to create mini
"graphics puzzles". It's not quite as bad as playing "hunt the pixel" in
a bad adventure game, but it's definitely in the same ballpark.
Michael Carmack
Patrik Åstrand (yka...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Sith Dragon wrote:
: > Personally, I enjoy using the mouse for conversation far more than
: > having to key in hot words. Maybe because I'm not that great a
: > speller and don't like to have to guess at the correct spelling of
: > something or another because, for me, having to think of how to spell
: > something really kills immersion.
: Second that. And the keyboard makes it hard for non-native-english
: speakers to finish the game.
In U6, you could turn on highlighting of keywords in NPC conversations.
That way, non-English speakers would not have to know the language well in
order to guess appropriate words.
Further, Origin has been releasing their games in multiple languages in
the last few years. This is especially easy in Windows, as all text can
be stored in a string table. All they have to do is translate the text in
the string table into the target language, recompile, and voila! A new
language version.
Michael Carmack
Chris Mathieu (ki...@swbell.net) wrote:
: There is one game on the market that has the kind of view control I think
: Origin's aiming for with UIX. (Mind you I've only seen a couple official
: statements from them, but it didn't take me long to figure out.)
: Dungeon Keeper.
This is the same rotating isometric view found in Syndicate Wars (both
games by Bullfrog). Neither are really 3D; when you zoom in, the
graphics are simply scaled to a larger size, thus the pixelation you
noticed.
This type of view was what we all thought U9 was going to have long ago.
Recent reports indicate that this view, if available, will be only one
type of view possible. (Another is a Tomb Raider-like view.) Since U9
uses a real 3D polygon engine, the pixelation found in Dungeon Keeper will
not occur when you zoom in, though.
Michael Carmack
Led Mirage (lux...@netvigator.com) wrote:
: Consider that U7 spawned an add-in disk and a full blown sequel (and an add-in
No, you can't say that at all. Add-on disks were the norm for Origin back
then. If memory serves, the first add-on disk was the speech pack for
Wing Commander (or maybe it was the add-on missions.) The add-on disk for
U7 had to have been planned from the start, otherwise I doubt it would
have integrated itself so well into the original game.
Besides, don't forget that they was an add-on disk for U8. But since U8
was an unequivocal commercial failure, they scrapped the project before it
was finished.
: As a matter of fact, I think there were probably more people discovering
: Ultima through U7 than any other Ultimas.
Gads, it bugs me when people say this. Even if it is true (which it may
be, I don't have any numbers), that has nothing to do with the quality of
the game compared to earlier efforts. The simple fact is until recently
computers were not truly household items; only a small percentage of
people thought they were worth the money. Now that they are found almost
everywhere, it follows that more people "discover" Ultima through U7, U8,
and UO simply because they are the only games that can still be found
in stores, and at bargain basement prices for U7-8.
What has this to do with the topic? Nothing, I'm just venting. U7 is
NOT, I repeat NOT, the best Ultima that Origin has produced. (Jeez, I
hope I don't start another "What's your favorite Ultima?" thread...)
Michael Carmack
Andrew Charlton (char...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
: Gargoyles, Gwani, Emps. They're proper, original non-humans, not just the
: Tolkien staples. And they are individuals. None of this "I'm an elf, so I
: must be at one with nature" crap.
Okay, good point. Too bad we weren't able to have these races join our
party, however. I would have rather been adventuring with a gargoyle than
with Spark any day.
Michael Carmack
Andrew Charlton (char...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
: Michael Carmack writes:
: >So IMO, the changes to the basic engine design have hurt the game more
: >then helped it in the long run. In the short run, it appears that things
: >were improving up through U6 and began declining beginning with U7.
: Yet most people seem to list one of the U7s as their favourite.
Probably because most have played only U7 and up (see another post that I just
wrote that kind of relates to this.) Of the Ultimas from U7 on, it is my
favorite as well. Having played all of them and having noticed the
improvements/mistakes made from one game to the next, I can see the losses
from U6 to U7.
: [...]
: >Never liked using Fuzzies, but I agree with the sentiment. The move to a
: >human-only party took away a lot of the fantasy flavor.
: IMO, fantasy tends to be very samey. Losing the traditional fantasy races
: set Ultima apart as something more than the Tolkien clone that everything
: else seems to be.
But having an entire world of humans is not "samey"? I can appreciate
that the Tolkien-clone type of game is showing its age, but there are
other ways to aproach fantasy than to clone Tolkien yet again.
