Ultima 9 article on gamespot...
Christopher A Tew
Read:
http://headline.gamespot.com/news/97_12/23_ultnine/index.html
Be amused. I was.
Predictions:
1) The grand finale will be a tank rush of the Guardian.
2) The Avatar, now a she, will suddenly sprout some huge tracts of
land, and will run about Britannia in a thong and little black stickys
to cover the nipples.
3) Nude Avatar web sites will pop up all over the place.
4) The Avatar will be a promenent feature of the next U2 tour.
5) Adolescent males will manuver the Avatar around for good "ass
shots" or "breast shots." Except for Phid, who'll complete the secret
dolphin quest in record time.
All joking aside, I agree with Lost. I also have to say that U9 will
probably end up doing more to destroy the reputation of Ultima than U8
and UO combined and taken to the power of pi. :P I could be wrong,
but from the snippet at the above web site...there is no hope.
-Cat
-
"It's a bittersweet symphony, this life..."
"I'm gonna keep catching those butterflies
in that dream of mine..."
-all from The Verve.
-----
Cold Fire
I think I'm going to trow-up. Well lets just take Ulitma thow it out the
window and make a "fantasy tomb raider". This is the most depressing thing
I've heard since there was jumping in Ulitma 8.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE *&$# HEADS AT ORIGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE
THEY BRAIN DEAD?!?!?!?!?! AFTER ULTIMA 8 WE DEMANDED THE NEXT ULTIMA BE
MORE LIKE ULTIMA 7!!!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOO SOME DUMB ASS GOT A BUG UP HIS BUTT
AND DECIDED TO MAKE IT LIKE TOMB RAIDER.
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
-=Cold Fire=-
=-=Anthaxis Dragon=-=
=-= (UDIC) =-=
DC.D f+ s++ h++ CS a- $ m d+++ WL++* Fr- L142f Bcoldfire e++ g i++
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/7677 -- Home Page
Andrew Charlton
"Cold Fire" <cold...@email.msn.com> writes:
>I think I'm going to trow-up. Well lets just take Ulitma thow it out the
>window and make a "fantasy tomb raider". This is the most depressing thing
>I've heard since there was jumping in Ulitma 8.
The article was _just_ talking about perspective. Command and Conquor and
Ultima 7 both had top-down perspectives. Ultima Underworld and Doom both
had first-person perspectives. It doesn't mean they have anything remotely
to do with each other gameplay wise.
Consider this: before this news, we knew that U9 had a perspective similar
to Syndicate 2. Did we automatically assume the gameplay would be the same
then?
How about the good news:
"Unlike Tomb Raider, however, Ultima 9's world will be one seamless
environment and not broken up into chunks that will load at predetermined
times. "
Remember how we all hated that in U8? They _listened_ to us.
"Despite the technology surrounding Ultima 9, Del Castillo promises that
the grand finale to Lord British's "trilogy of trilogies" will not be an
action game and will counter the industry trend to substitute technology
for story and depth. "
They know what you're all thinking and have already rebutted it. Why would
you rather read more into a throwaway comparison to another game's
perspective than you would to a concrete statement that the game is _not_
sacrificing story and depth?
--
____/\___ Erraticus
___/__\__) -==(UDIC)==-
(__/ \__ \\//
/ \ \/
Glaser
The movable 3-d perspective they originally planned works very well with
Final Fantasy VII (Which, BTW, look a lot like the old promo shots of
IX. They've even got a round building built out of a tree.) So why
couldn't they just keep things as they were? (Of course, I won't
complain too loudly if they release this for consoles so I won't have to
spend $2500 on a new computer for the game.)
Lost Dragon
>Remember how we all hated that in U8? They _listened_ to us.
So they reverted back to the way it should have been all along.
>"Despite the technology surrounding Ultima 9, Del Castillo promises that
>They know what you're all thinking and have already rebutted it. Why would
I'll believe that when I see it. Origin is way to eager to tell me
that the sky is green when I know that it's blue.
As far as I'm concerned, Ultima is nothing. The series is dead,
trash, nada, less than dirt, pushin' up daisies, bought the dirtfarm,
eatin' worms, six feet under, and deader than a doornail.
I see nothing to prove otherwise.
