Stop Whining! A Different Look At U9 (was Re: Ultima 9: A departure to the ultima series...)
Chong Kuang-Ting
>Jeez... I would have been happy if they would have used the U7 engine. I
>don't give a damn, I just don't want to have to pay for a P233 and a
Voodoo2
>card before I can play it. Me thinks Origin has forgotten about the one
>rule of creating good RPGs: "substance over style".
Well, tough luck. That's not going to happen. Only one thing can happen if
the new Ultima uses a so-called "improved" version of the old engine: new
and younger gamers, which constitute an already and increasingly large and
important portion of the market, will not even look at Ultima 9. Many old
fans like myself will stay clear of it. And Ultima's customer base will
shrink. While people can tolerate old games with old engines, very few
people want to play a new game with outdated graphics and engine. Without
enough new customers in an increasingly competitive market, Ultima will
slowly become a "niche" product and even die. Also, Ascension wouldn't be
an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge technology and undergo a major
interface overhaul. This is an Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima
tradition since Ultima 6.
One thing that is not "tradition" is the internet. It opens a whold new
channel for people to speak out their mind. It makes people like to
complain and to demand other people and companies (a company is, after all,
made of other people) to give them what they want. And if someone or some
company decided not to give in and do something by following their own heart
and ideas, they will be accused of "selling out to money," "betraying old
fans," "putting more emphasis on style than contents," etc., etc., etc.
Well, maybe people have been always like that. But with the inception of
the internet, the world has certainly become a much more noisy and selfish
place. Eveyone wants to control eveyone else's every move but at the same
time wants everyone else to stay clear of his business.
If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was making
Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the direction the Ultima
was heading at that time? Hell no. They would still complain. They would
demand Ultima 6 to use the Ultima 5 engine, and Ultima 7 to use the Ultima 6
engine. But of course, very few people have access to the internet by then,
and they are sensible people--scientists, engineers, doctors, professors,
and the elites of the societies, and not just any moron could log on to the
internet, so Origin and Richard Garriott can follow their own heart and do
what they please with THEIR game.
Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use to
control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with its
products. When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
and whine. Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They are,
therefore, THE classics.
The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard Garriott.
The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very little whether
the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their limited vision,
which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
Garriott invented Ultima and not them), they don't really care if the game
will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
gamers.
On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series) own
the Ultima license. It is their property. It is their money-making asset.
To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a way
of life than just some license. It is in their best interest to make sure
the game is good and appealing to not just to some niche market but to the
mass market so that the license attracts new and more customers, builds up
more fans, become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it means
sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past because
of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and suggestions
from outsiders through the internet and then create a game that represents
the compromise of other people's ideas. Good artists are creative (and
eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
E.O.T.
>>And for anyone who is a hard core CRPGer and that's the only thing they
>play, it's going to be even harder because no one needs a 3d card to play
>most other CRPGs.
>
>(sighs)
>
>What Origin should do is make an engine similar to that of Fallout and
stick
>with plain ordinary CRPG. Maybe I fear change... but Origin does seem to be
>trying to make a money maker, not a good game. (Myst and Riven are two
>examples of crappy games that make money because of graphics).
Filarion Dragon
A distant thunder told me that dare...@ozemail.com.au (Ethrian
Dragon) roaming the skies on Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:42:18 GMT ,screamed
out::
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Ethrian Dragon
>-=============================(UDIC)==============================-
> -==[UnSPLUT]==- : Wielder of QuickSPLUT
COPYCAT! :)
That indeed is a cheap copy of Money´s formidable weapon,QuickBon.
I suggest the two of you duel you....
Filarion Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
***The other co-founder of the CinnaGuard***
aka Fractal unLtd. ho3...@hof.baynet.de
UIN:12658441
UDIC-Code: d++ e- N+ T+ Om+ U12345!6!7´!S´!8!KAL
u++ uC++ uF- uG+ uLB- uA+ nC++ nH+
nP+ nI++ nPT nS+++ nT-- o- z+ a19
"How long shall we mourn in the dark..
The bliss and the beauty shall not return." B.G.
Filarion Dragon
A distant thunder told me that "Chong Kuang-Ting"
<ktc...@pop.uky.edu> roaming the skies on Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:18:19
-0700 ,screamed out::
<clipping lots of biased unobjective stuff>
Hm..WhoTF is this guy?
Eddy in disguise?
cor...@chesco.com
SO what you are saying is that Origin should create the game THEY want
to, and not sell out to the niche market, but it IS allright if they
sell out to the mass market to make more money and keep the series
alive. You make no sense. If they were truly interested in being
"artistic" <your comparison> then they should be willing to let the
whole series die. I am not arguing their reasons just your logic.
John Crothers
cor...@chesco.com
L Fernandez
It's not the technological advancements and modernization that most Ultima
fans are arguing about, it's the progression to a more action/adventure type
game and the removal of RPG elements. It is by their own admission that
they don't want to bog U9 down with too much "storyline" or "dialog" or
"stats".
Ophidian Dragon
Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in article
<6n71o9$r17$1...@service3.uky.edu>...
> shrink. While people can tolerate old games with old engines, very few
> people want to play a new game with outdated graphics and engine.
Without
> enough new customers in an increasingly competitive market, Ultima will
> slowly become a "niche" product and even die.
You're kinda missing the point. While I agree that it shouldn't use a
remade engine, if Ultima is made to appeal to the mass market of action
gamers, it's not really Ultima is it? Ultima is dead no matter what, in
your case. Frankly I'd rather Origin quit while they are still ahead. Oh,
BTW, there are plenty of successful niche products. Hell, Ultima is
probably one of the most successful niche products in history. CRPG's have
almost always been a niche market.
> One thing that is not "tradition" is the internet. It opens a whold new
> channel for people to speak out their mind. It makes people like to
> complain and to demand other people and companies (a company is, after
all,
> made of other people) to give them what they want. And if someone or
some
> company decided not to give in and do something by following their own
heart
> and ideas, they will be accused of "selling out to money," "betraying old
> fans," "putting more emphasis on style than contents," etc., etc., etc.
They're not following their own heart and ideas, they're following the
market trends. And, even if Castillo is following his own ideas, his own
ideas don't count for much because he's a real-time action/strategy game
writer, not a RPG guy.
> Well, maybe people have been always like that. But with the inception of
> the internet, the world has certainly become a much more noisy and
selfish
> place. Eveyone wants to control eveyone else's every move but at the
same
> time wants everyone else to stay clear of his business.
> and they are sensible people--scientists, engineers, doctors, professors,
> and the elites of the societies, and not just any moron could log on to
the
> internet, so Origin and Richard Garriott can follow their own heart and
do
> what they please with THEIR game.
Richard Garriot actually listened to what the customers said back then.
Look up the Compuserve chat logs that I posted a long time ago--He's held
chats online since U4. Rather, he used to. Garriot hasn't done much
lately AFAIK.
> and whine. Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and
beyond
> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They
are,
> therefore, THE classics.
Someone needs to read his history. Ultima 4 was created because the
feedback to U3 was what it was--After reading the letters, Richard decided
to put something good into the game when he realized how starved people
were for creative imagery and symbolism. Unlike today, Ultima was a leader
in its industry--It created complex games when most others were just arcade
knockoffs. Now Origin's into making another prettier Tomb Raider than
trying to revitalize the industry with a truly revolutionary game.
> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard
Garriott.
> The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very little
whether
> the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their limited vision,
A series would be better off dead if it does not stay true to its roots.
Kinda like
"Star Trek: The Soap Opera".
> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series)
own
> the Ultima license. It is their property. It is their money-making
asset.
> To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a
way
> of life than just some license.
Ultima does not need Origin or Garriot anymore. Ultima was what made
Origin in the first place, and the Underworlds and my personal favorite,
Serpent Isle, were made without Garriot's real involvement. Frankly, I
think Garriot's gotten too comfortable behind his nice mohogany desk and is
too cozy in the ass-crease he's built into his executive chair to remember
what designing games is about.
> It is in their best interest to make sure
> the game is good and appealing to not just to some niche market but to
the
> mass market so that the license attracts new and more customers, builds
up
> more fans, become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it
means
> sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past
because
> of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
I would think Origin would have respect for the people that made their damn
company. At the moment, I wouldn't care if OSI crashed and burned. In
fact, it might be nice--then the Ultima liscence could be sold to someone
who's willing to not follow some bean-counter's idea marketing trends, but
rather make the series worthwhile and mean something.
> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and
suggestions
> from outsiders through the internet and then create a game that
represents
> the compromise of other people's ideas.
Exactly. Wish Origin would listen to that instead of following the
big-action, full-speech, 3D graphix, 'RPG-lite' syndrome that's infected
the industry. Ultima 9 is the least creative endeavor Origin has embarked
upon yet. It's not led by a "vision". It's a part of a marketing strategy
intended to target the 16-25 gamer demographic, who typically play games
like Tomb Raider and Quake, have an appeal for eye-candy and no interest in
complex stories. The design proccess is geared to 'designing what the
target demographic wants to buy.'
-Ophidian Dragon
Colin D. Loughran (Nozumas)
Ok,
My real point was that I don't want to buy a p233, a 3D card and 16 more
megs of RAM to play a game that isn't really that appealing because it
doesn't sound like a true CRPG when I can purchase another game (Fallout,
Might & Magic 7) without doing any of that.
I can whine all I want to so blaaaahh.. Doesn't matter since Origin isn't
going to listen. And heck, maybe they'll pull it off and Ascension will be a
huge success but it might turn out to like Ultima Online, a success, yes,
but not because it is a CRPG because it's "revolutionary".
CREATIVITY can be expressed in a written plot - like form instead of in the
art. And who wants to be creative when only certain people can view it.
(Those with P233 and 3d cards). And it's not the artists who are determing
the way the game develops it's the producers.
Maybe I do limit my vision but I just can't see an Ultima without parties
and plots, low frame rates and a great (or at least good) plot. Geez, I'll
pay 80$ to play it but I'm not paying 80$ plus a new chip, plus a new card,
plus some more RAM.
My comp can run any game (almost) on the market today. It should be able to
do so till for at least another year. And as for "tradition".. I don't see
it as much of one. I see it as a money making strategy that works but is
slowly degrading the Ultima series.
Now you can call me a whiner all you like but it's just this simple:
Ultima to me means storyline, not graphics.
That's why I still play the earlier Ultimas today. Graphically they suck but
plot wise they're great. I don't get me wrong, I don't mind if Origin packs
in all these graphics but they must not forget about the plot but if I
really wanted flashy graphics I'd go and play Quake 2 or something.
Nozumas Dragon
Eric Ashcroft aka The Ancient One
i would buy a new computer for U9 if it would be a true RPG like U7.
i will buy one if TES:Morrowind needs it what i do not think so far heh ;-)
--
Eric Ashcroft aka The Ancient One
ancie...@cyberdude.com
----
Life is a forge, and the purest metal comes from the hottest fire.
----
The Ancient One愀 Realm
http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~ancient/index.html
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Chong Kuang-Ting saying...
[Snip]
> Well, tough luck. That's not going to happen. Only one thing can happen if
> the new Ultima uses a so-called "improved" version of the old engine: new
> and younger gamers, which constitute an already and increasingly large and
> important portion of the market, will not even look at Ultima 9. Many old
> fans like myself will stay clear of it. And Ultima's customer base will
> shrink. While people can tolerate old games with old engines, very few
> people want to play a new game with outdated graphics and engine.
Ultima Online. Whether we like it or not, those 'outdated' graphics
are a financial success for Origin.
> Without
> enough new customers in an increasingly competitive market, Ultima will
> slowly become a "niche" product and even die. Also, Ascension wouldn't be
> an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge technology and undergo a major
> interface overhaul. This is an Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima
> tradition since Ultima 6.
Ultima I, ][, III, IV, and V. In other words, it is a recent
addition. :)
[Snip]
> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was making
> Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the direction the Ultima
> was heading at that time? Hell no.
Proof, please, or is this just your opinion?
> They would still complain. They would
> demand Ultima 6 to use the Ultima 5 engine, and Ultima 7 to use the Ultima 6
> engine. But of course, very few people have access to the internet by then,
> and they are sensible people--scientists, engineers, doctors, professors,
> and the elites of the societies,
Ah, I see you've met few "scientists, engineers, doctors, professors"
as they are just as human as everyone else.
I'll leave the "elites of the societies" statement for more
inflammatory individuals. ;)
[Snip]
> Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
> thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use to
> control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with its
> products.
Really? You know "absolutely" what each and every old Ultima thinks
and wants?
> When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
> and whine.
Of course, to make this statement you need to sweep all of Origin's
broken promises made after Ultima VIII under the carpet. Plus you need to
ignore what everyone is *actually* saying and just rail against your
strawman.
> Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They are,
> therefore, THE classics.
Proof, please.
> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard Garriott.
> The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very little whether
> the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their limited vision,
Yes, I guess it is limited to ask Origin to surpass the high water
mark achieved with Ultima VII. Hmm, I guess a focus on excellence is
limited in your little world.
> which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
> Garriott invented Ultima and not them),
You really don't know how Ultima started do you?
> they don't really care if the game
> will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
> gamers.
Stupid. Of course the fans want the games to be successful, to sell.
They just don't want Ultima to sell out.
> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series) own
> the Ultima license.
Origin and Electronic Arts own Ultima. Richard Garriott owns nothing
except the Lord British trademark. A passing familiarity with facts would
immeasurably help your arguments.
> It is their property. It is their money-making asset.
> To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a way
> of life than just some license.
Then he sold his first born into corporate slavery.
> It is in their best interest to make sure
> the game is good and appealing to not just to some niche market but to the
> mass market so that the license attracts new and more customers, builds up
> more fans, become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it means
> sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past because
> of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
Translation: I don't care if Origin destroys what made Ultima great
so long as I get a game with the name Ultima on it. I'm such a zombie I'll
buy anything Ultima.
>
> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and suggestions
> from outsiders through the internet and then create a game that represents
> the compromise of other people's ideas.
Then Ultima was never creative. For example, the entire party system
was added in U3 to keep up with Wizardry (Official Book of Ultima).
> Good artists are creative (and
> eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
> please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
Go read The Agony and The Ecstasy.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=={MDLAM}==- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html
CHAN Lancelot the Jedi
Whadda nice strike back. HOORAH! :)
for...@earthlink.net (Fortran Dragon) wrote:
DOOMINATOR the DARK Knight
Hong Kong DOOM2 Champion 1995
dmds of Warbirds
http://www.glink.net.hk/~lancelot
Barry Ramirez
In rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
<good size snippage>
: If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was making
: Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the direction the Ultima
: was heading at that time? Hell no. They would still complain. They would
: demand Ultima 6 to use the Ultima 5 engine, and Ultima 7 to use the Ultima 6
: engine. But of course, very few people have access to the internet by then,
The Dragons, the Evil Avatars, and the Protectors of Virtue and Lord
British were all formed on Prodigy around that time. Oddly, that's
exactly what I recall seeing. The only difference between then and now is
scale of message propagation.
<much larger snippage>
--
Barry Ramirez * I'm depriving some village, somewhere, of its idiot.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monomolecular Dragon -==(UDIC)==- ket...@access.digex.net
ICQ UIN: 1383048 <http://www.access.digex.net/~kethet>
"...without my past, I am nothing but another person in the present..."
( - Rachel Schultz )
AcK!
Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:48:19 -0400 was when "Colin D. Loughran (Nozumas)"
<nozu...@geocities.com> babbled:
>My real point was that I don't want to buy a p233, a 3D card and 16 more
>megs of RAM to play a game that isn't really that appealing because it
>doesn't sound like a true CRPG when I can purchase another game (Fallout,
>Might & Magic 7) without doing any of that.
I love the "pushing the envelope" debates. Remember when U8 came out?
Remember the people who were asking Origin to make U9 run on their
486's? <g>
I do agree, however, that a p233 is excessive. At first I thought they
made a typo, instead of p133 (so I could run it! <g>). Alas, no. :(
<snip>
>Now you can call me a whiner all you like but it's just this simple:
>
> Ultima to me means storyline, not graphics.
>
>That's why I still play the earlier Ultimas today. Graphically they suck but
>plot wise they're great. I don't get me wrong, I don't mind if Origin packs
>in all these graphics but they must not forget about the plot but if I
>really wanted flashy graphics I'd go and play Quake 2 or something.
That's why I'm waiting for the reviews to come in before I rush out to
get it. :)
TTYL
------------------------------------------
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
Werner
krup...@yahoospa.com (AcK!) wrote:
>
>
>I love the "pushing the envelope" debates. Remember when U8 came out?
>Remember the people who were asking Origin to make U9 run on their
>486's? <g>
>I do agree, however, that a p233 is excessive. At first I thought they
>made a typo, instead of p133 (so I could run it! <g>). Alas, no. :(
Don't worry about the hardware, by the time it really comes out a P233
will be standard, well it even is a standard for action games and
several adventure games by now. For simulators this is the lowest you
can use to play the games. The only genre which isn't affected by the
3d craze and hardware excessivness has been the role playing genre and
only because it takes pretty long to develop a RPG, much longer than
an adventure or an action game. U9 will be the first RPG(if it is an
RPG at all) which will push the hardware up the 200MHz barrier and I'm
pretty sure we will see much more RPGs in the next few years which
will take a p233+ as lowest hardware. At least OSI is honest in this
regard, they even could have said no a P100 with a 3d accel is the
lowest hardware you can run the game on and everybody would scream
that this game is slow as a dog.
Werner
-----
we...@my-dejanews.com
http://witiko.ifs.uni-linz.ac.at/~werpu
check out ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive for something which has
been forgotten years ago.
Chong Kuang-Ting
>SO what you are saying is that Origin should create the game THEY want
>to, and not sell out to the niche market, but it IS allright if they
>sell out to the mass market to make more money and keep the series
>alive.
I have NEVER said that Origin should sell out to anyone or anything. It is
in your opinion that Origin is selling out. Only people like you are always
accusing others of "selling out" whenever things go against their wish. So
if Origin makes the game you want it to, it wouldn't be selling out then?
Origin "sells out." Huh. You can use it on anyone you like. The company
sells out to money (like they aren't suppose to). The government sells out
to some secret organization or alien invaders. The U.S. sells out to the
U.N. I'm so surprised you don't know everyone is selling out nowadays.
Origin "sells out." Yeah. Whatever. Everyone can say that. It's too easy
and it needs no proof.
So it comes down to this: what Origin does is its damn business, not yours
or mine. Origin can do whatever with the game if it wants to. And it
should. Just because it doesn't do something the way you want it to doesn't
means it is selling out. IF Origin changes its design decision because of
your complains and because it has to have your business, then it will be
selling out--to you.