Michael Carmack
: >letter in which he stated that they wanted to simplify the interface. I
: >don't see how it can be simplified any more than it is in U7/U8.
: In one of the online interviews, this is clarified somewhat:
: "It will also be a more user-friendly Ultima. One of the main complaints
: about the series since it went graphical has been the complexity of its
: controls, which require several mouse clicks and moves to perform what a
: single key press once achieved."
: This suggests to me something with more keyboard shortcuts.
This is definitely a good thing. In U6, there was a keyboard shortcut for
*every* action, and I tended to use them more than the mouse (being
accustomed to the U5 ways of doing things).
: Feeding party members with a single keypress ala Silver Seed.
Ack. Hopefully the fools will feed themselves as in the older games.
Shamino does not need my permission to make a sandwich.
: "Ultima IX solves this by using a so-called smart inventory. "All items of
: a kind go into a special area--reagents in specific holders, for instance,"
: says Del Castillo. "Money and food will be freely shared among your party."
: Again, going back to the U1-5 way of doing things.
Good, good. I have argued in the past about this very topic. I don't
care WHO is carrying the gold or WHO is carrying the food, all I want to
know is HOW MUCH gold I have and I want it transparently available when it
comes time to spend it. The only items where it really matters who is
carrying what is equipped weapons and armor.
: In other words, I guess it's simplifying inventory management, which was
: bad enough in U6, and absolutely hideous in U7. Somewhat improved in U8
: (Since stuff actually stayed where you put it). This approach sounds best
: to me.
Definitely better. The inventory system was the only thing I thought got
worse from U5 to U6, and I agree that the U7 inventory was downright
awful. I definitely prefer slotted to backpack inventory, it's far easier
to manage.
Michael Carmack
David Schmidt (figh...@nortel.com) wrote:
: Michael Carmack wrote:
: > Really? The interface in U6 was almost exactly the same as that in U3-5,
: > with the addition of mouse input and the use of graphical buttons to
: > complement keyboard input.
: Disagree. U3-5 had more than 20 distinct keyboard commands each. U6
: simplified it down to 6 or 7.
The imput mechanism was different yes, but I view it as just a
simplification of an overly complex system. Commands that were not needed
in U6 were removed, and several commands were condensed into a "use"
command. Since the primary input device was a mouse, this was almost a
necessity; they couldn't really fit 20 different action buttons on the
screen!
: > Do you think U3-5's interface was also
: > intrusive?
: I think, though good for their time, each Ultima had a better interface
: than the one before it. Except U3 and U8 which were, IMO steps backward as
: UI goes.
U3 was a step backward from U2? How so? Distributing items among party
members was definitely a chore, but it was their first attempt at a party.
Sith Dragon
On 15 Jan 1998 05:20:40 GMT, lux...@netvigator.com (Led Mirage) wrote:
>Consider that U7 spawned an add-in disk and a full blown sequel (and an add-in
>with SI), I don't think one can consider U7 a "failure".
My understanding is that Origin considered it something of a failure
because Ultima VII's sales did not meet their expectations, regardless
of how many spin-offs it generated.
Sith Dragon Visit my webpage at http://www.walrus.com/~sith for the
-==(UDIC)==- latest in Ultima IX news plus the Ultima IX FAQ.
Steve McKinney
And on Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:18:22 GMT, Andrew Charlton inscribed across
the sky, in letters of fire a mile high:
>Michael Carmack writes:
>
>>So IMO, the changes to the basic engine design have hurt the game more
>>then helped it in the long run. In the short run, it appears that things
>>were improving up through U6 and began declining beginning with U7.
>
>Yet most people seem to list one of the U7s as their favourite.
Most of those people have probably never played U6. I've only played
U6 on the SNES, and that version blew donkey dicks. I've not found U6
for the PC, so of course U7 is my favorite of the ones I've played.
Perhaps when the Collection is released, more people will list U6 as
their fave.
--
Skeptical Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Voyd
Nightfire wrote:
>
> Voyager wrote:
>
> >> >">PLUS, OSI, if you ruin Ultima IX, I guess the whole UDIC will take to
> the
> >> >">wings to lay waste to Origin, EA and everyone else involved. And I'll
> be
> >> >">right in the front. Shade Blade in one claw, Death Scythe in the
> other, and
> >> >">I will skin, dress and eat alive the offenders. Just a friendly
> warning, hmm
> >> >">... ;)
> >
> >Nice try, but they're both two-handed. :P
> >However, if thou seest fit to fathom handing me one, mabye I couldst lay
> >some waste myself, no?