/| .oo__. .-----.=- Lost Dragon -=.-----. U
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ |==- Dungeon Bane: A New Shareware CRPG -==| _O_ | D
`,_/'(_)\_ | | |===-- http://www.cris.com/~lostdrgn/ --===| | | I
<...{_)_)_''`-----`=====-- Currently in Development --====='-----' C
Tyf SeaDragon
>"Despite the technology surrounding Ultima 9, Del Castillo promises that
>the grand finale to Lord British's "trilogy of trilogies" will not be an
>action game and will counter the industry trend to substitute technology
>for story and depth. "
<sarcasm> Gee, where could I have heard *that* before? </sarcasm>
>They know what you're all thinking and have already rebutted it. Why would
>you rather read more into a throwaway comparison to another game's
>perspective than you would to a concrete statement that the game is _not_
>sacrificing story and depth?
*Concrete*? It's about as concrete as a marshmallow puff. Pardon me,
Erraticus, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm suspicious anyhow. With that 3D engine they've been touting so
much, there shouldn't be any problem with putting the camera wherever
they want to.
>Consider this: before this news, we knew that U9 had a perspective similar
>to Syndicate 2. Did we automatically assume the gameplay would be the same
>then?
No, because it was a sensible, logical, and above all, *useful*
progression from what was previously available. A TR perspective OTOH,
has nothing on 1st person perspective except to show off k3wL gR^f1X,
and it blocks out the central (and most important) part of your view.
Not to mention that with each change of direction, the whole thing
gets less and less likely to be finished viably. This is something
that needs to be emblazoned in letters of fire on an iron spike, and
then driven into marketdroids' brains with a sledgehammer.
Tyf
--
Behold the Mystery of Balance! Tyf SeaDragon -=UDIC=-
UDIC: d++ N- T---- Om+++ uA!7'!L!S'! u+++ uGA++ uC+ uF- uG+++
uLB+++ uA-- uB++++ nC+ nR+++++ nH nP---- nI(B!) nS+++ nT----
DC.(mD): f--- s-- (h $-)b+++ CDa(>>) WL+ L(m(3t2@) - ~^) Bsi g--
WesGill
>How about the good news:
>
>"Unlike Tomb Raider, however, Ultima 9's world will be one seamless
>environment and not broken up into chunks that will load at predetermined
>times. "
Yikes! Just imagine the game save/load times!
Universe Dragon
~~~~UDIC~~~~
John D. James
Tyf SeaDragon wrote:
> <Cut> (sorry I'm out of paste)
>
> I'm suspicious anyhow. With that 3D engine they've been touting so
> much, there shouldn't be any problem with putting the camera wherever
> they want to.
Oooh, I hope this part is true! In all the ultima games since U4 I would've given my
breath weapon (garlic gas) to see the peaks of the Dragon Spine mountains
rising above the spires of Castle British with ships in the harbor!
<snippy>
--
**** Omniversal Dragon -=={UDIC}==- in human form, John D. James
** **
** ** What a quaint little universe you have.
****
**
** mailto:jo...@premier1.net
******
** Spam, spam, spam, give me spam! It tastes soooo good!
** I'll take spam with a cream pie anyday!
James Dowd
Lost Dragon wrote in message <34a40c7d...@news.concentric.net>...
>>Remember how we all hated that in U8? They _listened_ to us.
>
>So they reverted back to the way it should have been all along.
>
would
>
>that the sky is green when I know that it's blue.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, Ultima is nothing. The series is dead,
>trash, nada, less than dirt, pushin' up daisies, bought the dirtfarm,
>eatin' worms, six feet under, and deader than a doornail.
>
>I see nothing to prove otherwise.
These kind of posts are really starting to annoy me. U8 was bad, so
everyone assumes U9 will be bad. Although you can't compare the two in
terms of "stuff," you can compare them in terms of what they did on the mass
market. I'm talking about Ultima and Metallica. Yes, a (former... sort of)
heavy metal band is being compared to Ultima. So here's the story, they
release 5 albums and the fifth is really popular. (the Black Album -
fittingly it corresponds to U7: The Black Gate) Their next album, Load, was
widely regarded as crap by real Metallica fans. It was good, just not good
Metallica. (notice that Load and Pagan each share one word names.
Coincidence? I think not! ;) ) So when ReLoad was coming out, everyone
said "oh, it's gonna suck again." Lo and behold, it is one of their best
albums - hell, it was popular both in- and outside of the normal Metallica
people. And the funniest part is, they wrote the songs to both at the same
time. So just because one game is bad does not automatically prove that the
next will be bad.
BTW, before anyone says Metallica just saved the 13 good songs of the 27
they wrote for the second album, they publically told everyone that they
liked Load and they didn't care if anyone didn't like it. Origin is
promising U9 will not be another U8 - so if you don't promise and do
something, then can't we assume someone else just might be telling the truth
when they DO promise to do something?