I don't believe Origin is selling out to anyone or anything. You among many
people are the one who believe it. Yeah, sell out, whatever.
> You make no sense. If they were truly interested in being
>"artistic" <your comparison> then they should be willing to let the
> whole series die. I am not arguing their reasons just your logic.
You know damn well what I was saying. Yeah, yeah, logic, logic. That's
what your type of people always nitpicking when you can't find grounds for
argument. Nowadays every moron I come across start taking to me about logic
like it's some sort of pop psychology. If you find error in my reasoning,
then show it me--STEP BY STEP, the entire chain of my arguments, and where
it breaks.
My point is that Origin does not "owe" it to anyone to create a game he or
she wants to play. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else. When the game comes
out and if you doesn't like it, then don't buy it, don't play it. I
certainly won't if it doesn't suit me.
Let say Origin does "owe it to us." Us. You and me. What if I want a Tomb
Raider Ultima but you want a different Ultima? Should Origin try to satisfy
you or me? Why is your want more important than mine? Because you are more
important than me? Or because the world revolves around you?
And don't ASSUME what you want is what everyone else including the folks at
Origins wants. Do you know what Richard Garriott or any other designer
really wants for Ascension? Do you? So I suppose people just ASSUME that
Richard Garriott wants exactly what they want but not doing what he wants
because he is selling out to EA. For all we know, Origin could be making
what it wants to make but somehow it doesn't coincide with what you want
Origin to make. So, "Origin sells out!"
I was surprised by so many people are using this paranoid "selling out" and
"corporation conspiracy" craps like they are sooo sure these things are
actually going on. But no one--not one single soul--really have any insider
information on what is really going on.
THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE ARE WHINING IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET WHAT THEY WANT.
;p "You want the Truth? This is the Truth. Told ya you can't handle it." ;p
Chong Kuang-Ting
>Now you can call me a whiner all you like but it's just this simple:
>
> Ultima to me means storyline, not graphics.
Well, that's really subjective, isn't it? Ultima means different things
to different people.
>That's why I still play the earlier Ultimas today. Graphically they suck
but
>plot wise they're great. I don't get me wrong, I don't mind if Origin packs
>in all these graphics but they must not forget about the plot but if I
>really wanted flashy graphics I'd go and play Quake 2 or something.
At this point Origin has yet to reveal the details of the plot, but seems
like everyone has already played Ultima 9 a dozen times and knows knows too
well how bad the story is.
Lost Dragon
>My point is that Origin does not "owe" it to anyone to create a game he or
>she wants to play.
You say that Origin does not owe the fans.
To send the appropriate message, the fans need merely remember that
they, in fact, do not owe Origin.
/| .oo__. .-----.------Lost Dragon Software------.-----. .__oo. |\
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ | ---=== Member: UDIC ===--- | _O_ | ``-, |/ }
`,_/,(_)\_ | | | http://www.lostdragon.com/ | | | _/(_),\_,'
<...{_)_)_''`-----`-Official Dungeon Bane Web Page-'-----'``_(_(_}...>
Filarion Dragon
A distant thunder told me that "Chong Kuang-Ting"
-0700 ,screamed out::
>FYI, Origin IS among the chief leaders in the industry. Just look at
>its current product lines--Wing Commander, Crusader, Longbow, and Ultima.
>Origin is a SOLID company that makes successful products--products that win
>praises and sales.
If you call "Crusader" a current product I might add that the last one
was released in 96 and there are AFAIK no plans to continue the
series...
>
>In fact, the only "weak" spot of Origin is Ultima. This is one product line
>along with its very loud fans that are constantly causing headache for the
>company. The dragons are notoriously hard to please and difficult to deal
>with. Maybe that's why Origin is so anxious to get rid of the grumpy old
>dragons and build up a new customer base that will be more appreciative.
To deal with?Who with the exception of Boomer and the VerY K3wL letter
of Eddy deals with us,if I might ask?BTW Did you read delCastillo´s
letter.You should.
>
>>BTW, there are plenty of successful niche products. Hell, Ultima is
>>probably one of the most successful niche products in history. CRPG's have
>>almost always been a niche market.
>
And that´s what they want to change by making it appeal to the masses.
>Speculation? Guesswork? Rumors? Or did Richard Garriott show up
>on your doorstep on one fine day and tell you he's going after the market
>trend?
No but he did show up with something called fans.txt.
>
>And you know everything about its stories and gameplay already? It's
>amazing how some people are asserting how the plots and gameplay in Ultima 9
>suck
>WHEN THE GAME IS NOT EVEN RELEASED YET!
No need to scream-there´s lots of info out there...
>
>And FYI, Ultima 6, the False Prophet, the one Ultima that many dragons feel
>has the best story in the series. Well, surprise! The game engine was
>designed first before the premise and story. The story was an afterthought
>that was tailored around the engine in order to show its capabilities. But
>it is one hell of game, isn't it? (It happens that I own a copy of The
>Official Book of Ultima.)
>
Guess what? You´re not the only one in here...
Filarion Dragon
A distant thunder told me that dare...@ozemail.com.au (Ethrian
Dragon) roaming the skies on Tue, 30 Jun 1998 06:37:15 GMT ,screamed
out::
>NOTE: As far as I know the FlameForm is a copyright of Money Dragon.
>
Thanks you saved the ever alert CinnaGuard,which is also dedicated to
the fight against trolls,a post.It is very rare that I have to thank
one of your kin,but
Thank you Ethrian :)
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Ethrian Dragon
Filarion Dragon
out::
>There should be an online form...
>
Now you know what he´s gonna do to you for that?
Filarion Dragon
out::
>>That indeed is a cheap copy of Money´s formidable weapon,QuickBon.
>>I suggest the two of you duel you....
>
>Enguarde ;)
>
>No, I've just had a go at U2... When I arrived at the newsgroup and
>saw everyone SPLUTing with things like the Pie of God I thought
>immediately of QuickSPLUT.
>In fact, when exactly was QuickBon invented? I invented QuickSPLUT
>about a month ago (I was also surprised nobody else had)
I don´t know exactly,you´ll have to wait for Money to answer that,but
I guess it´s about a month old,too.
But he wielded it in the NG first :)
I have to admit,though that I didn´t play U2 a very long time,so I
don´t get the reference...
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Ethrian Dragon
>-=============================(UDIC)==============================-
> -==[UnSPLUT]==- : Wielder of QuickSPLUT
Filarion Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
Money Dragon
The Akaishic Record shows that on Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:41:09 GMT,
lanc...@nospam.cyberec.net (CHAN Lancelot the Jedi) wrote:
>
>DOOMINATOR the DARK Knight
>Hong Kong DOOM2 Champion 1995
>dmds of Warbirds
>http://www.glink.net.hk/~lancelot
Dear
[x] Troll
[ ] Idiot
[x] Lamer
[ ] Fiend
[x] Waster of bandwidth
[x] Tool
[ ] WaReZdOOd
You are being flamed because
[ ] You are an AOLer
[ ] You posted in ALL CAPS
[ ] You posted a binary to this newsgroup
[ ] You started a flamewar
[x] You are a troll
[x] You quoted an entire message in your reply of 0 LINES
[x] your sig is longer than your response
[ ] You posted in eLiTe CaPs
[x] You suck
[ ] You posted the same message to many newsgroups
[ ] You are a spammer
[ ] You posted the same message a bunch of times
[ ] You posted a pyramid/GRQ to the newsgroup
[x] I just don't like you
To repent you must
[ ] Give up your AOL account
[ ] Buy a legitimate copy of all your pirated junk
[ ] Learn to turn off the CAPS LOCK before you type
[x] Go hide under a Bridge. If you do not have a bridge, we can sell
you one named Brooklyn
[ ] Type format c: /u/y at your nearest DOS prompt
[x] CC your post to F-15, and don't tell him you posted and mailed.
[x] Go find a hose
[x] Eat your modem
[x] Go back to your little Nintendo, assmunch.
[ ] Shove a metal key in your can and turn REAL hard
[ ] Give up your Newsreader
[x] Shove a Cinnabon into your computer. Without replacing the case,
ground yourself to the Power Supply and turn computer on
In closing, I would like to say
[ ] AOL sucks!
[x] The number of lines to your actual response, is equivalent to the
square of your IQ.
[ ] Buy your own software
[ ] CAPS LOCK! It's on the left!
[x] Die, spammer!
This flame is brought to you by the letters V and L, and by
--
Money Dragon
***Co-Founder of the CinnaGuard***
UDIC BLOCK CODE d++ e+ N+ T- Om++ U1!23!4!5!6!WA!7'!L!S'!8! u++
uC++++ uF+++ uLB++++ uA++++ nC+ nR----
nH nP+++ nI++ nPT nS++++ nT---- z+ a22
Viva DAMNSTOP
Money Dragon welcomes opposing viewpoints.
"Theodore....Simon....ALLLLVVVVIIIIINNNNNN!!!!!!!"
--Dave Seville, Chipmunks
And, I'm back 10-10
William Wueppelmann
In article <6n71o9$r17$1...@service3.uky.edu>, Chong Kuang-Ting wrote:
> Well, tough luck. That's not going to happen. Only one thing can happen if
> the new Ultima uses a so-called "improved" version of the old engine: new
> and younger gamers, which constitute an already and increasingly large and
> important portion of the market, will not even look at Ultima 9. Many old
> fans like myself will stay clear of it. And Ultima's customer base will
> shrink.
Origin build it reputation and fan base on quality games that were
well-thought out and fun to play, not on eye candy. It will be
interesting to see if they can establish and keep a fan base on less
substantial qualities, especially since they are venturing into an
area of gaming in which they have relatively little experience
compared to the Romeros and (non-draconian) Carmacks and the others
who are really good at designing and programming these kinds of games.
> While people can tolerate old games with old engines, very few
> people want to play a new game with outdated graphics and engine.
How few? I would play a new text adventure game if it were fun,
though I suspect I'm probably in a minority here.
> Without
> enough new customers in an increasingly competitive market, Ultima will
> slowly become a "niche" product and even die.
Ultima is already dead. Only the name remains.
> Also, Ascension wouldn't be
> an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge technology and undergo a major
> interface overhaul. This is an Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima
> tradition since Ultima 6.
Ultima VI didn't require cutting edge technology. It required CGA
(when VGA and, IIRC, even SVGA was available) graphics, an XT (just
before 486s became available), 640Kb RAM (when 1-2Mb was the standard
for a new machine) and a 3 1/2" floppy drive (when 80Mb hard drives
were available). To play it as it was intended required a 286/12ish,
a VGA adapter, 2 1/2Mb of hard disk space and an AdLib sound card.
This was hardly outlandish for the time, and was in the same league as
many other games of its day.
> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was making
> Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the direction the Ultima
> was heading at that time? Hell no. They would still complain. They would
> demand Ultima 6 to use the Ultima 5 engine, and Ultima 7 to use the Ultima 6
> engine.
I think you misunderstand. Few people think the U9 engine is bad per
se. The objections stem from the fact that this fancy engine delayed
production by two years, pushed the system requirements up by a factor
of about 5 and forced numerous rewrites of the story and changes both
to the plot and the fundamental character of the game and the series
to accommodate. We'd all be very pleased if we could have gotten the
U9 GAME we were promised that would run on a P90 and still had this
nifty new engine.
> But of course, very few people have access to the internet by then,
> and they are sensible people--scientists, engineers, doctors, professors,
> and the elites of the societies, and not just any moron could log on to the
> internet, so Origin and Richard Garriott can follow their own heart and do
> what they please with THEIR game.
Are you implying that we who have voiced our opposition to the
development of Ultima IX are morons?
Excuse me, I must go drool uncontrollably now.
> Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
> thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use to
> control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with its
> products. When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
> and whine. Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They are,
> therefore, THE classics.
And are not a part of the Ultima 'tradition' you described above, as
you also mentioned above. So now you admit that the classic Ultimas
did not depend on these technological toys that are to be the mainstay
of U:A.
> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard Garriott.
Aye, that is indeed a fact. I confirmed it in the new Encyclopaedia
Britannica.
> The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very little whether
> the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their limited vision,
> which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
> Garriott invented Ultima and not them),
No, that is not why at all.
> they don't really care if the game
> will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
> gamers.
Indeed. I don't care how commercially successful ANY of the products
I use are. I care only about how much value I get from them. Does
that surprise you?
> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series)
(we all know who Richard Garriott is and what he did)
> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and suggestions
> from outsiders through the internet and then create a game that represents
> the compromise of other people's ideas. Good artists are creative (and
> eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
> please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
But you have throughout your entire essay tried to argue that
commercial success is the hallmark of a good Ultima. But why should
any of us care if Ultima is successful commercially if we don't want
to play it? Are you suggesting we should stop complaining and play
the game even if we don't like it for some Greater Good, such as the
filling of EA's coffers?
--
The Silly Dragon | It is pitch black. You are likely to receive spam
-=(UDIC)=- | from a grue.
Ophidian Dragon
Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in article
<6n9jb3$8kd$1...@service3.uky.edu>...
>
> I have NEVER said that Origin should sell out to anyone or anything. It
is
> in your opinion that Origin is selling out. Only people like you are
always
> accusing others of "selling out" whenever things go against their wish.
So
> if Origin makes the game you want it to, it wouldn't be selling out then?
Origin has stated rather explicitely that Ultima is moving away from the
old-style RPG. It's moving away from its roots in order to appeal to a
audience that is generally too stupid to like the real game. They would
only do that because of money, thereby selling out.
> So it comes down to this: what Origin does is its damn business, not
yours
> or mine.
A successful company is very good at making its buisness other people's
buisness.
>Origin can do whatever with the game if it wants to. And it
> should. Just because it doesn't do something the way you want it to
doesn't
> means it is selling out. IF Origin changes its design decision because
of
> your complains and because it has to have your business, then it will be
> selling out--to you.
Ultima 9 probably would not make as much money if it followed our
suggestions, therefore it would not be selling out. What you need to
realize is that we for the most part are the traditional audience. We used
to be the only people who played games. But now we are a niche market
because today every idiot can get a computer and ogle at Lara Croft's big
breasts.
> My point is that Origin does not "owe" it to anyone to create a game he
or
> she wants to play. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else. When the game
comes
> out and if you doesn't like it, then don't buy it, don't play it. I
> certainly won't if it doesn't suit me.
>
> Let say Origin does "owe it to us." Us. You and me. What if I want a
Tomb
> Raider Ultima but you want a different Ultima? Should Origin try to
satisfy
> you or me? Why is your want more important than mine? Because you are
more
> important than me? Or because the world revolves around you?
It's pretty simple, if that's the case. Origin can make a "Stupid People's
Ultima" with a TR clone engine, and then make U9 as a true game.
> And don't ASSUME what you want is what everyone else including the folks
at
> Origins wants. Do you know what Richard Garriott or any other designer
> really wants for Ascension? Do you? So I suppose people just ASSUME that
> Richard Garriott wants exactly what they want but not doing what he wants
> because he is selling out to EA. For all we know, Origin could be making
> what it wants to make but somehow it doesn't coincide with what you want
> Origin to make. So, "Origin sells out!"
Uhh, actually I think mot of us believe Richard's been stuck up in an
executive office too long and has lost sight of his vision.
> I was surprised by so many people are using this paranoid "selling out"
and
> "corporation conspiracy" craps like they are sooo sure these things are
> actually going on. But no one--not one single soul--really have any
insider
> information on what is really going on.
We can assume based on evidence. The designers who left OSI told us some
stuff. We can learn a lot from the PR guys who can't keep from walking on
each other's toes. We also learn a lot from Catillo's rather explicit
statements that U9 is intended to be an action-adventure, not an RPG.
>
> THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE ARE WHINING IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET WHAT >THEY
WANT.
From that statement, it's safe to infer that you don't know what we want.
-Ophidian Dragon
TheAvatar
"To me, Ultima isn't just a collection of quests to solve, but an
entire world in its own right, with new people, places and experiences
around every corner . . . a detailed living environment where the
game's story seems natural and involving, never artificially contrived
or out of place"
I didn't say that. Richard Garriot said it. I got it straight out of
the 1989 Origin Product Catalog (page 3 :)
Ultima used to be about stories and complete worlds. Graphics were
never the primary issue. Compare Ultima V to one of its
contemporaries, such as Dragon Wars... Ultima looks rather shoddy. But
it was a FANTASTIC game to play.
Origin seems to have lost this ideal. It is now more about eye candy
than decent plot and "an entire world in its own right". Ultima fans
seem to feel betrayed by this reversal, especially following U8 and
the subsequent FANS.TXT letter that promised a return to all that made
Ultima great.
Does Origin _owe_ its fans anything? Technically, no. Its their
company, its their product. They can make Ultima 9 a Doom-Clone if
they want to (its almost there anyway :). The problem is, they are
depending on the loyalty of their Ultima fans to not only bring them
sales, but also bring new fans to the Ultima series ("Hey man, I
played U7... its so cool, ya gotta try this out!"). They know that the
Ultima name is a powerful lure. To use it so shamefully is the
sell-out (again, especially after Garriot's promises in FANS.TXT,
which probably kept many Ultima fans around even after the disaster
that was U8)
Or so it seems to me, anyway.
cor...@chesco.com
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:02:56 GMT, cdan...@ameritech.net (Money Dragon)
wrote:
>The Akaishic Record shows that on Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:41:09 GMT,
>lanc...@nospam.cyberec.net (CHAN Lancelot the Jedi) wrote:
>
>Dear
>
>[x] Troll
You obviously dont realize what a troll is, please delete this stupid
form letter from your harddrive.
>[x] Waster of bandwidth
Hmm I think you qualify also (and before you say it, me also)
>You are being flamed because
>
>[x] You are a troll
as above
>[x] You quoted an entire message in your reply of 0 LINES
He had 1 line
>[x] your sig is longer than your response
And your sig is longer then 4 lines.
>
>To repent you must
>
>[x] Go back to your little Nintendo, assmunch.
I wonder if ameritech has rules against profanity, I betcha :)
>In closing, I would like to say
>
>[ ] AOL sucks!
>[x] The number of lines to your actual response, is equivalent to the
>square of your IQ.
>[ ] Buy your own software
>[ ] CAPS LOCK! It's on the left!
>[x] Die, spammer!
>
You also don't understand what a spammer is, you shouldnt talk about IQ.
John Crothers
cor...@chesco.com
Chong Kuang-Ting
Ophidian Dragon wrote in message <01bda318$8bc184e0$59bedfcf@widdershins>...
>
> Ultima is dead no matter what, in your case. Frankly I'd rather
> Origin quit while they are still ahead.