>
> OF COURSE they're both two-handed! For humans. That's the fun in it. We're
> talking DRAGONS here, remember, not puny human forms!
Oh, a four-handed dragon! How cute! ;)
> <breathes flames>
>
> Eat cream pie, smartass! :)
>
> *SPLUT*
Oh, smartass is it? Why, thank you!!!
But that pie is the last straw!!!
En guarde!!!
[Voyager runs back into his cave entrance. A loud "DONG" rings across
the battlefield as the giant steel doors to the cave slam shut.
Grinding noises and muffled clangs of metal echo inside the cave...]
> <giggles>
>
> Hey, in here a few weeks, and I'm already addicted to pie fights. Now get
> thee hence, infidel, and disturb not my divine musings, lest I turn Frenetic
> loose on thee. If I could get him to stop waving his claws in the air and
> knocking innocent bystanders over, that is. ;)
[Two black moongates arise on either side of the cave. The black
moongates begin pulsating until you hear a voice coming from them.]
Don't bring other dragons into this... this is between you, me, and the
shade blade!
[On top of the mountain wherein lies his cavern, a flag springs up at
the peak. It is terquoise-coloured, with a cream pie in the center. A
march-style rendition of "Engagement and Malee" is played through the
speak... er, black moongates.]
I hope you like pies as much as you like pie fights! Ready weapons!!!
[A hole on the metal door slides open and a cylindrical cannon protrudes
through.]
Take aim!!!
[The metal door structure slides along the mountain face until the
cannon is pointed directly at Nightfire.]
Fire!!!
<SPLUT!>
> Ahem. Regardless, thy noble offers of assitence are most appreciated.
I shant forget that "smartass" comment! 'Twas quite an honor!
--
=Michael Christopher Maggio
***********************************
Please remove SPAMFREE | Voyager Dragon -=(UDIC)=- |
to reply by email. | -Christopher, UO Beta |
=============================================================
| Voyager's Cavern |
| http://core.raritanval.edu/~voyager/ |
-------------------------------------------------------------
d+ e N+ T- Om UK1!2!3!4!5!6!A!7'!L!S'!8! u+++ uC++++ uF uG++
uLB+ uA+ nC nR nH++ nP nI+ nPT nS+ nT+ o+ oA+++ oE++ y- a20
Urpo Lankinen
On 14 Jan 1998 10:02:14 -0500, Michael Carmack
<mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>Let me add one of my own: The change from keyboard conversation to
>point-and-click. I think it's bad, it loses a lot of the immersion. Even
>though keying in your own words is still executing a predefined
>conversation tree, it at least gives the illusion of real conversation far
>better than pointing and clicking. Score -1, final score -1.5.
"I agree with that. But have you ever seen Betrayal at Krondor? That
has one of my favorite conversation systems. It has clickable words (a
la U7), but the game displays what you characters say after you click
the word."
--
Hoki-aamrel the Cherry-red Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
DC.D Gm f s h++ CR a+++ $- m- d++ WL++* Fr- L52m BF e++ g i-!
http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/lair/index.html
"If it happens, it must be possible."
Sith Dragon
Posted and e-mailed.
On 15 Jan 1998 09:23:16 -0500, mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
(Michael Carmack) wrote:
>But having an entire world of humans is not "samey"?
It all depends on how it's handled. We happen to live on an entire
world of humans and the last thing I would do is call it "samey." If
some amount of effort was made to distinguish one group of people
(like from Yew) from another (like the folks in Trinsic) then it might
work very well. However, if a homogenous society is dumped into a
fantasy setting then it would be tiresome.
Michael Kozlowski
In article <69l5tf$4...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
Michael Carmack <mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>
>No, you can't say that at all. Add-on disks were the norm for Origin back
>then. If memory serves, the first add-on disk was the speech pack for
>Wing Commander (or maybe it was the add-on missions.)
It would have been the add-on missions. The speech pack was for WC2; the
"Secret Missions" disks were for WC1.
>What has this to do with the topic? Nothing, I'm just venting. U7 is
>NOT, I repeat NOT, the best Ultima that Origin has produced.
YMMV, I suppose, but I certainly think it is. U6 is a close second, but
loses out because of U7's immersive interface.
--
Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html -- Recommended SF Reading
Tim Bolin
In article <EMJrC...@hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de>, "Nightfire" <Sarah.J...@Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>[the first part of this post is about the message sent to Sith Dragon by
>Robert White, lead designer of UIX]
<snip>
> > In the past the top down view was a necessity, driven by the
>> technolgy, in order to provide the immersiveness of Britannia.