--
James Dowd (jjd...@erols.com) - Talraen in UO (Catskills)
Talraen Dragon in the -==(UDIC)==- ICQ UIN: 6312204
UDIC: d+ e- N T Om+ U1!2!34!56A7'!LS'8 u+ uC++ uF+++
uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nH+ nP nI+ nPT nS nT+ y a16
Christopher A Tew
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:29:46 -0500, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from "James Dowd" <jjd...@erols.com>:
>Their next album, Load, was
>widely regarded as crap by real Metallica fans. It was good, just not good
>Metallica.
The same fans who're screaming for Metallica to make everything sound
like Master of Puppets all the time.
See, the term, "real," when applied to subjective words like,"fans,"
"gameplayers," and the like, really irritates me. When an author
writes that way, he's attempting to exclude others based solely upon
his own prejudices. I don't think that any Metallica or Ultima fan is
less real than any other.
FWIW, I've been a Metallica fan since I was a wee one, since before I
turned ten, and I thought that Load was a good album, a nice branching
off for the band, and musically sound (oh, look, a pun). I appreciate
it when bands try to do something different and do it well.
James Dowd
Christopher A Tew wrote in message <34a4973a...@news3.lvdi.net>...
>
>FWIW, I've been a Metallica fan since I was a wee one, since before I
>turned ten, and I thought that Load was a good album, a nice branching
>off for the band, and musically sound (oh, look, a pun). I appreciate
>it when bands try to do something different and do it well.
>-Cat
Oh, I agree, I liked Load, just like I liked U8. The public opinion wasn't
so good, though. If there was a rec.music.metallica.dragons NG, it would
have been the same as this one is now between Load and ReLoad. (Metallica
Dragons? That sounds kind of cool ;) )
Zivilyn
WesGill wrote in message <19971226033...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>How about the good news:
>>
>>"Unlike Tomb Raider, however, Ultima 9's world will be one seamless
>>environment and not broken up into chunks that will load at predetermined
>>times. "
>
>Yikes! Just imagine the game save/load times!
Just out of curiosity. What does the map size have to do with the save/load
times? Every save game would have to save all changes done to the original
map whether it's divided up into sections or not.
Zivilyn Dragon
-==UDIC==-
Lost Dragon
>alternatives so people don't jump to wild conclusions. I've always
Wild conclusions? Ultima 8 - Ultima Online. Two lousy games in a
row. Throw in Privateer 2, and I'd say that OSI just isn't quite
hacking it of late.
Why set yourself up for disappointment touting U9 as the "Ultimate of
all Ultimas". Better to look at it as a piece of CRAP and be
pleasantly surprised if it isn't.
Yell now or cry later.
Andrew Charlton
typhon@NO_SPAMwave.co.NZ (Tyf SeaDragon) writes:
>*Concrete*? It's about as concrete as a marshmallow puff. Pardon me,
>Erraticus, but I'll believe it when I see it.
So you'll believe the good things when you see them, but you jump to
horrendous conclusions about the bad things with no evidence whatsoever?
>I'm suspicious anyhow. With that 3D engine they've been touting so
>much, there shouldn't be any problem with putting the camera wherever
>they want to.
Indeed. Which means it isn't such a major change of direction at all.
>>Consider this: before this news, we knew that U9 had a perspective similar
>>to Syndicate 2. Did we automatically assume the gameplay would be the same
>>then?
>
>No, because it was a sensible, logical, and above all, *useful*
>progression from what was previously available. A TR perspective OTOH,
>has nothing on 1st person perspective except to show off k3wL gR^f1X,
>and it blocks out the central (and most important) part of your view.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it's
keeping the central, and most important, part of the _story_ (i.e. the
hero) in plain view. You know, the story - that thing we all said we
wanted.
I'm not saying that it _will_ aid the storytelling, but I am suggesting
alternatives so people don't jump to wild conclusions. I've always
preferred top-down, but I think this floating perspective has a hell of a
lot of potential. More so than 1st person if you ask me.
Ophidian Dragon
Andrew Charlton <char...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<34a99b77...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
> typhon@NO_SPAMwave.co.NZ (Tyf SeaDragon) writes:
> That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that
it's
> keeping the central, and most important, part of the _story_ (i.e. the
> hero) in plain view. You know, the story - that thing we all said we
> wanted.
The hero would have been in plain view anyway. And the story has more to
do with the other people in the game than the Avatar.