Huh? How is Ultima "dead"? Ultima Online may not suit the taste of die-hard
fans, it IS a financial success and the cutting-edge in online gaming
technology.
FYI, Origin IS among the chief leaders in the industry. Just look at
its current product lines--Wing Commander, Crusader, Longbow, and Ultima.
Origin is a SOLID company that makes successful products--products that win
praises and sales.
In fact, the only "weak" spot of Origin is Ultima. This is one product line
along with its very loud fans that are constantly causing headache for the
company. The dragons are notoriously hard to please and difficult to deal
with. Maybe that's why Origin is so anxious to get rid of the grumpy old
dragons and build up a new customer base that will be more appreciative.
>BTW, there are plenty of successful niche products. Hell, Ultima is
>probably one of the most successful niche products in history. CRPG's have
>almost always been a niche market.
Back in the 80's and earlier 90's, CRPGs and adventure games are definitely
not niche. In the 80's, those two genres set the trends of the period.
Since then, time has changed. The market has also changed. So must Ultima
if it wants to survive in this new market.
>They're not following their own heart and ideas, they're following the
>market trends.
And how in the hell do you know that?!
Speculation? Guesswork? Rumors? Or did Richard Garriott show up
on your doorstep on one fine day and tell you he's going after the market
trend?
Most of thing we've known so far is from accusations being fired at Origin.
> And, even if Castillo is following his own ideas, his own ideas
> don't count for much because he's a real-time action/strategy game
> writer, not a RPG guy.
So you don't know if Origin is following its own heart and ideas or not.
And I supposed it is up to you to dictate whose ideas count and whose not?
As for whether this Castillo guy is good for Ultima, we'll just have to wait
and see.
>Richard Garriot actually listened to what the customers said back then.
>Look up the Compuserve chat logs that I posted a long time ago--He's held
>chats online since U4. Rather, he used to. Garriot hasn't done much
>lately AFAIK.
Geez. You post at least half a dozen messages everyday. From how to court
a dauphin to how your first date went (HOW CAN ANYONE POST THIS KIND OF
THINGS ON THE USENET?!). I certainly have not interest in keeping up with
your
messages everyday.
>Someone needs to read his history. Ultima 4 was created because the
>feedback to U3 was what it was--After reading the letters, Richard decided
>to put something good into the game when he realized how starved people
>were for creative imagery and symbolism. Unlike today, Ultima was a leader
>in its industry--It created complex games when most others were just arcade
>knockoffs. Now Origin's into making another prettier Tomb Raider than
>trying to revitalize the industry with a truly revolutionary game.
He read the feedback and he realized. It's sort of like a
self-actualization process. No one is yelling at him and telling him what
to do.
>A series would be better off dead if it does not stay true to its roots.
>Kinda like
>"Star Trek: The Soap Opera".
No idea. Not a fan of Star Trek.
>Ultima does not need Origin or Garriot anymore. Ultima was what made
>Origin in the first place, and the Underworlds and my personal favorite,
>Serpent Isle, were made without Garriot's real involvement. Frankly, I
>think Garriot's gotten too comfortable behind his nice mohogany desk and is
>too cozy in the ass-crease he's built into his executive chair to remember
>what designing games is about.
Yeah, but Ultima needs you, desperately.
>I would think Origin would have respect for the people that made their damn
>company. At the moment, I wouldn't care if OSI crashed and burned. In
>fact, it might be nice--then the Ultima license could be sold to someone
>who's willing to not follow some bean-counter's idea marketing trends, but
>rather make the series worthwhile and mean something.
Whatever. But if OSI really crashes and burns, we'll know who to look for,
won't we? :)
>Exactly. Wish Origin would listen to that instead of following the
>big-action, full-speech, 3D graphix, 'RPG-lite' syndrome that's infected
>the industry. Ultima 9 is the least creative endeavor Origin has embarked
I thought that Ascension is the most risky and daring endeavor in the
Ultima history. Despite all the objections and angry voices, Origin still
continues to go against to will of its existing customers and heads into a
new direction.
>upon yet. It's not led by a "vision". It's a part of a marketing strategy
>intended to target the 16-25 gamer demographic, who typically play games
>like Tomb Raider and Quake, have an appeal for eye-candy and no interest in
>complex stories. The design proccess is geared to 'designing what the
>target demographic wants to buy.'
And you know everything about its stories and gameplay already? It's
amazing how some people are asserting how the plots and gameplay in Ultima 9
suck
WHEN THE GAME IS NOT EVEN RELEASED YET!
And FYI, Ultima 6, the False Prophet, the one Ultima that many dragons feel
Ethrian Dragon
>Ultima Online may not suit the taste of die-hard
>fans, it IS a financial success and the cutting-edge in online gaming
>technology.
The only reason UO was a financial success is because people signed up
and payed the reg fee (and the game costs). Say someone released a new
sort of mint: a million people buy it but they all hate it. At 3 bucks
a pack they've made $3 million.
It's not on the cutting edge of technology; the cutting edge is a game
where you can move two steps in LESS than an hour.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ethrian Dragon
-=============================(UDIC)==============================-
-==[UnSPLUT]==- : Wielder of QuickSPLUT
Unofficial Word of Power Mastermind
My Web Page: http://www.ozemail.com/~daredevil/
"Make something idiot proof and someone will invent a better idiot..." - Sigmund Freud
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ethrian Dragon
>Dear
>
>[x] Troll
>[ ] Idiot
>[x] Lamer
>[ ] Fiend
>[x] Waster of bandwidth
>[x] Tool
>[ ] WaReZdOOd
>
>
>
>[ ] You posted in ALL CAPS
>[ ] You posted a binary to this newsgroup
>[ ] You started a flamewar
>[x] You suck
>[ ] You posted the same message to many newsgroups
>[ ] You are a spammer
>[ ] You posted the same message a bunch of times
>[ ] You posted a pyramid/GRQ to the newsgroup
>[x] I just don't like you
>
>To repent you must
>
>[ ] Give up your AOL account
>[ ] Buy a legitimate copy of all your pirated junk
>[ ] Learn to turn off the CAPS LOCK before you type
>[x] Go hide under a Bridge. If you do not have a bridge, we can sell
>you one named Brooklyn
>[ ] Type format c: /u/y at your nearest DOS prompt
>[x] CC your post to F-15, and don't tell him you posted and mailed.
>[x] Go find a hose
>[x] Eat your modem
>[ ] Give up your Newsreader
>[x] Shove a Cinnabon into your computer. Without replacing the case,
>ground yourself to the Power Supply and turn computer on
>
>
>[ ] AOL sucks!
>[x] The number of lines to your actual response, is equivalent to the
>square of your IQ.
>[ ] Buy your own software
>[ ] CAPS LOCK! It's on the left!
>[x] Die, spammer!
There should be an online form...
CHAN Lancelot the Jedi
Agree, I can take on U6 engine for all the upcoming RPGs too
haha. RPG is storytelling, Roleplaying, engine doesn't matter if it
serves the purpose. RPG doesn't mainly based on technological
improvement in order to increase it's playability.
>
>> While people can tolerate old games with old engines, very few
>> people want to play a new game with outdated graphics and engine.
>
>How few? I would play a new text adventure game if it were fun,
>though I suspect I'm probably in a minority here.
>
>> Without
>> enough new customers in an increasingly competitive market, Ultima will
>> slowly become a "niche" product and even die.
>
>Ultima is already dead. Only the name remains.
>
Same here.
>> Also, Ascension wouldn't be
>> an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge technology and undergo a major
>> interface overhaul. This is an Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima
>> tradition since Ultima 6.
I LOVE ULTIMA 6 the most. hehehehe.
>
>Ultima VI didn't require cutting edge technology. It required CGA
>(when VGA and, IIRC, even SVGA was available) graphics, an XT (just
>before 486s became available), 640Kb RAM (when 1-2Mb was the standard
>for a new machine) and a 3 1/2" floppy drive (when 80Mb hard drives
>were available). To play it as it was intended required a 286/12ish,
>a VGA adapter, 2 1/2Mb of hard disk space and an AdLib sound card.
>This was hardly outlandish for the time, and was in the same league as
>many other games of its day.
>
Hhahhaha. Who cares if the company survives or not. If it want
to survives, it better gives me the value which I demanded for. :)
>Indeed. I don't care how commercially successful ANY of the products
>I use are. I care only about how much value I get from them. Does
>that surprise you?
>
Not a dragon.
Chong Kuang-Ting
This is a bloody long message...
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>
> Ultima Online. Whether we like it or not, those 'outdated' graphics
> are a financial success for Origin.
UO graphics outdated?!
>> Also, Ascension wouldn't be an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge
>> technology and undergo a major interface overhaul. This is an
>> Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima tradition since Ultima 6.
>
> Ultima I, ][, III, IV, and V. In other words, it is a recent
>addition. :)
Oh yeah, a decade ago is "recent" especially in the software industry.
>> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was
>> making Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the
>> direction the Ultima was heading at that time? Hell no.
>
> Proof, please, or is this just your opinion?
Didn't you see the "if" that heads the paragraph? Do you know what "if"
means?
And I can speak my opinion, can't I? (If you think I can't, there's sure
nothing you can do about it.) You certainly haven't been modest with your
opinions.
Just look at what how the Usenet masses are reacting to Ultima 9 now. I see
nothing but angry mob like you demanding Origin to do this, do that or else.
Now it isn't so hard to see the hypothetical situation.
> Ah, I see you've met few "scientists, engineers, doctors, professors"
>as they are just as human as everyone else.
>
> I'll leave the "elites of the societies" statement for more
>inflammatory individuals. ;)
Whatever. And yes, this is MY opinion. MY opinion is that "scientists,
engineers, doctors, professors" are among the "elites of the societies," and
criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and kids running around the school yards
with guns are certainly not. So you're not happy with MY opinion? Tough
luck.
I'm against guns, BTW. You don't like this particular opinion of mine, do
you? Well, tough luck again 'cause that's MY opinion.
>> Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
>> thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use
>> to control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with
>> its products.
>
> Really? You know "absolutely" what each and every old Ultima thinks
>and wants?
Did I know absolutely? NO.
Can I read what in the dragon and RPG newsgroups, detect what's going on,
form opinions from all that I've read, and speak 'em out? YES.
>> When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
>> and whine.
>
> Of course, to make this statement you need to sweep all of Origin's
>broken promises made after Ultima VIII under the carpet. Plus you need to
>ignore what everyone is *actually* saying and just rail against your
>strawman.
I didn't ignore what everyone is saying on the net. I'm just disagreeing
with them because I prefer to wait and see the final **proof**--the actual
game itself. What I'm seeing is that people are complaining because Origin
is not giving in to what they want.
>> Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
>> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They
are,
>> therefore, THE classics.
>
> Proof, please.
And your counterproof?
>> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard
>> Garriott. The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very
>> little whether the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their
>> limited vision,
>
> Yes, I guess it is limited to ask Origin to surpass the high water
>mark achieved with Ultima VII. Hmm, I guess a focus on excellence is
>limited in your little world.
Limited because all they want is the same thing all over again but with some
minor improvements. Limited because they are afraid of change and they see
that change must be bad. Limited because they believe "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it" instead of "even if it ain't broke, find better ways to do
it." Limited because they see the future merely as an extension of the past
and present and not as an wholy new, unpredictable, and exciting dimension.
A focus on excellence doesn't mean doing the same thing all over again with
just "improvements." Your focus on excellence seems like nothing more than
doing more of the same. Thankfully you're not making Ultima 9.
>> which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
>> Garriott invented Ultima and not them),
>
> You really don't know how Ultima started do you?
>
>> they don't really care if the game
>> will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
>> gamers.
>
> Stupid. Of course the fans want the games to be successful, to sell.
>They just don't want Ultima to sell out.
Oh no. Not this "Origin sells out" rhetoric again. I don't even want to
bother with one. If you want to see my take on this one, see my other
messages.
>> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series)
>> own the Ultima license.
>
> Origin and Electronic Arts own Ultima. Richard Garriott owns nothing
> except the Lord British trademark. A passing familiarity with facts would
> immeasurably help your arguments.
You understand damn well what what I was saying. But since you're enjoy
nitpicking so much...okay, so it's in Origin's and Electornic Arts' best
interest to make a good game out of the license and expensive piece of
money-making property. And it's certainly in Garriott's interest to make a
good Ultima.
>> It is their property. It is their money-making asset.
>> To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a
>> way of life than just some license.
>
> Then he sold his first born into corporate slavery.
Great. Another corporate hater. Yeah, I know. "Corporate is bad and
capitalism is evil because they fail to serve ME!" Yet another "corporate
conspiracy" theory.
>> It is in their best interest to make sure the game is good and appealing
>> to not just to some niche market but to the mass market so that the
>> license attracts new and more customers, builds up more fans,
>> become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it means
>> sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past
>> because of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
>
> Translation: I don't care if Origin destroys what made Ultima great
>so long as I get a game with the name Ultima on it. I'm such a zombie I'll
>buy anything Ultima.
Wrong translation.
I certainly don't know if Origin is "destroying(?)" Ultima, or what made
Ultima great, or if Origin will destory what made Ultima great. I suppose
you must think you can say for sure Origin is destroying the game, and you
know exactly what made Ultima great for everyone, and what you know must be
the truth and not just some opinion. Well, I do share your opinion.
Who say I'm going to buy every Ultima? I've never looked at Ultima Online
again after the beta test because it's not my type of game.
>> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
>> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and
>> suggestions from outsiders through the internet and then create a
>> game that represents the compromise of other people's ideas.
>
> Then Ultima was never creative. For example, the entire party system
> was added in U3 to keep up with Wizardry (Official Book of Ultima).
Ho! Now your are talking. Yeap, U3 was keeping up with the market. And
thankfully it was doing so.
It's up to Origin to decide what it wants to listen and follow, and what it
doesn't wants to listen and follow. I don't see any good in flaming the
company and defaming its personnel.
>> Good artists are creative (and
>> eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
>> please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
>
> Go read The Agony and The Ecstasy.
Not that I like to use the "creative" arguement. But so many people want
others to believe that someone is being "creative" (or more so) if it just
listen to them (?!). What a joke.
Go read A Director's Journey.
Chong Kuang-Ting
This is a bloody long message...
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>
> Ultima Online. Whether we like it or not, those 'outdated' graphics
> are a financial success for Origin.
UO graphics outdated?!
>> Also, Ascension wouldn't be an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge
>> technology and undergo a major interface overhaul. This is an
>> Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima tradition since Ultima 6.
>
> Ultima I, ][, III, IV, and V. In other words, it is a recent
>addition. :)
Oh yeah, a decade ago is "recent" especially in the software industry.
>> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was
>> making Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the
>> direction the Ultima was heading at that time? Hell no.
>
> Proof, please, or is this just your opinion?
Didn't you see the "if" that heads the paragraph? Do you know what "if"
means?
And I can speak my opinion, can't I? (If you think I can't, there's sure
nothing you can do about it.) You certainly haven't been modest with your
opinions.
Just look at what how the Usenet masses are reacting to Ultima 9 now. I see
nothing but angry mob like you demanding Origin to do this, do that or else.
Now it isn't so hard to see the hypothetical situation.
> Ah, I see you've met few "scientists, engineers, doctors, professors"
>as they are just as human as everyone else.
>
> I'll leave the "elites of the societies" statement for more
>inflammatory individuals. ;)
Whatever. And yes, this is MY opinion. MY opinion is that "scientists,
engineers, doctors, professors" are among the "elites of the societies," and
criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and kids running around the school yards
with guns are certainly not. So you're not happy with MY opinion? Tough
luck.
I'm against guns, BTW. You don't like this particular opinion of mine, do
you? Well, tough luck again 'cause that's MY opinion.
>> Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
>> thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use
>> to control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with
>> its products.
>
> Really? You know "absolutely" what each and every old Ultima thinks
>and wants?
Did I know absolutely? NO.
Can I read what in the dragon and RPG newsgroups, detect what's going on,
form opinions from all that I've read, and speak 'em out? YES.
>> When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
>> and whine.
>
> Of course, to make this statement you need to sweep all of Origin's
>broken promises made after Ultima VIII under the carpet. Plus you need to
>ignore what everyone is *actually* saying and just rail against your
>strawman.
I didn't ignore what everyone is saying on the net. I'm just disagreeing
with them because I prefer to wait and see the final **proof**--the actual
game itself. What I'm seeing is that people are complaining because Origin
is not giving in to what they want.
>> Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
>> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They
are,
>> therefore, THE classics.
>
> Proof, please.
And your counterproof?
>> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard
>> Garriott. The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very
>> little whether the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their
>> limited vision,
>
> Yes, I guess it is limited to ask Origin to surpass the high water
>mark achieved with Ultima VII. Hmm, I guess a focus on excellence is
>limited in your little world.
Limited because all they want is the same thing all over again but with some
minor improvements. Limited because they are afraid of change and they see
that change must be bad. Limited because they believe "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it" instead of "even if it ain't broke, find better ways to do
it." Limited because they see the future merely as an extension of the past
and present and not as an wholy new, unpredictable, and exciting dimension.
A focus on excellence doesn't mean doing the same thing all over again with
just "improvements." Your focus on excellence seems like nothing more than
doing more of the same. Thankfully you're not making Ultima 9.
>> which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
>> Garriott invented Ultima and not them),
>
> You really don't know how Ultima started do you?
>
>> they don't really care if the game
>> will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
>> gamers.
>
> Stupid. Of course the fans want the games to be successful, to sell.
>They just don't want Ultima to sell out.
Oh no. Not this "Origin sells out" rhetoric again. I don't even want to
bother with one. If you want to see my take on this one, see my other
messages.
>> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series)
>> own the Ultima license.
>
> Origin and Electronic Arts own Ultima. Richard Garriott owns nothing
> except the Lord British trademark. A passing familiarity with facts would
> immeasurably help your arguments.
You understand damn well what what I was saying. But since you're enjoy
nitpicking so much...okay, so it's in Origin's and Electornic Arts' best
interest to make a good game out of the license and expensive piece of
money-making property. And it's certainly in Garriott's interest to make a
good Ultima.
>> It is their property. It is their money-making asset.
>> To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a
>> way of life than just some license.
>
> Then he sold his first born into corporate slavery.
Great. Another corporate hater. Yeah, I know. "Corporate is bad and
capitalism is evil because they fail to serve ME!" Yet another "corporate
conspiracy" theory.