>> Now with the full 3D world, this other view (third person, tag-along),
>> is more immersive. Once you have the chance to actually move
>> around in the enivronment, I think you will find that a top down
>> isometric, isn't as "kick-ass" as the tag-along is.
>
>"Kick-ass" is one of the last words I'd apply to a real CRPG, much less to
>an Ultima. Again, if you've read the NGs, then you'll know that "cool"
>graphics are about the last thing many of us are concerned about
<snip>
i have been following the Ultima IX discussions here for several months, and
quite frankly have no opinion either way, since i am one of the few people who
have never enjoyed the ultima games... so maybe im the only one removed enough
to see this situation for what it is...
in short: origin DOES NOT CARE about the gamers who have been playing ultima
since U1 on an 8086... they DO NOT CARE if you buy the game or not, and they
CERTAINLY DO NOT CARE if you like it or not, or if the features you want are
in it...
sure, origin keeps saying "no way, of course we care!" because if they didnt,
they would look bad... but from everything ive read from origin in response to
concerns voiced here, it just feels like origin is trying to smooth the waters
and calm the rabid ultima die-hards until the release... but that in reality
they couldnt give a damn about what you want... they have their idea about
what U9 should be, and by god, thats what it WILL be, period, no matter what
people here cry out for...
rest assured, if there is ANYTHING in U9 that jives with what everyone has
been saying they want in here, it will ONLY be because they intended it to
have it from the beginning, and certainly not because the diehards cried
out for it...
and why? it all comes down to money... if every diehard ultima fan from way
back when bought TWO copies of U9, the money wouldnt come close to what they
could bring in if only half of all the "quake rulz! tomb raider kicks a$$
doodz!" and "wow, games like myst and riven and phantasmagoria really make me
feel like im PART of a movie!" people bought ONE copy and the ultima diehards
bought NONE...
hell, as far as that goes, you should all just thank your lucky stars that U9
isnt something like "Ultima IX: the Total Dark Reign of the Guardian's
Annihilated Conquering Warcraft" or something... "Now you can be the avatar
and command the forces of goodness against evil on REAL 3D TERRAIN!"
but dont kid yourself that if Origin HAD gotten this idea for U9 that they
would deviate even one inch from it because the ultima diehards were wailing
and gnashing their teeth about it...
this is all, of course, just my opinion... but based on everything ive read
from origin about U9, i feel it is safe to say that they just dont give a good
goddamn about what the "dragons" have to say about it...
tim
Michael Carmack
Michael Kozlowski (m...@vega23.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: In article <69l5tf$4...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
: Michael Carmack <mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
: >What has this to do with the topic? Nothing, I'm just venting. U7 is
: >NOT, I repeat NOT, the best Ultima that Origin has produced.
: YMMV, I suppose, but I certainly think it is. U6 is a close second, but
: loses out because of U7's immersive interface.
Okay, try to imagine the *game* of U6 beefed up with the U7 engine. It
could certainly be done. Would you still think U7 is better than U6?
I am always trying to seperate the game and the engine from the interface,
in case anyone hasn't noticed. <g>
Michael Carmack
Urpo Lankinen (www...@iki.fi) wrote:
: "I agree with that. But have you ever seen Betrayal at Krondor? That
: has one of my favorite conversation systems. It has clickable words (a
: la U7), but the game displays what you characters say after you click
: the word."
For point-n-click conversation systems, BaK's was better than Ultima's.
Words you had already used were dimmed in case you forgot, there wasn't
any tree you had to navigate to get down to the desired keyword, etc.
But I *still* don't like BaK very much. ;-)
Phillip S Zibilich
Tim Bolin <tbo...@intervoice.com> wrote:
<snip>
Mabey it's because I've only been playing Ultima for two or three
years(not counting NES), but I have to agree with Tim... For the most
part. I think that Origin has had a set idea of what U9 will and won't be.
I do, however, think that they will use the Ultima Dragons as sort of a
test group for might and might not work. They'll use some of our input,
but as Tim said, the basic game will be whatever the Hell OSI has always
intended it to be.
Just my opinion.
--
--------------------------------------
Darkling Dragon --==(UDIC)==--
Phillip Zibilich - Ultima Dragon and
ps...@gnofn.org Emulation enthusiast
"Have you driven a FNORD lately?"
--------------------------------------