-Ophidian Dragon
WesGill
>I'm talking about Ultima and Metallica. Yes, a (former... sort of)
>heavy metal band is being compared to Ultima. So here's the story, they
>release 5 albums and the fifth is really popular. (the Black Album -
>widely regarded as crap by real Metallica fans. It was good, just not good
>Coincidence? I think not! ;) ) So when ReLoad was coming out, everyone
>said "oh, it's gonna suck again." Lo and behold, it is one of their best
>albums - hell, it was popular both in- and outside of the normal Metallica
>people. And the funniest part is, they wrote the songs to both at the same
>time. So just because one game is bad does not automatically prove that the
>next will be bad.
> BTW, before anyone says Metallica just saved the 13 good songs of the 27
>they wrote for the second album, they publically told everyone that they
>liked Load and they didn't care if anyone didn't like it. Origin is
>promising U9 will not be another U8 - so if you don't promise and do
>something, then can't we assume someone else just might be telling the truth
>when they DO promise to do something?
What the F**K??? I've been a Metallica fan for longer than I've
been an Ultima fan and I can assure you that Metallica is truly
DEAD!!! I thought your comparison was very close, and I was
enjoying reading it until I read this crap:
>So when ReLoad was coming out, everyone
>said "oh, it's gonna suck again." Lo and behold, it is one of their best
>albums - hell, it was popular both in- and outside of the normal Metallica
>people.
"...best albums..." ??? What planet are you from? Have you ever
even listened to any REAL Metallica? Are we even talking about the same band???
"...poular..." Let me tell you what popular means.
Popular is what you get when you don't step on anybody's toes,
or you aren't extreme, or you do something that everyone from
Grandma to lil' Joey enjoys. Popular is what you when you create
something that doesn't bother the mass market, and it is not creative
enough to please the hard core fan.
>BTW, before anyone says Metallica just saved the 13 good songs of the 27
>they wrote for the second album, they publically told everyone that they
>liked Load and they didn't care if anyone didn't like it.
I can't believe "good songs" and "Load" are in the same sentence.
Universe Dragon
~~~~UDIC~~~~
Andrew Charlton
lost...@cris.com (Lost Dragon) writes:
>Why set yourself up for disappointment touting U9 as the "Ultimate of
>all Ultimas". Better to look at it as a piece of CRAP and be
>pleasantly surprised if it isn't.
Why look on U9 as anything at all? Surely it would be foolish to do so
based on the tiny amount of information we currently have. As I have
already shown, the current information can be seen in good and bad lights.
>Yell now or cry later.
I did my yelling back when it could do some good.
Andrew Charlton
"Ophidian Dragon" <dev...@ix.takethisout.netcom.com> writes:
>Andrew Charlton <char...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
><34a99b77...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>> That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it's
>> keeping the central, and most important, part of the _story_ (i.e. the
>> hero) in plain view. You know, the story - that thing we all said we
>> wanted.
>
>The hero would have been in plain view anyway. And the story has more to
>do with the other people in the game than the Avatar.
Well, if you want to get picky, it will be about interaction between the
Avatar and other characters/events. The over-the-shoulder, floating camera
perspective has excellent potential in showing this. (It's much the same as
the perspective used in movies, after all)
A top-down perspective keeps the hero at a distance from the player, rather
than in the thick of the action. A first person perspective keeps the hero
completely out of sight.
Lost Dragon
>Why look on U9 as anything at all? Surely it would be foolish to do so
>based on the tiny amount of information we currently have. As I have
>already shown, the current information can be seen in good and bad lights.
So you'll excuse me if I continue to look at it in a bad light. Past
(and recent) experience with the Ultima series suggests that I'll
probably be right. Criminy, you don't know any more than the rest of
us. I'd rather eat crow than have egg on my face.
>>Yell now or cry later.
>>I did my yelling back when it could do some good.
Apparently it hasn't. Time to yell some more.
James Dowd
WesGill wrote in message <19971228213...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
>What the F**K??? I've been a Metallica fan for longer than I've
>been an Ultima fan and I can assure you that Metallica is truly
>DEAD!!! I thought your comparison was very close, and I was
>enjoying reading it until I read this crap:
>
>>So when ReLoad was coming out, everyone
>>said "oh, it's gonna suck again." Lo and behold, it is one of their best
>>albums - hell, it was popular both in- and outside of the normal Metallica
>>people.
>
>"...best albums..." ??? What planet are you from? Have you ever
>even listened to any REAL Metallica? Are we even talking about the same
band???
>"...poular..." Let me tell you what popular means.
>Popular is what you get when you don't step on anybody's toes,
>or you aren't extreme, or you do something that everyone from
>Grandma to lil' Joey enjoys. Popular is what you when you create
>something that doesn't bother the mass market, and it is not creative
>enough to please the hard core fan.