>> It is in their best interest to make sure the game is good and appealing
>> to not just to some niche market but to the mass market so that the
>> license attracts new and more customers, builds up more fans,
>> become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it means
>> sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past
>> because of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
>
> Translation: I don't care if Origin destroys what made Ultima great
>so long as I get a game with the name Ultima on it. I'm such a zombie I'll
>buy anything Ultima.
Wrong translation.
I certainly don't know if Origin is "destroying(?)" Ultima, or what made
Ultima great, or if Origin will destory what made Ultima great. I suppose
you must think you can say for sure Origin is destroying the game, and you
know exactly what made Ultima great for everyone, and what you know must be
the truth and not just some opinion. Well, I do share your opinion.
Who say I'm going to buy every Ultima? I've never looked at Ultima Online
again after the beta test because it's not my type of game.
>> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
>> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and
>> suggestions from outsiders through the internet and then create a
>> game that represents the compromise of other people's ideas.
>
> Then Ultima was never creative. For example, the entire party system
> was added in U3 to keep up with Wizardry (Official Book of Ultima).
Ho! Now your are talking. Yeap, U3 was keeping up with the market. And
thankfully it was doing so.
It's up to Origin to decide what it wants to listen and follow, and what it
doesn't wants to listen and follow. I don't see any good in flaming the
company and defaming its personnel.
>> Good artists are creative (and
>> eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
>> please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
>
> Go read The Agony and The Ecstasy.
Not that I like to use the "creative" arguement. But so many people want
Chong Kuang-Ting
This is a bloody long message...
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>
> Ultima Online. Whether we like it or not, those 'outdated' graphics
> are a financial success for Origin.
UO graphics outdated?!
>> Also, Ascension wouldn't be an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge
>> technology and undergo a major interface overhaul. This is an
>> Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima tradition since Ultima 6.
>
> Ultima I, ][, III, IV, and V. In other words, it is a recent
>addition. :)
Oh yeah, a decade ago is "recent" especially in the software industry.
>> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was
>> making Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the
>> direction the Ultima was heading at that time? Hell no.
>
> Proof, please, or is this just your opinion?
Didn't you see the "if" that heads the paragraph? Do you know what "if"
means?
And I can speak my opinion, can't I? (If you think I can't, there's sure
nothing you can do about it.) You certainly haven't been modest with your
opinions. Just look at what how most people are reacting to Ultima 9 now.
I see nothing but angry mob who demands everything to stay the same as
before.
> Ah, I see you've met few "scientists, engineers, doctors, professors"
>as they are just as human as everyone else.
>
> I'll leave the "elites of the societies" statement for more
>inflammatory individuals. ;)
Whatever. And yes, this is MY opinion. MY opinion is that "scientists,
engineers, doctors, professors" are among the "elites of the societies," and
criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and kids running around the school yards
with guns are certainly not. So you're not happy with MY opinion? Tough
luck.
I'm against guns, BTW. You don't like this particular opinion of mine, do
you? Well, tough luck again 'cause that's MY opinion.
>> Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
>> thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use
>> to control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with
>> its products.
>
> Really? You know "absolutely" what each and every old Ultima thinks
>and wants?
Did I know absolutely? NO.
Can I read what in the dragon and RPG newsgroups, detect what's going on,
form opinions from all that I've read, and speak 'em out? YES.
>> When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
>> and whine.
>
> Of course, to make this statement you need to sweep all of Origin's
>broken promises made after Ultima VIII under the carpet. Plus you need to
>ignore what everyone is *actually* saying and just rail against your
>strawman.
I didn't ignore what everyone is saying on the net. I'm just disagreeing
with them because I prefer to wait and see the final **proof**--the actual
game itself. What I'm seeing is that people are complaining because Origin
is not giving in to what they want.
>> Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
>> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They
are,
>> therefore, THE classics.
>
> Proof, please.
And your counterproof?
>> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard
>> Garriott. The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very
>> little whether the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their
>> limited vision,
>
> Yes, I guess it is limited to ask Origin to surpass the high water
>mark achieved with Ultima VII. Hmm, I guess a focus on excellence is
>limited in your little world.
Limited because all they want is the same thing all over again but with some
minor improvements. Limited because they are afraid of change and they see
that change must be bad. Limited because they believe "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it" instead of "even if it ain't broke, find better ways to do
it." Limited because they see the future merely as an extension of the past
and present and not as an wholy new, unpredictable, and exciting dimension.
A focus on excellence doesn't mean doing the same thing all over again with
just "improvements." Your focus on excellence seems like nothing more than
doing more of the same. Thankfully you're not making Ultima 9.
>> which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
>> Garriott invented Ultima and not them),
>
> You really don't know how Ultima started do you?
>
>> they don't really care if the game
>> will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
>> gamers.
>
> Stupid. Of course the fans want the games to be successful, to sell.
>They just don't want Ultima to sell out.
Oh no. Not this "Origin sells out" rhetoric again. I don't even want to
bother with one. If you want to see my take on this one, see my other
messages.
>> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series)
>> own the Ultima license.
>
> Origin and Electronic Arts own Ultima. Richard Garriott owns nothing
> except the Lord British trademark. A passing familiarity with facts would
> immeasurably help your arguments.
You understand damn well what what I was saying. But since you're enjoy
nitpicking so much...okay, so it's in Origin's and Electornic Arts' best
interest to make a good game out of the license and expensive piece of
money-making property. And it's certainly in Garriott's interest to make a
good Ultima.
>> It is their property. It is their money-making asset.
>> To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a
>> way of life than just some license.
>
> Then he sold his first born into corporate slavery.
Great. Another corporate hater. Yeah, I know. "Corporate is bad and
capitalism is evil because they fail to serve ME!" Yet another "corporate
conspiracy" theory.
>> It is in their best interest to make sure the game is good and appealing
>> to not just to some niche market but to the mass market so that the
>> license attracts new and more customers, builds up more fans,
>> become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it means
>> sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past
>> because of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
>
> Translation: I don't care if Origin destroys what made Ultima great
>so long as I get a game with the name Ultima on it. I'm such a zombie I'll
>buy anything Ultima.
Wrong translation.
I certainly don't know if Origin is "destroying(?)" Ultima, or what made
Ultima great, or if Origin will destory what made Ultima great. I suppose
you must think you can say for sure Origin is destroying the game, and you
know exactly what made Ultima great for everyone, and what you know must be
the truth and not just some opinion. Well, I do share your opinion.
Who say I'm going to buy every Ultima? I've never looked at Ultima Online
again after the beta test because it's not my type of game.
>> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
>> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and
>> suggestions from outsiders through the internet and then create a
>> game that represents the compromise of other people's ideas.
>
> Then Ultima was never creative. For example, the entire party system
> was added in U3 to keep up with Wizardry (Official Book of Ultima).
Ho! Now your are talking. Yeap, U3 was keeping up with the market. And
thankfully it was doing so.
It's up to Origin to decide what it wants to listen and follow, and what it
doesn't wants to listen and follow. I don't see any good in flaming the
company and defaming its personnel.
>> Good artists are creative (and
>> eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
>> please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
>
> Go read The Agony and The Ecstasy.
Not that I like to use the "creative" arguement. But so many people want
Chong Kuang-Ting
This is a bloody long message...
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>
> Ultima Online. Whether we like it or not, those 'outdated' graphics
> are a financial success for Origin.
UO graphics outdated?!
>> Also, Ascension wouldn't be an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge
>> technology and undergo a major interface overhaul. This is an
>> Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima tradition since Ultima 6.
>
> Ultima I, ][, III, IV, and V. In other words, it is a recent
>addition. :)
Oh yeah, a decade ago is "recent" especially in the software industry.
>> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was
>> making Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the
>> direction the Ultima was heading at that time? Hell no.
>
> Proof, please, or is this just your opinion?
Didn't you see the "if" that heads the paragraph? Do you know what "if"
means?
And I can speak my opinion, can't I? (If you think I can't, there's sure
nothing you can do about it.) You certainly haven't been modest with your
opinions.
Just look at what how the Usenet masses are reacting to Ultima 9 now. I see
nothing but angry mob like you demanding Origin to do this, do that or else.
Now it isn't so hard to see the hypothetical situation.
> Ah, I see you've met few "scientists, engineers, doctors, professors"
>as they are just as human as everyone else.
>
> I'll leave the "elites of the societies" statement for more
>inflammatory individuals. ;)
Whatever. And yes, this is MY opinion. MY opinion is that "scientists,
engineers, doctors, professors" are among the "elites of the societies," and
criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and kids running around the school yards
with guns are certainly not. So you're not happy with MY opinion? Tough
luck.
I'm against guns, BTW. You don't like this particular opinion of mine, do
you? Well, tough luck again 'cause that's MY opinion.
>> Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
>> thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use
>> to control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with
>> its products.
>
> Really? You know "absolutely" what each and every old Ultima thinks
>and wants?
Did I know absolutely? NO.
Can I read what in the dragon and RPG newsgroups, detect what's going on,
form opinions from all that I've read, and speak 'em out? YES.
>> When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
>> and whine.
>
> Of course, to make this statement you need to sweep all of Origin's
>broken promises made after Ultima VIII under the carpet. Plus you need to
>ignore what everyone is *actually* saying and just rail against your
>strawman.
I didn't ignore what everyone is saying on the net. I'm just disagreeing
with them because I prefer to wait and see the final **proof**--the actual
game itself. What I'm seeing is that people are complaining because Origin
is not giving in to what they want.
>> Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
>> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They
are,
>> therefore, THE classics.
>
> Proof, please.
And your counterproof?
>> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard
>> Garriott. The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very
>> little whether the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their
>> limited vision,
>
> Yes, I guess it is limited to ask Origin to surpass the high water
>mark achieved with Ultima VII. Hmm, I guess a focus on excellence is
>limited in your little world.
Limited because all they want is the same thing all over again but with some
minor improvements. Limited because they are afraid of change and they see
that change must be bad. Limited because they believe "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it" instead of "even if it ain't broke, find better ways to do
it." Limited because they see the future merely as an extension of the past
and present and not as an wholy new, unpredictable, and exciting dimension.
A focus on excellence doesn't mean doing the same thing all over again with
just "improvements." Your focus on excellence seems like nothing more than
doing more of the same. Thankfully you're not making Ultima 9.
>> which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
>> Garriott invented Ultima and not them),
>
> You really don't know how Ultima started do you?
>
>> they don't really care if the game
>> will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
>> gamers.
>
> Stupid. Of course the fans want the games to be successful, to sell.
>They just don't want Ultima to sell out.
Oh no. Not this "Origin sells out" rhetoric again. I don't even want to
bother with one. If you want to see my take on this one, see my other
messages.
>> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series)
>> own the Ultima license.
>
> Origin and Electronic Arts own Ultima. Richard Garriott owns nothing
> except the Lord British trademark. A passing familiarity with facts would
> immeasurably help your arguments.
You understand damn well what what I was saying. But since you're enjoy
nitpicking so much...okay, so it's in Origin's and Electornic Arts' best
interest to make a good game out of the license and expensive piece of
money-making property. And it's certainly in Garriott's interest to make a
good Ultima.
>> It is their property. It is their money-making asset.
>> To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a
>> way of life than just some license.
>
> Then he sold his first born into corporate slavery.
Great. Another corporate hater. Yeah, I know. "Corporate is bad and
capitalism is evil because they fail to serve ME!" Yet another "corporate
conspiracy" theory.
>> It is in their best interest to make sure the game is good and appealing
>> to not just to some niche market but to the mass market so that the
>> license attracts new and more customers, builds up more fans,
>> become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it means
>> sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past
>> because of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
>
> Translation: I don't care if Origin destroys what made Ultima great
>so long as I get a game with the name Ultima on it. I'm such a zombie I'll
>buy anything Ultima.
Wrong translation.
I certainly don't know if Origin is "destroying(?)" Ultima, or what made
Ultima great, or if Origin will destory what made Ultima great. I suppose
you must think you can say for sure Origin is destroying the game, and you
know exactly what made Ultima great for everyone, and what you know must be
the truth and not just some opinion. Well, I do share your opinion.
Who say I'm going to buy every Ultima? I've never looked at Ultima Online
again after the beta test because it's not my type of game.
>> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
>> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and
>> suggestions from outsiders through the internet and then create a
>> game that represents the compromise of other people's ideas.
>
> Then Ultima was never creative. For example, the entire party system
> was added in U3 to keep up with Wizardry (Official Book of Ultima).
Ho! Now your are talking. Yeap, U3 was keeping up with the market. And
thankfully it was doing so.
It's up to Origin to decide what it wants to listen and follow, and what it
doesn't wants to listen and follow. I don't see any good in flaming the
company and defaming its personnel.
>> Good artists are creative (and
>> eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
>> please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
>
> Go read The Agony and The Ecstasy.
Not that I like to use the "creative" arguement. But so many people want
others to believe that someone is being "creative" (or more so) if it just
to be a good puppy and listen to them (?!). What a joke.
And it's so typical of Fortran. Always have to throw out some book titles
in his messages in order to show off how much he knows. Now I read a bit of
historical fictions now and then, but I certainly won't believe everything
some novelist wrote about Michealangelo. It is, after all, fictional.
And here's to return the favor. Go read A Director's Journey.
Chong Kuang-Ting
This is a bloody long message...
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>
> Ultima Online. Whether we like it or not, those 'outdated' graphics
> are a financial success for Origin.
UO graphics outdated?!
>> Also, Ascension wouldn't be an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge
>> technology and undergo a major interface overhaul. This is an
>> Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima tradition since Ultima 6.
>
> Ultima I, ][, III, IV, and V. In other words, it is a recent
>addition. :)
Oh yeah, a decade ago is "recent" especially in the software industry.
>> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was
>> making Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the
>> direction the Ultima was heading at that time? Hell no.
>
> Proof, please, or is this just your opinion?
Didn't you see the "if" that heads the paragraph? Do you know what "if"
means?
And I can speak my opinion, can't I? (If you think I can't, there's sure
nothing you can do about it.) You certainly haven't been modest with your
opinions.
Just look at what how the Usenet masses are reacting to Ultima 9 now. I see
nothing but angry mob like you demanding Origin to do this, do that or else.
Now it isn't so hard to see the hypothetical situation.
> Ah, I see you've met few "scientists, engineers, doctors, professors"
>as they are just as human as everyone else.
>
> I'll leave the "elites of the societies" statement for more
>inflammatory individuals. ;)
Whatever. And yes, this is MY opinion. MY opinion is that "scientists,
engineers, doctors, professors" are among the "elites of the societies," and
criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and kids running around the school yards
with guns are certainly not. So you're not happy with MY opinion? Tough
luck.
I'm against guns, BTW. You don't like this particular opinion of mine, do
you? Well, tough luck again 'cause that's MY opinion.
>> Now that internet is cheap and everyone is logging on, old Ultima fans
>> thought that the the internet gives them absolute power that they can use
>> to control Origin and yell at the company to do and what not to do with
>> its products.
>
> Really? You know "absolutely" what each and every old Ultima thinks
>and wants?
Did I know absolutely? NO.
Can I read what in the dragon and RPG newsgroups, detect what's going on,
form opinions from all that I've read, and speak 'em out? YES.
>> When those people discover this is not the fact, they complain
>> and whine.
>
> Of course, to make this statement you need to sweep all of Origin's
>broken promises made after Ultima VIII under the carpet. Plus you need to
>ignore what everyone is *actually* saying and just rail against your
>strawman.
I didn't ignore what everyone is saying on the net. I'm just disagreeing
with them because I prefer to wait and see the final **proof**--the actual
game itself. What I'm seeing is that people are complaining because Origin
is not giving in to what they want.
>> Just remember one thing: the good old Ultima 3, 4, 5, and beyond
>> were made with no or minimal customer feedback and suggestions. They
are,
>> therefore, THE classics.
>
> Proof, please.
And your counterproof?
>> The fact is no one cares more about Ultima than Origin and Richard
>> Garriott. The so-called Ultima fans and "dragons" certainly care very
>> little whether the series live or die as long as Ultima 9 meets their
>> limited vision,
>
> Yes, I guess it is limited to ask Origin to surpass the high water
>mark achieved with Ultima VII. Hmm, I guess a focus on excellence is
>limited in your little world.
Limited because all they want is the same thing all over again but with some
minor improvements. Limited because they are afraid of change and they see
that change must be bad. Limited because they believe "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it" instead of "even if it ain't broke, find better ways to do
it." Limited because they see the future merely as an extension of the past
and present and not as an wholy new, unpredictable, and exciting dimension.
A focus on excellence doesn't mean doing the same thing all over again with
just "improvements." Your focus on excellence seems like nothing more than
doing more of the same. Thankfully you're not making Ultima 9.
>> which is one from an older Ultima and not theirs (that's why Richard
>> Garriott invented Ultima and not them),
>
> You really don't know how Ultima started do you?
>
>> they don't really care if the game
>> will sell, or if it will be successful, or if it will attract many new
>> gamers.
>
> Stupid. Of course the fans want the games to be successful, to sell.
>They just don't want Ultima to sell out.
Oh no. Not this "Origin sells out" rhetoric again. I don't even want to
bother with one. If you want to see my take on this one, see my other
messages.
>> On the other hand, Origin and Richard Garriott (creator of the series)
>> own the Ultima license.
>
> Origin and Electronic Arts own Ultima. Richard Garriott owns nothing
> except the Lord British trademark. A passing familiarity with facts would
> immeasurably help your arguments.
You understand damn well what what I was saying. But since you're enjoy
nitpicking so much...okay, so it's in Origin's and Electornic Arts' best
interest to make a good game out of the license and expensive piece of
money-making property. And it's certainly in Garriott's interest to make a
good Ultima.
>> It is their property. It is their money-making asset.
>> To Richard Garriott, Ultima is probably more like his first child and a
>> way of life than just some license.
>
> Then he sold his first born into corporate slavery.
Great. Another corporate hater. Yeah, I know. "Corporate is bad and
capitalism is evil because they fail to serve ME!" Yet another "corporate
conspiracy" theory.
>> It is in their best interest to make sure the game is good and appealing
>> to not just to some niche market but to the mass market so that the
>> license attracts new and more customers, builds up more fans,
>> become successful, and continues to thrive. And if this it means
>> sacrificing the very few old die-hard fans who are stuck in the past
>> because of their resistance to change and their limited vision, so be it.
>
> Translation: I don't care if Origin destroys what made Ultima great
>so long as I get a game with the name Ultima on it. I'm such a zombie I'll
>buy anything Ultima.
Wrong translation.
I certainly don't know if Origin is "destroying(?)" Ultima, or what made
Ultima great, or if Origin will destory what made Ultima great. I suppose
you must think you can say for sure Origin is destroying the game, and you
know exactly what made Ultima great for everyone, and what you know must be
the truth and not just some opinion. Well, I do share your opinion.