This isn't the argument I really want to get into on this NG, but... well,
in my experience, every single review/ Metallica fan/person who just felt
like rating a CD agrees that ReLoad is very good. IMO it is one of the
best, but you can't possibly think it isn't good - if you do, you aren't a
"hard core" fan, you're an extremely hard core fan, and you are in the vast
minority. Most of the hard core fans I know (and I'm not really one, but oh
well) liked ReLoad a lot. Besides, back to the point, everyone is afraid
that U9 will be like U8. Are you saying that ReLoad is like Load? No
matter what anyone thinks, everyone agrees on one thing: ReLoad went in a
different direction than Load. So, to rephrase that, even if U9 sucks to
"hard core" fans, it wouldn't necessarily be because it's like U8. So :p!
>>BTW, before anyone says Metallica just saved the 13 good songs of the 27
>>they wrote for the second album, they publically told everyone that they
>>liked Load and they didn't care if anyone didn't like it.
>
>I can't believe "good songs" and "Load" are in the same sentence.
I'm assuming that was some sort of joke. If not, you'd better read the
sentence again.
Erik Osterholm
"Zivilyn" <m...@GodIneedawoman.now> wrote:
Isn't U7 one large map? Or am I mistaken. I know that it is several
files, but I thought that it is one map.
*shrug*
----
er...@tamu.edu
http://PersonalWebs.myriad.net/erik/
Chong Kuang-Ting
Erik Osterholm wrote in message <34a73174....@news.myriad.net>...
>
>Isn't U7 one large map? Or am I mistaken. I know that it is several
>files, but I thought that it is one map.
>*shrug*
Yes, you have mistaken.
Ophidian Dragon
Chong Kuang-Ting <ktc...@pop.uky.edu> wrote in article
<1jKp.1726$BU2.2...@news.internetMCI.com>...
U7's map is a collection of chunks, but they are all on the 'same map' so
to speak. Ultima 8 was not like this in that each individual area loaded a
new map that had no connection to other areas. He wasn't mistaken. U7 and
SI are one, albeit freakingly big, map.
-Ophidian Dragon
Paul Gilham
(I've trimmed the soc.culture.celtic from the header -- I've got _no
idea_ why this thread is being x-posted there!)
Quoth jef...@mbox3.singnet.com.sg (Yeo Jeffrey):
>s30...@student.uq.edu.au (Ruediger Landmann) wrote:
>>Ophidian Dragon (dev...@ix.takethisout.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: Hmmm. So the Chinese didn't have the festivals where they dressed up as
>>: dragons? They were actually dressing up as lungs?
>>You don't get it... the Chinese word "lung" is translated "dragon" in
>>English. Has nothing do do with breathing organs. I don't know what the
>>Chinese word for "lung" is...
>
>Actually, the Chinese word of dragon sounds more like "long" rather
>than "lung". But there is more stress on the letters o and n.
I've seen it transliterated as 'loong', which might give more of an
idea of the pronunciation.
>Well, it would be almost impossible to draw a chinese word for the
>dragon without a simple graphic program.
Ach, coward. That's what ascii-art is for! >:D
____________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Paul Gilham ~~ Samurai Dragon ~~ (remove fish to reply)
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e-N T--Om++U1467'8u-uC++uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++
\ `^--^ uR nH+nP+++nI++nPT++nS+++nT--wM-wC oA++y+a22
\ \ \ AFD: DC.D f+s+h--CK^K a $-m-d++WL++ Fr^L12m BW e+g--i--!U!
ksj ^--^ ____________________________________________________________
Andrew Charlton
lost...@cris.com (Lost Dragon) writes:
>So you'll excuse me if I continue to look at it in a bad light. Past
>(and recent) experience with the Ultima series suggests that I'll
>probably be right.
Which does you good only if you take being right as the scoring system for
life.
>Criminy, you don't know any more than the rest of
>us.
I'm not the one making definite predictions about U9.
Christopher A Tew
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:29:33 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
>I'm not the one making definite predictions about U9.
I hate to interject, but what exactly is a definite prediction? ;-)
Lost Dragon
>Which does you good only if you take being right as the scoring system for
>life.
::Shrug:: I call spade as it is. Pretending that Ultima 9 will be
the panacea of all gaming, setting oneself up for disappointment,
seems foolish - especially in light of recent Origin products and
interviews.
>I'm not the one making definite predictions about U9.
See CAT's response.
Dungeon Bane: a shareware CRPG currently in development
http://www.cris.com/~lostdrgn/ E-Mail: lost...@cris.com
MdmeDis
In article <34a88648....@news3.lvdi.net>, tikicat@L_V_D_I.net
says...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:29:33 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam
> from char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew Charlton):
>
>
Its what Origin does every three months when someone reminds them
about Ultima IX.