Who say I'm going to buy every Ultima? I've never looked at Ultima Online
again after the beta test because it's not my type of game.
>> Final words: Part of making a good game is about CREATIVITY. And I
>> certainly don't see creativity in copying ideas, opinions, and
>> suggestions from outsiders through the internet and then create a
>> game that represents the compromise of other people's ideas.
>
> Then Ultima was never creative. For example, the entire party system
> was added in U3 to keep up with Wizardry (Official Book of Ultima).
Ho! Now your are talking. Yeap, U3 was keeping up with the market. And
thankfully it was doing so.
It's up to Origin to decide what it wants to listen and follow, and what it
doesn't wants to listen and follow. I don't see any good in flaming the
company and defaming its personnel.
>> Good artists are creative (and
>> eccentric), and they certainly never listen to anyone's ideas or try to
>> please anyone else but themselves when it comes to their works.
>
> Go read The Agony and The Ecstasy.
Not that I like to use the "creative" arguement. But so many people want
Chong Kuang-Ting
UO graphics outdated?!
And your counterproof?
Wrong translation.
listen to them (?!). What a joke.
Go read A Director's Journey.
Chong Kuang-Ting
UO graphics outdated?!
And your counterproof?
Wrong translation.
to be a good puppy and listen to them (?!). What a joke.
And it's so typical of Fortran. Always have to throw out some book titles
in his messages in order to show off how much he knows. Now I read a bit of
historical fictions now and then, but I certainly won't believe everything
some novelist wrote about Michealangelo. It is, after all, fictional.
And here's to return the favor. Go read A Director's Journey.
Ethrian Dragon
Dear
[ ] Troll
[x] Idiot
[ ] Lamer
[ ] Fiend
[x] Waster of bandwidth
[x] Tool
[ ] WaReZdOOd
You are being flamed because
[ ] You are an AOLer
[ ] You posted in ALL CAPS
[ ] You posted a binary to this newsgroup
[ ] You started a flamewar
[ ] You are a troll
[ ] You quoted an entire message in your reply of 0 LINES
[ ] your sig is longer than your response
[ ] You posted in eLiTe CaPs
[x] You suck
[ ] You posted the same message to many newsgroups
[ ] You are a spammer
[x] You posted the same message a bunch of times
[ ] You posted a pyramid/GRQ to the newsgroup
[x] I just don't like you
To repent you must
[ ] Give up your AOL account
[ ] Buy a legitimate copy of all your pirated junk
[ ] Learn to turn off the CAPS LOCK before you type
[ ] Go hide under a Bridge. If you do not have a bridge, we can sell
you one named Brooklyn
[x] Type format c: /u/y at your nearest DOS prompt
[ ] CC your post to F-15, and don't tell him you posted and mailed.
[ ] Go find a hose
[x] Eat your modem
[ ] Go back to your little Nintendo, assmunch.
[ ] Shove a metal key in your can and turn REAL hard
[ ] Give up your Newsreader
[ ] Shove a Cinnabon into your computer. Without replacing the case,
ground yourself to the Power Supply and turn computer on
[x] Find a cure for Parkinsons Disease so you do not press SEND twice
In closing, I would like to say
[ ] AOL sucks!
[ ] The number of lines to your actual response, is equivalent to the
square of your IQ.
[x] We heard you the first time
[ ] Buy your own software
[ ] CAPS LOCK! It's on the left!
[ ] Die, spammer!
[x] Get your facts straight.
NOTE: As far as I know the FlameForm is a copyright of Money Dragon.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ophidian Dragon
Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in article
<6n9sh2$2el$1...@service3.uky.edu>...
> This is a bloody long message...
Do you have a "post-the-message-multiple-times" fetish or something?
Where's F-15 when you need him.....
-Ophidian Dragon
Ethrian Dragon
Dear
[ ] Troll
[ ] Idiot
[x] Lamer
[ ] Fiend
[x] Waster of bandwidth
[ ] Tool
[ ] WaReZdOOd
[x] Complete retard
You are being flamed because
[ ] You are an AOLer
[ ] You posted in ALL CAPS
[ ] You posted a binary to this newsgroup
[ ] You started a flamewar
[ ] You are a troll
[ ] You quoted an entire message in your reply of 0 LINES
[ ] your sig is longer than your response
[ ] You posted in eLiTe CaPs
[x] You suck
[ ] You posted the same message to many newsgroups
[ ] You are a spammer
[x] You posted the same message a bunch of times
[ ] You posted a pyramid/GRQ to the newsgroup
[ ] I just don't like you
[x] You did it again, you dumbass!
To repent you must
[ ] Give up your AOL account
[ ] Buy a legitimate copy of all your pirated junk
[ ] Learn to turn off the CAPS LOCK before you type
[ ] Go hide under a Bridge. If you do not have a bridge, we can sell
you one named Brooklyn
[ ] Type format c: /u/y at your nearest DOS prompt
[ ] CC your post to F-15, and don't tell him you posted and mailed.
[ ] Go find a hose
[x] Eat your modem
[ ] Go back to your little Nintendo, assmunch.
[ ] Shove a metal key in your can and turn REAL hard
[ ] Give up your Newsreader
[ ] Shove a Cinnabon into your computer. Without replacing the case,
ground yourself to the Power Supply and turn computer on
[x] Find a cure for Parkinsons Disease so you do not press SEND twice
[x] Remember when you have posted something
In closing, I would like to say
[ ] AOL sucks!
[ ] The number of lines to your actual response, is equivalent to the
square of your IQ.
[x] We heard you the first time
[ ] Buy your own software
[x] Deja vu...
Ophidian Dragon
Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in article
<6n9qed$sr9$1...@service3.uky.edu>...
> Ophidian Dragon wrote in message
<01bda318$8bc184e0$59bedfcf@widdershins>...
> Huh? How is Ultima "dead"? Ultima Online may not suit the taste of
die-hard
> fans, it IS a financial success and the cutting-edge in online gaming
> technology.
And we know how much the reviewer's loved it....
> FYI, Origin IS among the chief leaders in the industry. Just look at
> its current product lines--Wing Commander, Crusader, Longbow, and Ultima.
> Origin is a SOLID company that makes successful products--products that
win
> praises and sales.
Myst won sales too, but few people thought it was a truly masterpiece game.
> In fact, the only "weak" spot of Origin is Ultima. This is one product
line
> along with its very loud fans that are constantly causing headache for
the
> company. The dragons are notoriously hard to please and difficult to
deal
> with. Maybe that's why Origin is so anxious to get rid of the grumpy old
> dragons and build up a new customer base that will be more appreciative.
You mean they want to be able to simply toss trash to the dogs and let them
eat it like fine cuisine.
>
> Back in the 80's and earlier 90's, CRPGs and adventure games are
definitely
> not niche. In the 80's, those two genres set the trends of the period.
>
In the original industry, RPG sales were dwarfed by the sales of popular
arcade games. Computers were not the gaming rig of choice for the
mass-market until the 90's. ANd not by coincidence, as soon as computers
became really popular, more idiots could buy them and more games to satisfy
said idiots were produced. Thus was born DOOM.
> Since then, time has changed. The market has also changed. So must
Ultima
> if it wants to survive in this new market.
> >They're not following their own heart and ideas, they're following the
> >market trends.
>
> And how in the hell do you know that?!
Uh, pretty easy actually. Look at the market trend towards Tomb-Raider
style action/adventure. Then look and see what the ads and PR guys
advertise for Ultima IX.
>
> And I supposed it is up to you to dictate whose ideas count and whose
not?
> As for whether this Castillo guy is good for Ultima, we'll just have to
wait
> and see.
>
Based on his comments, we already have seen that he's either an idiot who
makes the wrong comments at the wrong time, or a guy who loves his action
game.
> Geez. You post at least half a dozen messages everyday. From how to
court
> a dauphin to how your first date went (HOW CAN ANYONE POST THIS KIND OF
> THINGS ON THE USENET?!). I certainly have not interest in keeping up
with
> your
> messages everyday.
Uh oh, watch the personal insults fly! Use your brain and then use
Dejanews. I'm sorry you have not interest [sic] in reading what I say, but
you're stuck if you want to face reality.
> He read the feedback and he realized. It's sort of like a
> self-actualization process. No one is yelling at him and telling him
what
> to do.
We didn't tell him what to do until he started doing what pissed us off
last time.
He said he wouldn't make a game like U8, then promptly made a game, for all
appearences, like U8.
>
> Yeah, but Ultima needs you, desperately.
>
Oh, mommy, please save me from the cheap shots....
> Whatever. But if OSI really crashes and burns, we'll know who to look
for,
> won't we? :)
You'll find us at the coctail party after it happens.
>
> I thought that Ascension is the most risky and daring endeavor in the
> Ultima history. Despite all the objections and angry voices, Origin
still
> continues to go against to will of its existing customers and heads into
a
> new direction.
>
And turning a deaf ear to the voice of reason, Origin again plunges into
the abyss, never to be heard from again.
> And you know everything about its stories and gameplay already? It's
> amazing how some people are asserting how the plots and gameplay in
Ultima 9
> suck
> WHEN THE GAME IS NOT EVEN RELEASED YET!
If anyone thinks it's a bad game, guess who's fault it is....<Glances up at
the OSI building>
> And FYI, Ultima 6, the False Prophet, the one Ultima that many dragons
feel
> has the best story in the series. Well, surprise! The game engine was
> designed first before the premise and story. The story was an
afterthought
> that was tailored around the engine in order to show its capabilities.
But
> it is one hell of game, isn't it? (It happens that I own a copy of The
> Official Book of Ultima.)
I guess it's too bad then that the plot of U9 was pretty much decided back
in '96....
-Ophidian Dragon
Paul Ryan
Chong Kuang-Ting wrote:
<A LONG tirade against the people who disagree with him.>
Quinn Dragon, were you hatched that stupid, or did you have to take lessons in
it? You've posted the SAME long bloody message SEVEN times in forty minutes.
Further, you're trolling and trying to insult anyone who disagrees with you.
Grow up.
Personally I disagree with what you've been saying, but you seem to have a
serious bee in your bonnet against anyone who doesn't share your world view. May
I suggest that if you feel that way about the UDIC, you resign and go away.
Given that Origin isn't listening to it's fans and customers, starting another
flamewar on the subject is pointless. Find something better to do.
--
Paulon Dragon d++ e- N- T+ Om U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!KA!L!W!M!
-==(UDIC)==- u++ uC+ uF uG uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nI nPT nS+ nT+ y?
Query all results when crystal-gazing. You never know who may
have been looking over your shoulder.
Ka'a Orto'o, Gnomic Utterances, IX IX
Negate the Spell to wish me well...
CHAN Lancelot the Jedi
Don't you know simple is beauty? Don't you know intellectual
ppl speak less? Heehhehehe ok, just kidding :)
Paul Ryan
Ethrian Dragon wrote:
> Dear
>
> [ ] Troll
> [ ] Idiot
> [x] Lamer
> [ ] Fiend
> [x] Waster of bandwidth
> [ ] Tool
> [ ] WaReZdOOd
> [x] Complete retard
I think you missed checking the Troll box. Idiot seems appropriate too.
Minh Nguyen
It's nice to see computer games bring out the best in people. :-)
Chong Kuang-Ting wrote:
<stuff cut>
> > Yes, I guess it is limited to ask Origin to surpass the high water
> >mark achieved with Ultima VII. Hmm, I guess a focus on excellence is
> >limited in your little world.
>
> Limited because all they want is the same thing all over again but with some
> minor improvements. Limited because they are afraid of change and they see
> that change must be bad. Limited because they believe "if it ain't broke,
> don't fix it" instead of "even if it ain't broke, find better ways to do
> it." Limited because they see the future merely as an extension of the past
> and present and not as an wholy new, unpredictable, and exciting dimension.
Can I just add something here if I may. From what I can gather from reading
these long and somewhat heated messages, I think that you, Chong, are not on the
same wave length as the other people with opposing opinions to yours.
As I understand it, you're saying that changes is good. Things should be dynamic
and fresh even though it doesn't need to be in this case, U9. Don't limit
yourself to the past, that sortta thing, right?
On the other hand Ultima games have always been CRPG am I right? It's not part
of an adventure genre or an action genre, right?
So if the changes/improvements take Ultima 9, the latest Ultima, to a different
genre so to speak, can't the people that support it for what it was be a little
angry? Sure I don't share their views, but their reaction is understandable.
Sometimes people can be premature in judging a product that hasn't been released
yet, but from the impression that they get from reading various previews and
such, they can form some sort of opinion on the product. Although inaccurate as
some of the thoughts are, they're not exactly a stab in the dark.
> A focus on excellence doesn't mean doing the same thing all over again with
> just "improvements." Your focus on excellence seems like nothing more than
> doing more of the same. Thankfully you're not making Ultima 9.
Agreed, things shouldn't be the same over and over. But I have to say this
again, Ultima 9 is supposedly a CRPG title, so whatever it is that Origin wants
to add/change/improve or whatever, shouldn't they make sure that it's still
within the CRPG genre?
Most of my opinion is formed from reading these messages. I have no deep
understanding of Ultima other than the fact that they are computer games. So
please, don't write to me saying I don't know what Ultima is really all about,
because the truth is, I don't.
I may have missed the plot altogether on this one, so please excuse me if I do.
<more stuff cut>
Minh
Ethrian Dragon
>I think you missed checking the Troll box. Idiot seems appropriate too.
Sorry, I just forgot about the 'troll' box but I'd used the 'Idiot'
box in a previous FlameForm to him
Ethrian Dragon
>That indeed is a cheap copy of Money´s formidable weapon,QuickBon.
>I suggest the two of you duel you....
Enguarde ;)
No, I've just had a go at U2... When I arrived at the newsgroup and
saw everyone SPLUTing with things like the Pie of God I thought
immediately of QuickSPLUT.
In fact, when exactly was QuickBon invented? I invented QuickSPLUT
about a month ago (I was also surprised nobody else had)
Mils
> The Dragons, the Evil Avatars, and the Protectors of Virtue and Lord
> British were all formed on Prodigy around that time. Oddly, that's
> exactly what I recall seeing. The only difference between then and now is
> scale of message propagation.
>
> <much larger snippage>
What was prodigy anyway ? Was it a bbs ? Something on compuserve ?
Moa Dragon
Mi...@club-internet.fr
Piers Sutton
cor...@chesco.com wrote:
>
> SO what you are saying is that Origin should create the game THEY want
> to, and not sell out to the niche market, but it IS allright if they
> sell out to the mass market to make more money and keep the series
> alive. You make no sense. If they were truly interested in being
> "artistic" <your comparison> then they should be willing to let the
> whole series die. I am not arguing their reasons just your logic.
>
> John Crothers
> cor...@chesco.com
I agree with both your points, somewhat. But in terms of the overall
whining about what U9 might look like I feel there is one explanation
which can, to some extent, justify the whining: U8. U8 was done by
Origin without worrying about consumers opinions, etc. and look what
happened. Without that major and recent stumble I don't think people
would be as worried about U9, but they are because of it and the
Quake/TR parrallel. That's my opinion anyway. And also, whining...who
cares. Nothing ever got better because everyone kept their trap shut or
just said good things even though they felt otherwise. Every list i'm
on there are the "don't whine" people and the people "whinning"...call
it what you will, i think it's a stupid pigeon hole argument about
jackshit ;)
Turtle-Tracks
If Darwin was right, why are we all still here?
Chong Kuang-Ting
Are you in charge of UDIC? Your're damn right, I've been wanting to get out
from UDIC since last year. I sent all sort of emails, from resignation to
changing my title, but got no reply. It's like a black hole that only sucks
people in and never lets them get out again.
I've been around in the dragon newsgroup for years. Mostly lurking, and my
opinion of the dragons is deteriorating all the times. The dragons are a
bunch of childish, opinionated fools that do nothing but whine, complain,
flame, defame, attack, and talk about their stupid lives like they are some
sort of superstars and the whole world is sooo interested in knowing what
they do. And things have gotten much worse recently. Every time I am going
through the dragon groups I keep asking myself, "Why did I even want to be
associated with those morons? Why did I join in the first place? BIG
mistake." Seriously, Ijust want to quite the stupid UDIC, and looks like
the only way to do it is to do it with a bang and spill out whatever I've
been wanting to say.
So if your're in charge, just let me get out.
Ophidian Dragon
Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in article
<6nban7$bj5$1...@service3.uky.edu>...
> I've been around in the dragon newsgroup for years. Mostly lurking, and
my
> opinion of the dragons is deteriorating all the times. The dragons are a
> bunch of childish, opinionated fools that do nothing but whine, complain,
> flame, defame, attack, and talk about their stupid lives like they are
some
> sort of superstars and the whole world is sooo interested in knowing what
> they do.
Maybe you should see a psychiatrist. Being this angry at people who are
doing absolutely nothing to you isn't healthy.
-Ophidian Dragon
MdmeDis
In article <6nban7$bj5$1...@service3.uky.edu>, ktc...@pop.uky.edu says...
>
> So if your're in charge, just let me get out.
Uni - under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should he be released. Each day we will
exercise our hideous mindpower to force him to read the newsgroup, until
he becomes a compliant little fellow. Then we will re-name him Puff, and
he will remember that "Dragons live forever - not so little boys..."
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
D'ya ever have those days when you think
maybe its you, and not the rest of the world
that's fucked up?
MdmeDis
In article <6n9qed$sr9$1...@service3.uky.edu>, ktc...@pop.uky.edu says...
> Ophidian Dragon wrote in message <01bda318$8bc184e0$59bedfcf@widdershins>...
> >
> > Origin quit while they are still ahead.
>
> Huh? How is Ultima "dead"? Ultima Online may not suit the taste of die-hard
> fans, it IS a financial success and the cutting-edge in online gaming
> technology.
Mdme smiles happily. Every summer, One is sent to us; One about whom we
can snicker and argue with and point talons at without guilt. Ultima
Online and Ultima to many in this group are not synonymous, something
you should be aware of if you have been lurking as long as you claim.
>
> FYI, Origin IS among the chief leaders in the industry. Just look at
> its current product lines--Wing Commander, Crusader, Longbow, and Ultima.
Wing Commander according to many of its fans has deteriorated nearly to
the point of Ultima, Crusader I don't know about - A single player
Ultima game hasn't been released in years, the only connection Longbow
has to Origin is the name. If Origin is an industry leader, the industry
is sick, kid.
> Origin is a SOLID company that makes successful products--products that win
> praises and sales.