--
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?
Walker
Walker looks up from his tome. In article
<34a8f773...@news.concentric.net>, lost...@cris.com says...
> >Why look on U9 as anything at all? Surely it would be foolish to do so
> >based on the tiny amount of information we currently have. As I have
> >already shown, the current information can be seen in good and bad lights.
>
> (and recent) experience with the Ultima series suggests that I'll
> us. I'd rather eat crow than have egg on my face.
means a dry cleaning bill.
> >>Yell now or cry later.
> >>I did my yelling back when it could do some good.
>
> Apparently it hasn't. Time to yell some more.
>
>
That's the spirit!
--
[The candle flickers as Walker once again resumes
his poring over the Histories]
<==Walker==>
Andrew Charlton
lost...@cris.com (Lost Dragon) writes:
>Pretending that Ultima 9 will be
>the panacea of all gaming, setting oneself up for disappointment,
>seems foolish - especially in light of recent Origin products and
>interviews.
Seems to me you've convinced yourself you're going to be disappointed
later, so you've decided to be disappointed now instead. That would be
okay, but you're trying to bring everyone else down with you.
Lost Dragon
>Seems to me you've convinced yourself you're going to be disappointed
>later, so you've decided to be disappointed now instead. That would be
>okay, but you're trying to bring everyone else down with you.
Not really. I don't care what other people think or purchase one way
or another. And yes, I am absolutely convinced that Ultima 9 is going
to be a piece of sewage.
Gods, Ultima 8 looks like a mountain of stability and creativity when
compared with Ultima Online.
Matt Kimmich
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 05:11:22 -0600, lost...@cris.com (Lost Dragon)
wrote:
The problem isn't your opinion, but rather how you bring it across. As
you say above, you don't care what other people think - but the longer
the more your posts come across as monotonous, uninteresting rants
that don't add anything to the discussion, IMO. Also, it seems that
you enjoy complaining for its own sake, at least to me.
--
Matt Kimmich a.k.a. Thirith Dragon
"So, I hear you, like, ran into these things before?"
"Yeah."
"What did you do?"
"I died." - Alien Resurrection
James Dowd
Lost Dragon wrote in message <34ad276b...@news.concentric.net>...
>>Seems to me you've convinced yourself you're going to be disappointed
>>later, so you've decided to be disappointed now instead. That would be
>>okay, but you're trying to bring everyone else down with you.
>
>Not really. I don't care what other people think or purchase one way
>or another. And yes, I am absolutely convinced that Ultima 9 is going
>to be a piece of sewage.
Well you're making a lot of other people think the same thing. That isn't
very nice to do, especially to a company which made a lot of the games you
love. Anyway, here's something to think about: Ultima 8 sucked for various
reasons. It didn't sell well. (At least, it better not have! And I don't
mean the rerelease, either - if it did sell well, God help us all) Usually
when a game is not as good as the one before it, the company does not make
the bad game again and call it a sequel. Not to mention they already said
U9 won't be another U8. You are assuming that Origin has a collective IQ of
15, and that they lie. Does that seem very reasonable? I don't care if you
agree, but it makes me mad that people are constantly saying U9 sucks when
we have absolutely no evidence of it, either way.
>Gods, Ultima 8 looks like a mountain of stability and creativity when
>compared with Ultima Online.
Why does everyone compare everything to UO? It was not designed to be a
"game," it was designed to be an "interactive world" or some crap. Now, if
I was making an online game where everyone is constantly bitching about lag,
I'd try to keep it simple. Although I don't really believe it, Origin would
tell you that the players are supposed to make the story. U9 will (should)
be made on entirely different premises.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Andrew Charlton saying...
[Snip]
> Which does you good only if you take being right as the scoring system for
> life.
And what relevance does your statement have to Lost's comment?
[Snip]
> I'm not the one making definite predictions about U9.
So how about some indefinite predictions?
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Andrew Charlton saying...
[Snip]
> later, so you've decided to be disappointed now instead. That would be
> okay, but you're trying to bring everyone else down with you.
Oh, so we should just sit idly by and do nothing when it looks like
Ultima IX is going to be a POS?
Whatever happened to the customer expressing their opinions about
the product being marketed to them? I guess in your scheme of things we
should all just be good little groupies and accept whatever Origin doles
out to us.
James Dowd
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>My glass typewriter shows Andrew Charlton saying...