>
> In fact, the only "weak" spot of Origin is Ultima. This is one product line
> along with its very loud fans that are constantly causing headache for the
> company. The dragons are notoriously hard to please and difficult to deal
> with.
Another way of saying that is the dragons have standards and they refuse
to compromise. (Many, that is, Erratic)
> Maybe that's why Origin is so anxious to get rid of the grumpy old
> dragons and build up a new customer base that will be more appreciative.
Yep. They do seem to be a lot more financial successful with the - uh -
less intellectually demanding market.
> Since then, time has changed. The market has also changed. So must Ultima
> if it wants to survive in this new market.
Unfortunately, you are probably correct. I was the one screaming loud
and long they should go for the Myst market - from what Lost says, that
could be their goal - and I couldn't fault 'em financially.
> Geez. You post at least half a dozen messages everyday. From how to court
> a dauphin to how your first date went (HOW CAN ANYONE POST THIS KIND OF
> THINGS ON THE USENET?!). I certainly have not interest in keeping up with
> your messages everyday.
Half a dozen??? Buddy, one of 'Phids comments is worth ten of your
garbage (Why do I respond? I like flamebait) I'm sure you have no
interest - most of it would be beyond your grasp.
> I thought that Ascension is the most risky and daring endeavor in the
> Ultima history. Despite all the objections and angry voices, Origin still
> continues to go against to will of its existing customers and heads into a
> new direction.
Mmm. The Titanic did something similar, if I remember correctly.
> (It happens that I own a copy of The
> Official Book of Ultima.)
Wow, thats truly impressive. Let us know when you master reading.
MdmeDis
In article <6n9s6t$2c0$1...@service3.uky.edu>, ktc...@pop.uky.edu says...
> And I can speak my opinion, can't I?
No. Absolutely not. Where did you get that stupid idea?
MdmeDis
In article <01bda3f0$1761b600$18bddfcf@widdershins>,
dev...@ix.takethisout.netcom.com says...> <6n9sh2$2el$1...@service3.uky.edu>...
> > This is a bloody long message...
>
>
> Where's F-15 when you need him.....
Sulking.
Ethrian Dragon
>I've been around in the dragon newsgroup for years. Mostly lurking, and my
>opinion of the dragons is deteriorating all the times. The dragons are a
It just gets better and better :)
Jason C Smith
>slowly become a "niche" product and even die. Also, Ascension wouldn't be
>an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge technology and undergo a major
>interface overhaul. This is an Ultima tradition. This has been an Ultima
>tradition since Ultima 6.
>
Actually, this has been a tradition since Ultima 0 (Alkabeth).
With every Ultima whole number release (U7 pt 2 not included),
Garriott/Origin basically threw out the entire game engine and started from
scratch. But you're correct, it is an Ultima tradition to rework the game
engine.
One comment I read from the previous writer was complaining about the
requirement of having a Voodoo card and P200. I seem to recall that when U7
came out that it pushed the limits hardware at the time. It's a fact of
life that games will always push the limits of whatever hardware is
available. I suspect it's part of a global conspiracy between software and
hardware developers to force consumers to upgrade, but hey, that's just a
theory...
-Jason
Paul Ryan
You seem to have a severe attitude problem. In order to expediate your leaving,
I forwarded your post to the head of the Greeting team. I suspect that that will
have the result you desire. Goodbye, and good riddance.
--
Paulon Dragon d++ e- N- T+ Om U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!KA!L!W!M!
-==(UDIC)==- u++ uC+ uF uG uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nI nPT nS+ nT+ y?
Insights are always valuable, even if they only show
you your duodenal ulcer.
Ka'a Orto'o, Gnomic Utterances, V XCIII
Contrapuntal Dragon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In Chapter rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons on Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:15:54
- -0700, "Chong Kuang-Ting" <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> scribed into the Great
Tome
of Farnarkling thusly:
[followups trimmed]
> Are you in charge of UDIC? Your're damn right, I've been wanting to get
out
> from UDIC since last year.
How come you've never asked the Greeting Team for removal then?
> I sent all sort of emails, from resignation to
> changing my title, but got no reply.
I've seen few resignation requests in my 8+ months as a greeter, and you've
not been one of them AFAICS.
> It's like a black hole that only sucks
> people in and never lets them get out again.
>
> I've been around in the dragon newsgroup for years. Mostly lurking, and
my
> opinion of the dragons is deteriorating all the times.
Why? Because we don't agree with you, or blindly worship Origin?
> The dragons are a
> bunch of childish, opinionated fools that do nothing but whine, complain,
> flame, defame, attack, and talk about their stupid lives like they are
some
> sort of superstars and the whole world is sooo interested in knowing what
> they do. And things have gotten much worse recently. Every time I am
going
> through the dragon groups I keep asking myself, "Why did I even want to
be
> associated with those morons? Why did I join in the first place? BIG
> mistake." Seriously, Ijust want to quite the stupid UDIC, and looks like
> the only way to do it is to do it with a bang and spill out whatever I've
> been wanting to say.
But there's many different ways of doing this well - for all I disagreed
with him, Mike Kozlowski didn't stoop to this level.
> So if your're in charge, just let me get out.
Please yourself, sir.
Meet Sir Geoffrey[1]. You'll get along just fine.
*Please Log Off Net.Kook*
Contrapuntal Dragon.
[1] I didn't think he'd get a run this quickly.. Oh, well. See
http://www.powerup.com.au/~mfleming/ultima/sirgeoff.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3i
Comment: Accept only signed messages - see homepage for keys
iQA/AwUBNZjmaH66PsYO+OWCEQKOAQCgnbYrSca01j3MbKq37OxoehtzAnUAnims
/2ss2CfusBTD5tt7AQ79NWuQ
=R0BG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Contrapuntal Dragon (Michael Fleming) -=(UDIC)=- <<SDAAS>>
mfle...@powerup.com.au http://www.powerup.com.au/~mfleming/ultima/
AWE FAQ Maintainer, Official RGCUD Troll/Spam Nemesis and Greybeard.
"Anyway, this is just an offical 'I'm stupid' post." - Twilight Dragon
Ethrian Dragon
>UO graphics outdated?!
The UO Graphics are nothing special. They're not even as good as pagan
and that was out six years ago.
>> If the internet was at this current state back then when Origin was
>> making Ultima 6 or 7, would people have been pleased at the
>> direction the Ultima was heading at that time? Hell no.
>Didn't you see the "if" that heads the paragraph? Do you know what "if"
>means?
Look, your comprehension is pathetic. I'll spell it out to you: The
'if' implies everything before the comma. Your STATEMENT, 'Hell no',
does not have any 'if's or 'but's in conjunction with it.
>And I can speak my opinion, can't I? (If you think I can't, there's sure
>nothing you can do about it.) You certainly haven't been modest with your
>opinions. Just look at what how most people are reacting to Ultima 9 now.
>I see nothing but angry mob who demands everything to stay the same as
>before.
Why the hell do you have to get so upset with what we speak about? If
you think you can just lurk for a few months then come in flames
blazing you've got another thing coming.
>Whatever. And yes, this is MY opinion. MY opinion is that "scientists,
>engineers, doctors, professors" are among the "elites of the societies," and
>criminals, gangsters, drug dealers, and kids running around the school yards
>with guns are certainly not. So you're not happy with MY opinion? Tough
>luck.
>I'm against guns, BTW. You don't like this particular opinion of mine, do
>you? Well, tough luck again 'cause that's MY opinion.
You're just being diffficult now. There's no point in making this
totally stupid and pigheaded statement.
>Did I know absolutely? NO.
>Can I read what in the dragon and RPG newsgroups, detect what's going on,
>form opinions from all that I've read, and speak 'em out? YES.
Yeah, but you don't have to insult every dragon's intelligence while
you're at it.There's no point in it. Why are you so negative and
annoyed with everything we say? In fact, why the hell did you join the
dragons in the first place anyway? Because you wanted to flame and
piss people off? Get stuffed.
>I didn't ignore what everyone is saying on the net. I'm just disagreeing
>with them because I prefer to wait and see the final **proof**--the actual
>game itself. What I'm seeing is that people are complaining because Origin
>is not giving in to what they want.
No, we're complaining because Origin are increasing the system
requirements and just what Fortran said: breaking promises. You don't
REALLY read what we reply, do you?
(snip)
>Limited because all they want is the same thing all over again but with some
>minor improvements. Limited because they are afraid of change and they see
>that change must be bad. Limited because they believe "if it ain't broke,
>don't fix it" instead of "even if it ain't broke, find better ways to do
>it." Limited because they see the future merely as an extension of the past
>and present and not as an wholy new, unpredictable, and exciting dimension.
I just happen to think 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' is a damn
good saying.My interpretation of what you are saying is that you're
defending Origin at the same time as you're arguing with them. If
Origin is a money making machine why not just give to popular demand?
Remember the old saying 'The customer is always right'? It may not be
fully true but if you heed it you will be successful.
>A focus on excellence doesn't mean doing the same thing all over again with
>just "improvements." Your focus on excellence seems like nothing more than
>doing more of the same. Thankfully you're not making Ultima 9.
Well that's basically the definition of series, buddy!
>Oh no. Not this "Origin sells out" rhetoric again. I don't even want to
>bother with one. If you want to see my take on this one, see my other
>messages.
Well then why not just snip it and not mention it at all?
>You understand damn well what what I was saying. But since you're enjoy
>nitpicking so much...okay, so it's in Origin's and Electornic Arts' best
>interest to make a good game out of the license and expensive piece of
>money-making property. And it's certainly in Garriott's interest to make a
>good Ultima.
When the way you put it is so poor nobody could understand what you
are saying. Didn't you just say before that Origin is selling out? No?
Well put your posts together better or get lost.
>Great. Another corporate hater. Yeah, I know. "Corporate is bad and
>capitalism is evil because they fail to serve ME!" Yet another "corporate
>conspiracy" theory.
If 'me' was most of the old Ultima fans that statement may actually
make sense...
Look, hardly anyone I know likes, or has even HEARD about Ultima which
is why I agree with one point you try to make: Origin want to make
more customers so what better way than to design an
action-hack-everything-up game to appeal to the simpletons? They do
make up at least 80% of the Earth's population, you know. The author
of this thread for instance.
>I certainly don't know if Origin is "destroying(?)" Ultima, or what made
>Ultima great, or if Origin will destory what made Ultima great. I suppose
>you must think you can say for sure Origin is destroying the game, and you
>know exactly what made Ultima great for everyone, and what you know must be
>the truth and not just some opinion. Well, I do share your opinion.
What made Ultima great is the fact that it was a change from the
dumbass style hackenslash games. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pinup.
(snip)
>Ho! Now your are talking. Yeap, U3 was keeping up with the market. And
>thankfully it was doing so.
Repeat repeat...
>It's up to Origin to decide what it wants to listen and follow, and what it
>doesn't wants to listen and follow. I don't see any good in flaming the
>company and defaming its personnel.
We're not flaming the bloody company for the twentieth time!
We're just stating OUR opinion (which you seem to say so often) on OUR
Newsgroup! If you don't like it bugger off!
Whew, that was fun ;)
Moongazer Dragon
> My glass typewriter shows Chong Kuang-Ting saying...
> [Snip]
> > I'm against guns, BTW. You don't like this particular opinion of mine,
do
> > you? Well, tough luck again 'cause that's MY opinion.
Yes Sir, it IS your opinion. Let me explain to you why your opinion is
wrong:
Some people buy guns and use them for legal purposes.
Other people buy/steal guns for use in crime. Sometimes for defense while
they're robbing someone, sometimes for deliberate murder.
Now, if it becomes entirely illegal to own guns, who would own them?
Law-abiding citizens (who whould not be using gun with evil intent to begin
with) would not own them, because they would not break the law. [Note: They
would then be unable to defend themselves]
Criminals would still own guns, however, because criminals -by definition-
do NOT obey laws! Do you think telling street gangs that it's illegal to
own firearms will deter them? NO! They do illegal activities on a daily
basis!
Now, if criminals own guns, and law-abiding citizens do not: What happens?
Criminals can freely <Rape, pillage, murder, etc..> whomever they want
whenever they want! Will THAT help society? I'll let you answer that
one...
"A society that trades safety for security, deserves
neither."
--Benjamin Franklin, on the second amendment.
--Moongazer Dragon--
<-U.D.I.C.->
----
--------------d- e N+ T+ Om+ U1!2!3!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!K!A!L!
u+ uC++++ uF uG++++ uLB+ uA+++ nC++ nR+ nH+ nP+ nI+++ nPT nS++++ nT wM wC+
wS+ wI+ wN o+ oA+++ y++ a16--------------
Ophidian Dragon
Jason C Smith <ja...@escape.ca> wrote in article
<6ncb50$b98$1...@supernews.com>...
>
> >slowly become a "niche" product and even die. Also, Ascension wouldn't
be
> >an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge technology and undergo a major
> >interface overhaul. This is an Ultima tradition. This has been an
Ultima
> >tradition since Ultima 6.
> >
>
> Actually, this has been a tradition since Ultima 0 (Alkabeth).
>
> With every Ultima whole number release (U7 pt 2 not included),
> Garriott/Origin basically threw out the entire game engine and started
from
> scratch. But you're correct, it is an Ultima tradition to rework the
game
> engine.
Uhh, that's what is claimed, but it's extremely unlikely. *NO* good
company does not recycle code from previous games. No reason to re-invent
the wheel. And if you look at U1-U4, many graphics are the same. The
conversations didn't change terribly much, either. On the other hand, U6
could run on a 286 in CGA, when 386's were close to standard, and VGA had
been out for years. if U9 were made in that style, it would run on a P133,
with 16 meg of RAM. 64 Meg *minimum* is obscene--for virtually any
commercial product.
-Ophidian Dragon
BlackMage Dragon
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:15:54 -0700, the Mighty "Chong Kuang-Ting"
<ktc...@pop.uky.edu> espoused in front of mortal and supreme beings:
>Are you in charge of UDIC? Your're damn right, I've been wanting to get out
>from UDIC since last year. I sent all sort of emails, from resignation to
>changing my title, but got no reply. It's like a black hole that only sucks
>people in and never lets them get out again.
>
>I've been around in the dragon newsgroup for years. Mostly lurking, and my
>opinion of the dragons is deteriorating all the times. The dragons are a
>bunch of childish, opinionated fools that do nothing but whine, complain,
>flame, defame, attack, and talk about their stupid lives like they are some
>sort of superstars and the whole world is sooo interested in knowing what
>they do. And things have gotten much worse recently. Every time I am going
>through the dragon groups I keep asking myself, "Why did I even want to be
>associated with those morons? Why did I join in the first place? BIG
>mistake." Seriously, Ijust want to quite the stupid UDIC, and looks like
>the only way to do it is to do it with a bang and spill out whatever I've
>been wanting to say.
>
>So if your're in charge, just let me get out.
>
>
I am not in charge of the greeting team. However I am one of the
team, and I looked into your situation.
You were marked as inactive on November 17, 1996. Stop yer' bitchin'
You are no longer a member of UDIC. You may safely stop posting. We
will not follow you. You are free to live any life you so choose,
wighout any more of our brainwashing. You do not however, get to pass
go, or get to collect $200.
In other words, don't let the door hit you in the ass!!!!!!
Simon Summerfield
Moongazer Dragon wrote:
>
[A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
>
> "A society that trades safety for security, deserves neither."
> --Benjamin Franklin, on the second amendment.
>
Woah. You've just been arguing that people should be allowed to
own guns, and then you use this quote!! Mate, you are really dumb.
The beauty of this quote is that it can be used to support BOTH
sides of the argument. It is implicitly ambiguous.
solus
Ophidian Dragon wrote...
>
> > With every Ultima whole number release (U7 pt 2 not
> > included), Garriott/Origin basically threw out the
> > entire game engine and started from scratch. But
> > you're correct, it is an Ultima tradition to rework the
> > game engine.
>
> Uhh, that's what is claimed, but it's extremely
> unlikely. *NO* good company does not recycle code from
> previous games. No reason to re-invent the wheel.
Perhaps the programmers wrote lousy code? That's hard to
work with when you want to make significant changes, and
it's often easier just to rewrite it.
> And if you look at U1-U4, many graphics are the same.
> The conversations didn't change terribly much, either.
Actually, I'd have to disagree with that. There were
significant improvements with each title. The original
Ultima had (if I remember correctly) single-color 8x8 icons
to represent terrain, but that was increased to 16x16 with
U2. U3 introduced multi-party gameplay, a ton more spells,
better graphics, and a much larger map (64x64). U4 changed
the way the party worked, but once again, the size of the
map grew (I believe it was 512x512), a far better magic
system, and a great music score. U5 had an even larger
world, more cities and villages, multi-level buildings, and
multi-coloured icons.
To support all of these changes, a good chunk of code
would have to be rewritten.
Nowadays, it's not economocial to toss out old code, and
you're saving money in the long run if you write it
correctly in the first place.
Each Ultima pushed the boundries of computers at the time
they were released. Most of the titles were released on
two or more platforms and when you write a graphics engine
in assembly, it's *NOT* going to be cross-platform.
Origin has also made it a habit of having steep system
requirements for games. Does anyone remember the first
two Wing Commanders? They were a bitch to get working,
and a boot disk was usually the answer. Ultima VII (I
think) required that you used their memory manager
(Voodoo).... argh. that was fun.
> On the other hand, U6 could run on a 286 in CGA, when
> 386's were close to standard, and VGA had been out for
> years. if U9 were made in that style, it would run on a
> P133, with 16 meg of RAM. 64 Meg *minimum* is obscene--
> for virtually any commercial product.
While I don't expect any high-end game to run well on a
P133, I'd have to agree that a 64meg requirement is obscene.
- solus
--
Michael Ryan
Game Designer and Medieval Bricklayer
617.441.6333 x235
mr...@lglass.com
==============================
Looking Glass Studios
http://www.lglass.com
Steve McKinney
In article <3599D0...@asis.unimelb.edu.au>,
Simon Summerfield <sim...@asis.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Moongazer Dragon wrote:
>
> [A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
> where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
> related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
> need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
But where guns are freely available, criminals will think twice before using a
gun _or_ a knife.
> > "A society that trades safety for security, deserves neither."
> > --Benjamin Franklin, on the second amendment.
>
> Woah. You've just been arguing that people should be allowed to
> own guns, and then you use this quote!! Mate, you are really dumb.
> The beauty of this quote is that it can be used to support BOTH
> sides of the argument. It is implicitly ambiguous.
Indeed it is. It is also a misquote of Franklin. The actual quote is as
follows:
"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin
HTH!
--
Skeptic
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Sven
Ophidian Dragon wrote in message <01bda4a3$6242a040$8cbedfcf@widdershins>...
>
>
>Jason C Smith <ja...@escape.ca> wrote in article
><6ncb50$b98$1...@supernews.com>...
>>
>> >slowly become a "niche" product and even die. Also, Ascension wouldn't
>be
>> >an Ultima if it doesn't use cutting-edge technology and undergo a major
>> >interface overhaul. This is an Ultima tradition. This has been an
>Ultima
>> >tradition since Ultima 6.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, this has been a tradition since Ultima 0 (Alkabeth).
>>
>> With every Ultima whole number release (U7 pt 2 not included),
>> Garriott/Origin basically threw out the entire game engine and started
>from
>> scratch. But you're correct, it is an Ultima tradition to rework the
>game
>> engine.
>
>Uhh, that's what is claimed, but it's extremely unlikely. *NO* good
>company does not recycle code from previous games. No reason to re-invent
>the wheel. And if you look at U1-U4, many graphics are the same. The
>conversations didn't change terribly much, either. On the other hand, U6
>could run on a 286 in CGA, when 386's were close to standard, and VGA had
>been out for years. if U9 were made in that style, it would run on a P133,
>with 16 meg of RAM. 64 Meg *minimum* is obscene--for virtually any
>commercial product.
>
>-Ophidian Dragon
One tiny thing, 'phid. At least in Europe, when U6 came out, the standard
was a bit between XT and 286. I was twelve at the time, and I had been
saving money for eons to buy a 286/16 with 2 megs of memory, a 40 meg
harddisk and VGA. I remember one review complaining that the game didn't run
too smoothly on an XT. This was the time that people were wowing over the
Adlib and were arguing where they could find the space on their harddisk to
install a 2.5 meg 'behemoth'. Pretty hilarious by today's standards :)
Well-Dressed
Devin Shieh
Hey, take this damn thread to talk.politics.guns! Do the name-calling
there, not here. Please use some netiquette no matter how much you
disagree with someone's post. Name-calling only makes you look like a
child and never helps your argument.
Devin
Simon Summerfield (sim...@asis.unimelb.edu.au) wrote:
: Moongazer Dragon wrote:
: >
: [A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
: where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
: related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
: need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
: >
: >
: > "A society that trades safety for security, deserves neither."
: > --Benjamin Franklin, on the second amendment.
: >
: Woah. You've just been arguing that people should be allowed to
: own guns, and then you use this quote!! Mate, you are really dumb.
: The beauty of this quote is that it can be used to support BOTH
: sides of the argument. It is implicitly ambiguous.
--
Devin L. Shieh C D E D B D Ducks!
par...@glue.umd.edu M R Not Ducks!
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~paragon/ O S M R! C D E D B D Wings!
I'm not opinionated...much. ;-) Y I B! M R Ducks!
James Dowd
Wow! Where did this thread come from?
(must resist... must not argue about guns.... augh!)
BTW, you think the subject line is long enough? :)
--
Talraen Dragon of the -==(UDIC)==-
Founder of the -==(UnSPLUTables)==-
Unofficial "Sniveling Brat" of the UDIC
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Simon Summerfield saying...
[Snip]
> [A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
> where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
> related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
> need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
It is a societal/social problem. Switzerland is far more dangerously
armed (adults have fully automatic weapons and are trained how to use
them), yet they have much lower incidents of crime.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=={MDLAM}==- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html
Herring
On 1 Jul 1998 03:23:37 GMT, "Moongazer Dragon"
<lordf...@hotmail.com> threw his vodka glass in the fire and said:
>
>Criminals can freely <Rape, pillage, murder, etc..> whomever they want
>whenever they want! Will THAT help society? I'll let you answer that
>one...
>
> "A society that trades safety for security, deserves
>neither."
> --Benjamin Franklin, on the second amendment.
I always thought it was
'a society that trades FREEDOM for security deserves neither'
a more relevant statement (that Ben was a cool dude). 'Course, I'm
only a limey so I may have got it wrong.
Remove (Nospam) to reply via email
And remember, shop smart, shop S-Mart.
J. Rinehart
Chong Kuang-Ting wrote:
>
> The dragons are a
> bunch of childish, opinionated fools that do nothing but whine, complain,
> flame,
Well, duh. Of course we flame; we're _dragons_
> Every time I am going
> through the dragon groups I keep asking myself, "Why did I even want to be
> associated with those morons?
Morons. Right. I've got a Ph.D. in genetics, and you're calling me a
moron because I like Ultima and like to interact with others that do.
Hmm. I must say I like 'Phid's posts a lot better'n yours, 'cause at
least 'Phid's got a sense of humor. Also appears to be pretty smart. Not
a moron at all...
Heliodor Dragon
Ophidian Dragon
solus <mr...@lglass.com> wrote in article
<EvEoGw....@inmet.camb.inmet.com>...
>
> Perhaps the programmers wrote lousy code? That's hard to
> work with when you want to make significant changes, and
> it's often easier just to rewrite it.
There was one programmer and that was Richard Garriott in the earliest
games--he had some help, but it was mostly him.
> Actually, I'd have to disagree with that. There were
> significant improvements with each title. The original
> Ultima had (if I remember correctly) single-color 8x8 icons
> to represent terrain, but that was increased to 16x16 with
> U2.
Ths first Ultima had almost exactly what U2 had. If you see screenshots
from both orignal games when viewing the 'overworld', you cannot tell the
difference. Also, the dungeon algorithms from Akalabeth were re-used in
the first Ultima. And you really can't very well increase tile size
because I don't believe the Apple II had support for more than two
resolutions :-)
> U3 introduced multi-party gameplay, a ton more spells,
> better graphics, and a much larger map (64x64).
Most of the improvements in the games were underneath the hood. The major
change between Ultima and Ultima II was that Ultima II was written in
Assembly, while Ultima was in BASIC.
>U4 changed
> the way the party worked, but once again, the size of the
> map grew (I believe it was 512x512), a far better magic
> system, and a great music score.
Adding to the number of tiles means merely that the game was shipped on
more disks than the previous. The actual tile-display algorithm was the
same, because they did not need to be changed at all.
As for the party, I don't really see what the difference between adding
members at the outset to adding members in the middle of the game is, the
code dealing with keeping track of who is in the party and what their
current status is could remain the same. it was probably enhanced some,
but not entirely rewritten, because that just wastes time that could be
spent adding new features.
And, finally, the music was present in U3 as well :-)
>U5 had an even larger
> world, more cities and villages, multi-level buildings, and
> multi-coloured icons.
U5's world was nearly an exact copy of U4's world, with 512 tiles. It
added new locales, like the underworld, which again equated to adding more
disks.
> To support all of these changes, a good chunk of code
> would have to be rewritten.
He didn't mean they literally rewrote the entire code for the game. Other
companies literally reused the old engine, and even the old maps, over and
over and over again. THey were the exact same games with a few new spells
or maps. Ultima was different--He started each game with fresh ideas. He
put it together anew. Not that he rewrote all the code of the entire game
every single time, but rather Garriott enhanced the old code so that it
worked better, and then rewrote maps and everything. Each game had
features the previous game lacked. If Origin had rewritten everything from
scratch, they'd have never been able to add much. Other companies didn't
enchance their game much--they just threw in new maps and new characters
and called it "new."
> Nowadays, it's not economocial to toss out old code, and
> you're saving money in the long run if you write it
> correctly in the first place.
That was even more important a concern when one or two guys were writing an
entire game.
> Each Ultima pushed the boundries of computers at the time
> they were released. Most of the titles were released on
> two or more platforms and when you write a graphics engine
> in assembly, it's *NOT* going to be cross-platform.
That's an even bigger reason not to throw out code. They were essentially
writing games for 4 different systems with every release, and could not
waste time rewriting old graphics routines.
> Origin has also made it a habit of having steep system
> requirements for games. Does anyone remember the first
> two Wing Commanders? They were a bitch to get working,
> and a boot disk was usually the answer. Ultima VII (I
> think) required that you used their memory manager
> (Voodoo).... argh. that was fun.
heh. That was actually because Ultima VII was slightly behind the
times--it was started and Voodoo written before extended memory managers
were common. By the time the game was released, they were everywhere. And
that was soooo screwy. :-)
-Ophidian Dragon
AcK!
Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:59:46 -0500 was when for...@earthlink.net (Fortran
Dragon) babbled:
> It is a societal/social problem. Switzerland is far more dangerously
>armed (adults have fully automatic weapons and are trained how to use
>them), yet they have much lower incidents of crime.
Yes, but aren't the Swiss trained to defend the country, while in the
US, any yahoo can have a gun, even without training? (so I'm
supporting your statement...)
In a desperate effort to get this back on-topic, where have guns been
used in Ultima?
TTYL
------------------------------------------
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
Victor Danilchenko
Fortran Dragon wrote:
>
> My glass typewriter shows Simon Summerfield saying...
> [Snip]
> > [A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
> > where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
> > related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
> > need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
>
> armed (adults have fully automatic weapons and are trained how to use
> them), yet they have much lower incidents of crime.
In the last TIME magazine, there is a bunch of articles about guns.
Turns out that in the 31 states that relaxed concealed carry laws in the
last few years, the crime rate dropped, while it rose nationwide. Then,
of course, there is that figure of 2.5 MILLION instances where guns were
successfully used in self-defense, of which only in 5% of cases the guns
actually had to be fired. Cool beans...
--
Daermonestroer Dragon
Gabriele Neukam
On 1 Jul 1998 03:23:37 GMT, "Moongazer Dragon"
Ob-Anti-Rifle-Assoc.:
Here, in Germany, People need to have a license for owning a weapon
and prove that they are mentally old enough to handle it with
responsibility.
I never have heard of any pupil shooting his colleagues while entering
school, except from the United States of America. That tells a thing,
doesn't it? Seems, a gun is a favorite tool of North American
Neurotics.
Gabriele Neukam
MdmeDis
In article <359A9EC3...@cs.umass.edu>, dani...@cs.umass.edu
says...
> Fortran Dragon wrote:
> >
> > My glass typewriter shows Simon Summerfield saying...
> > [Snip]
> > > [A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
> > > where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
> > > related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
> > > need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
> >
> > It is a societal/social problem. Switzerland is far more dangerously
> > armed (adults have fully automatic weapons and are trained how to use
> > them), yet they have much lower incidents of crime.
The lower incidence of crime probably has more to do with an effective
punishment system than the gun ownership. Britain has a much lower
incidence of crime than the US (hell, the entire civilized world has a
lower incidence of crime than the US) but the Brits aren't armed.
>
> In the last TIME magazine, there is a bunch of articles about guns.
> Turns out that in the 31 states that relaxed concealed carry laws in the
> last few years, the crime rate dropped, while it rose nationwide. Then,
> of course, there is that figure of 2.5 MILLION instances where guns were
> successfully used in self-defense, of which only in 5% of cases the guns
> actually had to be fired. Cool beans...
>
Oh goody - I see you've unkillfiled Fortran. Does that include me? And
what kinda cool beans are the stats on accidental shootings, I wonder?
Basically, I'm against guns. If you use the tired old militia
arguments, forget it - if the Govt. wants to take you over, your diddly
little peashooters are not going to do much against current military
artillery. If you say you want 'em for hunting, then I think you is
kinda twisted - I've never been able to snuggle up to someone who thinks
maiming and killing critters is fun. Be that as it may, law says you can
have 'em, and in this country where the law cannot guarantee your safety
and where there are so many available, it would be senseless to try to
ban them. Many Bad Things would happen - not least of which would be a
black market as with drugs etc....
What I do wish would happen is that only adults with some clue about
safety were the ones allowed to have them. I would like to see
organisations like the NRA prosecuted criminally for training ten-year
olds to be marksmen - and held fully accountable financially when one of
their young trainees goes postal in a school yard. I also wish the
parents of children who get hold of the parents guns and accidently
shoot another kid could be criminally prosecuted. If weapons of death
must be kept around, at least keep them out of the hands of children.
Guns stop crime? No. The fear of consequences stop crime, which is what
you are saying above, in effect?
Pete's Dragon
ch...@icat.rmci.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:35:45 -0700, "Chong Kuang-Ting"
> <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
>
> >This is a bloody long message...
>
ah yes, the seven trolls of Disney fame...
let's see, there were:
Sleazy
Slimy
Crappy
Lousy
Ugly
Dumbass
and
Yuck.
--
Pete's Dragon: Walt Disney meets Julie Doucet
"We have nothing against ideas. We're just against people spreading
them."
-- General Augusto Pinochet
Moongazer Dragon
> I always thought it was
>
> 'a society that trades FREEDOM for security deserves neither'
>
It is. Damn my worthless memory. That's what I get for reciting a quote I
heard years ago...
--
Moongazer Dragon
> I never have heard of any pupil shooting his colleagues while entering
> school, except from the United States of America. That tells a thing,
> doesn't it? Seems, a gun is a favorite tool of North American
> Neurotics.
A guns is just that, a tool. If people killed each other with knives, it
wouldn't be any different, merely less efficient.
Moongazer Dragon
> Basically, I'm against guns. If you use the tired old militia
> arguments, forget it - if the Govt. wants to take you over, your diddly
> little peashooters are not going to do much against current military
> artillery.
self-control I should have used earlier to avoid starting this thread. :)
> If you say you want 'em for hunting, then I think you is
> kinda twisted - I've never been able to snuggle up to someone who thinks
> maiming and killing critters is fun. Be that as it may, law says you can
> have 'em, and in this country where the law cannot guarantee your safety
> and where there are so many available, it would be senseless to try to
> ban them. Many Bad Things would happen - not least of which would be a
> black market as with drugs etc....
As for the hunting, have you ever eaten a hamburger? How about a slice of
bacon? If you are a vegetarian, I respect your beliefs, and your opinion
is fine with me. If not, then you may have to rethink your dislike of
hunters. As to the bit about a gun black market, that's a large part of
what I was referring to in my post.
> What I do wish would happen is that only adults with some clue about
> safety were the ones allowed to have them. I would like to see
> organisations like the NRA prosecuted criminally for training ten-year
> olds to be marksmen - and held fully accountable financially when one of
> their young trainees goes postal in a school yard. I also wish the
> parents of children who get hold of the parents guns and accidently
> shoot another kid could be criminally prosecuted. If weapons of death
> must be kept around, at least keep them out of the hands of children.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with everything in this paragraph but the first
sentence. Having only responsible people own firearms would be the ideal
situation, but we do not live in a utopia. Secondly, where do you get that
NRA-trained kids are the ones going postal? Also, the parents of kids who
shoot other kid should not be prosecuted (Unless they told their child to!)
because it's the kid's fault. It all goes back to the fact that no one
wants to take responsibility for their own actions. The kid should be
prosecuted. Oh well, I can't change the American "justice" system...
> Guns stop crime? No. The fear of consequences stop crime, which is what
> you are saying above, in effect?
Well, sort of. It IS the fear of consequences that stops crime. However,
if you break into an old lady's house to rob her, and she blows your head
off with a 12 guage, that's one hell of a consequence! That, in effect, is
the point I was trying to make.
Moongazer Dragon
> > Moongazer Dragon wrote:
> >
> > [A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
> > where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
> > related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
> > need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
I would like to point out that many criminals ENJOY to murder innocent
people, it's much like rape, it makes them feel powerful. Do you think
they'll quit merely because they don't "have to" kill anyone?
> > > "A society that trades safety for security, deserves neither."
> > > --Benjamin Franklin, on the second
amendment.
> > Woah. You've just been arguing that people should be allowed to
> > own guns, and then you use this quote!! Mate, you are really dumb.
> > The beauty of this quote is that it can be used to support BOTH
> > sides of the argument. It is implicitly ambiguous.
Actually, his quote was trying to say that if we all give away our weapons,
the government could quite easily take control of every facet of our lives.
Do you know what one of the first things Adolf Hitler did when he got in
power? He banned guns! What a fine, decent fellow he was. I mean, just
because he was a power-mad lunatic bent on ruling the world who attempted
genecide of a completely innocent race (among other atrocities) doesn't
mean we should disagree with him! (I am being sarcastic, in case you
couldn't tell)
> Indeed it is. It is also a misquote of Franklin. The actual quote is as
> follows:
>
> "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
> --Benjamin Franklin
You're right. Damn my horrid long-term memory! That's what I get for
posting when I'm half asleep! :)
Ken Arromdee
In article <EvEoGw....@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
solus <mr...@lglass.com> wrote:
>U5 had an even larger
>world, more cities and villages, multi-level buildings, and
>multi-coloured icons.
U5 used the same map as U4.
--
Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space
arro...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It
karr...@nyx.nyx.net |sank into the swamp. So I built a second
http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too.
--------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp.
So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the
swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
James Dowd
Gabriele Neukam wrote in message <6ne72p$mfr$4...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
>I never have heard of any pupil shooting his colleagues while entering
>school, except from the United States of America. That tells a thing,
>doesn't it? Seems, a gun is a favorite tool of North American
>Neurotics.
No, that doesn't say anything. You can't judge a group by some extreme
actions.
James Dowd
MdmeDis wrote in message ...
>In article <359A9EC3...@cs.umass.edu>, dani...@cs.umass.edu
>says...
>> Fortran Dragon wrote:
>> >
>> > My glass typewriter shows Simon Summerfield saying...
>> > [Snip]
>> > > where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
>> > > related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
>> > > need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
>> >
dangerously
>> > armed (adults have fully automatic weapons and are trained how to
use
>> > them), yet they have much lower incidents of crime.
>
>The lower incidence of crime probably has more to do with an effective
>punishment system than the gun ownership. Britain has a much lower
>incidence of crime than the US (hell, the entire civilized world has a
>lower incidence of crime than the US) but the Brits aren't armed.
>>
>> In the last TIME magazine, there is a bunch of articles about guns.
>> Turns out that in the 31 states that relaxed concealed carry laws in
the
>> last few years, the crime rate dropped, while it rose nationwide.
Then,
>> of course, there is that figure of 2.5 MILLION instances where guns
were
>> successfully used in self-defense, of which only in 5% of cases the
guns
>> actually had to be fired. Cool beans...
>>
> Oh goody - I see you've unkillfiled Fortran. Does that include me? And
>what kinda cool beans are the stats on accidental shootings, I wonder?
>
Ooh, goody. We have Daer who supports owning guns. (which,
incidentally, is where I am on the gun spectrum - but I'm staying out of
this argument) We have Dis who's basically against guns. And we have
Fortran who is apparently an ideal NRA member. (what I mean is that he
is not a stereotypical "trigger happy" NRA member, but rather a true
one - guns with responsibility and all that) [Wow, i agree with
Fortran!]