>[Snip]
>> Seems to me you've convinced yourself you're going to be disappointed
>> later, so you've decided to be disappointed now instead. That would be
>> okay, but you're trying to bring everyone else down with you.
>
> Oh, so we should just sit idly by and do nothing when it looks like
>Ultima IX is going to be a POS?
Based on what? That U8 sucked? That UO, in your opinion, sucks? That the
view will be, at this point, like Tomb Raider? U9 doesn't appear to be
anything at this point, at least nothing you seem to think it is. You have
no concrete, or even semi-real evidence that U9 will suck except that you no
longer seem to like Origin. And don't say that U9 will suck because U8 and
UO sucked - that is a totally invalid argument. If someone really felt like
it, they would say that U8 and UO sucking would make U9 better because
Origin would learn from their mistakes. AFAIK, no one thinks UO is bad for
the same reasons U8 is bad, so it obviously isn't a trend - like an action
game trend, or anything.
> Whatever happened to the customer expressing their opinions about
>the product being marketed to them? I guess in your scheme of things we
>should all just be good little groupies and accept whatever Origin doles
>out to us.
Fine, go write Origin and tell them everything you don't like about U9.
Considering that, at this point, you've never seen the real U9 and you know
almost nothing about it, there is nothing to complain about! When U9 comes
out and sucks, then complain. Don't say "Origin, how dare you have made U9
an action game!" when Origin hasn't yet made U9 an action game.
MdmeDis
In article <68dnm1$idi$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, jjd...@erols.com
says...
> Lost Dragon wrote in message <34ad276b...@news.concentric.net>...
> >Not really. I don't care what other people think or purchase one way
> >or another. And yes, I am absolutely convinced that Ultima 9 is going
> >to be a piece of sewage.
>
> Well you're making a lot of other people think the same thing.
You mean - they can't think for themselves? Lost says its so, so it
must be?
> That isn't very nice to do, especially to a company which made a lot of
> the games you love.
It isn't very nice of said company to ignore its fans and screw its
customers.(I'm referring to the release to the public of a product at
beta stage. People who had been in the beta knew it, but the public
didn't) For two years now we've waited for crumbs from the Origin table
- every 3 - 6 months they trot out some new and stupid excuse about U9.
Some of us are pissed, and are doing what Americans do when pissed with
lousy products. Proclaiming it loudly and often.
> Anyway, here's something to think about: Ultima 8 sucked for various
> reasons. It didn't sell well. (At least, it better not have! And I don't
> mean the rerelease, either - if it did sell well, God help us all) Usually
> when a game is not as good as the one before it, the company does not make
> the bad game again and call it a sequel. Not to mention they already said
> U9 won't be another U8. You are assuming that Origin has a collective IQ of
> 15, and that they lie. Does that seem very reasonable?
Yep. IQ of 15 is generous when you look at their fan base and how they
treat it. And they definitely lie. They lie almost daily about UO.
> I don't care if you
> agree, but it makes me mad that people are constantly saying U9 sucks when
> we have absolutely no evidence of it, either way.
>
> >Gods, Ultima 8 looks like a mountain of stability and creativity when
> >compared with Ultima Online.
>
>
> Why does everyone compare everything to UO?
Because its their latest product. The latest example of the quality of
their products.
> It was not designed to be a
> "game," it was designed to be an "interactive world" or some crap. Now, if
> I was making an online game where everyone is constantly bitching about lag,
> I'd try to keep it simple. Although I don't really believe it, Origin would
> tell you that the players are supposed to make the story. U9 will (should)
> be made on entirely different premises.
Doesn't matter WTF it was designed to be. It sucks as far as quality is
concerned. EA/Origin is about to learn what the American auto industry
learned from the Japanese.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows James Dowd typing...
[Snip]
> And don't say that U9 will suck because U8 and
> UO sucked - that is a totally invalid argument.
No, it is just an argument you don't like. Gee, U8 sucked. Not
good. UO, which was developed _during_ U9's development cycle sucks.
U9's creative team has been shaken up several times during the
development. Hmm. That might give us a good idea that U9 could easily
suck too.
In the real world if someone consistently screws up, that is called
a 'pattern'. You can make some pretty good decisions based on existing
patterns. If you don't believe me, go ask the casinos in Las Vegas
about the power of patterns.
[Snip]
> Fine, go write Origin and tell them everything you don't like about U9.
> Considering that, at this point, you've never seen the real U9 and you know
> almost nothing about it, there is nothing to complain about! When U9 comes
> out and sucks, then complain. Don't say "Origin, how dare you have made U9
> an action game!" when Origin hasn't yet made U9 an action game.