I would say more, but I'm being abducted! Aaaaaaaaaa!
Richard M. Hartman
In article <6ne72p$mfr$4...@news00.btx.dtag.de>, Gabriel...@t-online.de wrote:
>
>On 1 Jul 1998 03:23:37 GMT, "Moongazer Dragon"
><lordf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ob-Anti-Rifle-Assoc.:
>
>Here, in Germany, People need to have a license for owning a weapon
>and prove that they are mentally old enough to handle it with
>responsibility.
>
>school, except from the United States of America. That tells a thing,
>doesn't it? Seems, a gun is a favorite tool of North American
>Neurotics.
I'm sure they would be less of a favorite if they thought
their prey were armed too.
For example, the incident at 101 California Street, in San
Francisco kicked off a major push in the anti-gun effort. Their
point is that this guy had too easy access to guns, and a lot
of people died.
My point is: if even one in ten of the people in that office
building had been armed, how far would the whacko have
gotten?
-Richard M. Hartman
rmha...@usa.net
--
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade ... and throw it in the face
of the person who wouldn't give you the oranges you asked for in the
first place.
-Bill McNeal, News Radio
MdmeDis
In article <01bda53b$8cf100a0$f691c6cd@default>, lordf...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Basically, I'm against guns. If you use the tired old militia
> > little peashooters are not going to do much against current military
> > artillery.
> I will have the self-control to avoid arguing on this one -- the same
> self-control I should have used earlier to avoid starting this thread. :)
Well, if we keep our cool, all should be well. Note that although I
disagree with firearm ownership, I realize its here to stay.
>
> > If you say you want 'em for hunting, then I think you is
> > kinda twisted - I've never been able to snuggle up to someone who thinks
> > maiming and killing critters is fun. Be that as it may, law says you can
> > have 'em, and in this country where the law cannot guarantee your safety
> > and where there are so many available, it would be senseless to try to
> > ban them. Many Bad Things would happen - not least of which would be a
> > black market as with drugs etc....
> As for the hunting, have you ever eaten a hamburger? How about a slice of
> bacon? If you are a vegetarian, I respect your beliefs, and your opinion
> is fine with me. If not, then you may have to rethink your dislike of
> hunters. As to the bit about a gun black market, that's a large part of
> what I was referring to in my post.
98% of hunting with firearms in this country is done for pleasure, not
for food - although some does get eaten. I just don't get excited when I
see some insignificant little twerp standing over the body of a handsome
bear smirking proudly. Hell, I'd have a modicum of respect if he'd
killed it in a fair contest. (Dare I say 'bare' handed?) As it is, it
disgusts me that humans get their jollies by destroying things.
And hamburger has little to do with hunting - you don't want to hear
what I have to say about slaughterhouses, believe me. And again, it
could all be done with humanity - God, that word is an irony! Yes I do
try to be a vegetarian periodically, but fail miserably.
> > What I do wish would happen is that only adults with some clue about
> > safety were the ones allowed to have them. I would like to see
> > organisations like the NRA prosecuted criminally for training ten-year
> > olds to be marksmen - and held fully accountable financially when one of
> > their young trainees goes postal in a school yard. I also wish the
> > parents of children who get hold of the parents guns and accidently
> > shoot another kid could be criminally prosecuted. If weapons of death
> > must be kept around, at least keep them out of the hands of children.
> I'm sorry, but I disagree with everything in this paragraph but the first
> sentence. Having only responsible people own firearms would be the ideal
> situation, but we do not live in a utopia. Secondly, where do you get that
> NRA-trained kids are the ones going postal?
The one that did the really super efficient job (in Arkansas, was it?)
was. The NRA does indeed have programs for young children that makes
marksmen of them. And the targets they are shooting at are the same ones
the police are trained on. The NRA will tell you the children are being
taught safety.
Two days ago, on television is the distraught mother of 11 year old. the
kid has handled guns since he was 4 - knows all about them. He and
father return from hunting - gun gets left in truck. 9 year old buddy
comes to play - climbs in truck and gets gun. 11 year old tries to get
gun away from him and shoots and kills him in the process. The father is
the one I would like to see prosecuted.
> Also, the parents of kids who
> shoot other kid should not be prosecuted (Unless they told their child to!)
> because it's the kid's fault. It all goes back to the fact that no one
> wants to take responsibility for their own actions. The kid should be
> prosecuted. Oh well, I can't change the American "justice" system...
Ten and eleven year olds and younger are not responsible - legally or
any way. I'm guessing you don't have kids - kids screw up, its how they
learn. But when its pointing a loaded gun at a playmate, the
consequences of that screw up are horrendous. And it happens daily.
Death is pretty certain with a gun - you don't put them into the hands
of children, or leave them where they can be found by children.
Personally, I wish the damn NRA would do something about it - they are
the ones who could, but they are certainly contributing to the problem
with their current policies.
>
> > Guns stop crime? No. The fear of consequences stop crime, which is what
> > you are saying above, in effect?
> Well, sort of. It IS the fear of consequences that stops crime. However,
> if you break into an old lady's house to rob her, and she blows your head
> off with a 12 guage, that's one hell of a consequence! That, in effect, is
> the point I was trying to make.
But there are more and more who are blowing the little old ladies head
off first. Heard about these "home invasions" that are happening? The
bad guys burst in, guns blazing, just to avoid that eventuality.
Guns are designed for one purpose - to kill quickly and effectively. if
those kids who went postal had had knives or clubs or even longbows,
they could not have killed the people they did (crossbows are as bad as
guns, nearly) I'm sorry, but it is the gun and not the person that
kills. Without the gun, the attackers could've easily been controlled.
If you don't believe that, you've no business owning a gun.
MdmeDis
In article <01bda53c$092e6c20$f691c6cd@default>, lordf...@hotmail.com
says...
>
> > I never have heard of any pupil shooting his colleagues while entering
> > school, except from the United States of America. That tells a thing,
> > doesn't it? Seems, a gun is a favorite tool of North American
> > Neurotics.
> wouldn't be any different, merely less efficient.
Yes. People wouldn't die.
It would be very different. It is far easier to disarm a person with a
knife. A person with a knife can't sit in a tower and snipe at anyone he
chooses. He can't walk into a restaurant and mow down ten or so people
in seconds. Stab wounds are often not fatal, and the victim at least has
a fighting chance. How many people die from accidental stabbings each
day?
MdmeDis
In article <6neh21$2e27...@news.globalpac.com>, rmha...@usa.net
says...
> In article <6ne72p$mfr$4...@news00.btx.dtag.de>, Gabriel...@t-online.de wrote:
> >
> >On 1 Jul 1998 03:23:37 GMT, "Moongazer Dragon"
> ><lordf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ob-Anti-Rifle-Assoc.:
> >
> >Here, in Germany, People need to have a license for owning a weapon
> >and prove that they are mentally old enough to handle it with
> >responsibility.
> >
> >school, except from the United States of America. That tells a thing,
> >doesn't it? Seems, a gun is a favorite tool of North American
> >Neurotics.
>
> their prey were armed too.
>
> For example, the incident at 101 California Street, in San
> Francisco kicked off a major push in the anti-gun effort. Their
> point is that this guy had too easy access to guns, and a lot
> of people died.
>
> My point is: if even one in ten of the people in that office
> building had been armed, how far would the whacko have
> gotten?
And how less dead would his victims be? You can be armed to the teeth,
but unless you are expecting an attack and are sitting gun in hand,(and
then you have a less than 50/50 chance) he's gonna kill you before you
get to it. And he is going to commit suicide anyway, so it will not
deter him - just make him more careful in his approach.
Eric Kidder
In article <6nban7$bj5$1...@service3.uky.edu>,
Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
>Are you in charge of UDIC? Your're damn right, I've been wanting to get out
>from UDIC since last year. I sent all sort of emails, from resignation to
>changing my title, but got no reply. It's like a black hole that only sucks
>people in and never lets them get out again.
Ahhh, like Indiana. Wait, no, UDIC is not -that- bad. ;)
>I've been around in the dragon newsgroup for years. Mostly lurking, and my
>opinion of the dragons is deteriorating all the times. The dragons are a
Just wondering, but do you enjoy lurking and commenting? Not trying to
sound rude, but I'm curious as to why you'd stay.
>bunch of childish, opinionated fools that do nothing but whine, complain,
>flame, defame, attack, and talk about their stupid lives like they are some
>sort of superstars and the whole world is sooo interested in knowing what
I'm certainly interested in how my fellow Dragons are doing. I follow
Ophidian's adventures with malicious glee (sorry ;). And flames, insults,
etc.? *sigh* They are what usenet is made of. Try alt.flame sometime :)
The designated topic for this group is whatever the hell the dragons want
to talk about. Or something like that. Been too long since I saw the
charter.
>they do. And things have gotten much worse recently. Every time I am going
>through the dragon groups I keep asking myself, "Why did I even want to be
>associated with those morons? Why did I join in the first place? BIG
>mistake." Seriously, Ijust want to quite the stupid UDIC, and looks like
Ahh, but are mistakes necessarily a bad thing? You have learned from this
experience, and thus you are wiser. As we have learned from Ultima VIII,
and damned we are a lot wiser for it.
Origin has learned as well: eye-candy sells.
>the only way to do it is to do it with a bang and spill out whatever I've
>been wanting to say.
No, no, no. That'll never work. You must understand, youngling, that
this sort of tactic is well, something that is welcomed. Controversy,
flame wars. These are the staples of the internet (and usenet in
particular). (I should repost my comments concerning flaming that I made
on rec.games.mud.admin)
You'd just make great reading and people would just begin to beg to see
you flamed or flaming some more. Toootttttal carnage!
Savant
--
--== Eric Kidder ==-- ENFP : It's not just for breakfast anymore
"You wouldn't know a cunning plan if it ran up, bit you in the ass, and
said, 'Hey! I'm a cunning plan!'" - Sgt. Blackadder from Monty Python
MdmeDis
In article <6neohq$b...@lore.cs.purdue.edu>, kid...@cs.purdue.edu says...
asking about you. You are Eric the Savant One? (Computer crashed, so I
don't know if it'll make it)
Eric Kidder
In article <MPG.1004b4b76...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
MdmeDis <GS...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Aaah - it is you. I was just responding to Lost about the old days
>asking about you. You are Eric the Savant One? (Computer crashed, so I
>don't know if it'll make it)
With apologies to Steve Miller:
Some people call me Savant Dragon, yeah
Some call me the Dragon of Flame
Some people call me 'Eric'
Cause I speak of the coolness of flames
Eric the Savant One :)
Mike Stucke (remove x to reply)
Mils wrote:
>
> > The Dragons, the Evil Avatars, and the Protectors of Virtue and Lord
> > British were all formed on Prodigy around that time. Oddly, that's
> > exactly what I recall seeing. The only difference between then and now is
> > scale of message propagation.
> >
> > <much larger snippage>
>
> What was prodigy anyway ? Was it a bbs ? Something on compuserve ?
>
Prodigy was an online service like CompuServe. For a while, it was one of the
better ones (and I still say it was much better than AOL will ever be...)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Stucke mastucke (at) concentric (dot) net
Stoical Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
-=<UDIC Code>=--------------------
|d++e--NT-Om++U1!23!4!56!A7'!LS'!8!|
| u++uC+uF++uG++++uLB++uA++nC+nR+ |
| nH++nPnInPTnS+nT-y--a17 |
----------------------------------
Christopher A. Tew
This was said on Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:33:04 -0400. Why? Only MdmeDis
knows.
> In article <359A9EC3...@cs.umass.edu>, dani...@cs.umass.edu
> says...
> > Fortran Dragon wrote:
> > >
> > > My glass typewriter shows Simon Summerfield saying...
> > > [Snip]
> > > > [A whole load of pro-gun rubbish that ignores the facts that
> > > > where guns are not freely available the incidence of firearm
> > > > related crime is dramatically reduced since criminals don't
> > > > need to use guns to perform their crimes has been snipped]
> > >
> > > It is a societal/social problem. Switzerland is far more dangerously
> > > armed (adults have fully automatic weapons and are trained how to use
> > > them), yet they have much lower incidents of crime.
>
> The lower incidence of crime probably has more to do with an effective
> punishment system than the gun ownership. Britain has a much lower
> incidence of crime than the US (hell, the entire civilized world has a
> lower incidence of crime than the US) but the Brits aren't armed.
Yes, but that's because the US has a fairly unique culture that has
revolved around violence since before it was actually concieved. It's
actually fairly bizarre that the US *hasn't* become involved in a major
war in the last two decades (Desert Storm doesn't count as a war in my
book).
Also, punishments for crimes in the US, except for in the case of traffic
violations, drug use/posession, and DUI, have generally become less harsh
because of prison overcrowding, yet crime rates haven't risen much
because of it. I think that the lower incidence of crime in the states
that allow concealed carry has something to do with the concealed carry
laws and with the current economic upswing.
Anyway, I'm in Fortran's camp. It's not a punishment thing, it's a
cultural thing.
> Basically, I'm against guns.
Pandora's Box. It doesn't matter if you're for or against guns, really.
You just have to deal with them. If that means that every person in this
country has to have a six-shooter on ther waist, then so be it. But,
that's not the case. I live in Las Vegas, a city with a very high
violent crime rate, but I know where not to go, and I live in a
relatively safe area. Some people are not as fortunate as me, though, so
they arm themselves before going out at night. So long as they know what
to do with the guns and act responsibly and civilly, I have no bones to
pick with them.
> What I do wish would happen is that only adults with some clue about
> safety were the ones allowed to have them. I would like to see
> organisations like the NRA prosecuted criminally for training ten-year
> olds to be marksmen - and held fully accountable financially when one of
> their young trainees goes postal in a school yard.
The NRA teaches gun safety. It's up to the parents of the children to
take care of the rest. There's no logical way that the NRA could or
should be held legally or civilly responsible for any shooting. Same
goes for the gun manufacturers. I'm really very partial to personal
accountability.
Oh, and as far as the militia vs the US Army argument goes, you only have
to look at Mogadishu or North Ireland to see how a milita can hold back a
major military force.
> I also wish the
> parents of children who get hold of the parents guns and accidently
> shoot another kid could be criminally prosecuted. If weapons of death
> must be kept around, at least keep them out of the hands of children.
The first part is almost as suspect as prosecuting the NRA, and the
second is obvious.
>
> Guns stop crime? No. The fear of consequences stop crime, which is what
> you are saying above, in effect?
And a bullet in the chest is a possible consquence if the would-be
criminal faces a person with a gun and with the knowledge of how to use
it.
-Cat
--
Hype.
To e-mail me, look at the organization header
and figure it out, smart guy
Mils
> > On the other hand, U6 could run on a 286 in CGA, when
> > 386's were close to standard, and VGA had been out for
> > years. if U9 were made in that style, it would run on a
> > P133, with 16 meg of RAM. 64 Meg *minimum* is obscene--
> > for virtually any commercial product.
>
> While I don't expect any high-end game to run well on a
> P133, I'd have to agree that a 64meg requirement is obscene.
I totally agree, even if those are not the same types of game , Unreal
look better than U:A and ask for a less powerful computer.
Moa Dragon
mi...@club-internet.fr
Paul Ryan
AcK! wrote:
> In a desperate effort to get this back on-topic, where have guns been
> used in Ultima?
>
> TTYL
Something is on topic around here? This is being crossposted to rgcu.dragons...
In U7 there are muskets, with ammo in giant snake skulls (go figure). In Savage
Empire there are rifles and home-made flintlocks. In Martian Dreams there are
assorted firearms (derringer to elephant gun), a couple of rayguns (Martians DID
have a heatray, as well as a freezeray) and a nice convenient M16 machinegun for
dealing with impenetrable walls.
--
Paulon Dragon d++ e- N- T+ Om U1!23!4!5!6!7'!S'!8!KA!L!W!M!
-==(UDIC)==- u++ uC+ uF uG uLB+ uA+ nC nH+ nI nPT nS+ nT+ y?
Insights are always valuable, even if they only show
you your duodenal ulcer.
Ka'a Orto'o, Gnomic Utterances, V XCIII
Negate the Spell to wish me well...
Ophidian Dragon
Moongazer Dragon <lordf...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<01bda53b$8cf100a0$f691c6cd@default>...
>
> As for the hunting, have you ever eaten a hamburger? How about a slice
of
> bacon? If you are a vegetarian, I respect your beliefs, and your opinion
> is fine with me. If not, then you may have to rethink your dislike of
> hunters.
Most of the hunters I know kill the deer, then stuff it and stick it by a
door somewhere. I don't approve of that, personally.
> Well, sort of. It IS the fear of consequences that stops crime.
However,
> if you break into an old lady's house to rob her, and she blows your head
> off with a 12 guage, that's one hell of a consequence! That, in effect,
is
> the point I was trying to make.
I don't think the fear of consequences really stops crime either. it's
usually people who don't think about the consequences who commit crimes.
-Ophidian Dragon
Ophidian Dragon
MdmeDis <GS...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<MPG.100496ee5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> It would be very different. It is far easier to disarm a person with a
> knife. A person with a knife can't sit in a tower and snipe at anyone he
> chooses. He can't walk into a restaurant and mow down ten or so people
> in seconds. Stab wounds are often not fatal, and the victim at least has
> a fighting chance. How many people die from accidental stabbings each
> day?
Well, the guys who really want to go out and mow people down would almost
certainly aquire a firearm illegally to do so.
-Ophidian Dragon
AcK!
Thu, 02 Jul 1998 07:07:37 +1200 was when Paul Ryan
<paul...@InVasAnSpam.ihug.co.nz> babbled:
>Something is on topic around here? This is being crossposted to rgcu.dragons...
LOL
>In U7 there are muskets, with ammo in giant snake skulls (go figure). In Savage
>Empire there are rifles and home-made flintlocks. In Martian Dreams there are
>assorted firearms (derringer to elephant gun), a couple of rayguns (Martians DID
>have a heatray, as well as a freezeray) and a nice convenient M16 machinegun for
>dealing with impenetrable walls.
Now to get around to playing all those games...
Moongazer Dragon
> I don't think the fear of consequences really stops crime either. it's
> usually people who don't think about the consequences who commit crimes.
> -Ophidian Dragon
In many cases, I'm sure that's true. However, if that old lady blows your
head off; you won't be doing any more home-invading will you? ;)
Moongazer Dragon
> Well, the guys who really want to go out and mow people down would almost
> certainly aquire a firearm illegally to do so.
>
> -Ophidian Dragon
Exactly!! That was my whole point with this damned thread to begin with!
It's about time somebody noticed that, thanks!