Oh, so we can't tell Origin about those things we like or dislike
in the prior Ultima games or in CRPGs in general?
Most companies (the intelligent ones, anyway) would actually go out
and do this little thing called 'market research' to discover what their
installed base wanted. Keeping your existing customers happy is more
profitable.
Most of use would like to see U9 be the best CRPG ever, but
Origin's track record with its most recent releases doesn't leave us
with much hope.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=={MDLAM}==- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: http://www.ponyexpress.net/~xyzzy/index.html
Lost Dragon
>Well you're making a lot of other people think the same thing. That isn't
If I ask you all to jump from a cliff, will you do it? My opinion is
some sort of "word from above" around here? Somebody suddenly
mounding up respect upon these shoulders? Odd I've never gotten any
before. The things you learn...
>very nice to do, especially to a company which made a lot of the games you
>love.
A company that *used* to make a lot of the games that I liked. Notice
the use of past tense there.
>when a game is not as good as the one before it, the company does not make
>the bad game again and call it a sequel.
Hmm.. Daggerfall 1, Daggerfall 2.. Battlespire. So much for that
example.
>You are assuming that Origin has a collective IQ of
>15, and that they lie. Does that seem very reasonable?
Yes, it does. Have you seen Ultima Online at all?
>Why does everyone compare everything to UO? It was not designed to be a
Because that is the last product Origin produced with the name
"ULTIMA" on it. Whether people want to think of it as an "official"
Ultima or not is irrelevant. It *IS* part of the Ultima series. It
is also an excellent window into what OSI has been up to of late and
the direction that they are taking for the future.
you.remove.this.ca
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 19:11:41 -0600, xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran
Dragon) wrote:
> In the real world if someone consistently screws up, that is called
>a 'pattern'. You can make some pretty good decisions based on existing
>patterns. If you don't believe me, go ask the casinos in Las Vegas
>about the power of patterns.
I would guess the only pattern that would work at Las Vegas is that
the house is the only one who comes out on top. The odds in games of
chance should be designed so that unless you are a statistical
aberation (get lucky) you will lose money (or unless you rig the
game). If their was a pattern you could take advantage of everyone
would take advantage of it and the house would go out of business.
Now you may see their the power of faulty pattern recognition when
someone goes on a winning streak and assumes they will keep on winning
the house I am sure loves that. So IMO the only way to take advantage
of patterns in Las Vegas is to buy into a Casino.:)
On the subject of U9 it is obvious that the fact that U8 and UO are in
many people's opinion substandard does not make it impossible that U9
could be a great game because these two games are seperate. However,
I will conside that the trend does seem towards sub-standard games
but, since both parts of U7 were considered great but U8 is considered
bad it is obvious that trends can be bucked. In fact: All trends will
continue until they stop. Taking all this into consideration I will
conceide that the odds are not in favour of U9 being a great game.
However the odds were in favour of U8 being a great game and look what
happened. Also if you like gambling in Las Vegas chances are you like
the odds being against you.:)
--
d e- N- T- Om++ U46A8! u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP nI+ nPT nS+
nT- y- a18
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
Tyf SeaDragon
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:22:45 GMT, char...@ihug.co.nz (Andrew
Charlton) wrote:
>typhon@NO_SPAMwave.co.NZ (Tyf SeaDragon) writes:
>
>>*Concrete*? It's about as concrete as a marshmallow puff. Pardon me,
>>Erraticus, but I'll believe it when I see it.
>So you'll believe the good things when you see them, but you jump to
>horrendous conclusions about the bad things with no evidence whatsoever?
Nope. That comment *was* a bad thing - it's got all the hallmarks of
corporatespeak. Ie, a standard reassuring comment to soothe the rubes,
with no actual connection to anything doable or verifiable. It only
looks like it's saying something if you don't look at it closely :(
>>I'm suspicious anyhow. With that 3D engine they've been touting so
>>much, there shouldn't be any problem with putting the camera wherever
>>they want to.
>Indeed. Which means it isn't such a major change of direction at all.
Which means I'm surprised the reviewer didn't mention that. And if
they move to close-ups, they may have to redo all the textures and
meshes anyway.
>That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it's
>keeping the central, and most important, part of the _story_ (i.e. the
>hero) in plain view. You know, the story - that thing we all said we
>wanted.
IOW, exactly like before?
>I'm not saying that it _will_ aid the storytelling, but I am suggesting
>alternatives so people don't jump to wild conclusions.
Another one would be an above-and-behind camera like in the
screenshots, with the camera rotating so you were always looking in
the same direction the Avatar was. That would be sensible. (Which
probably dooms it from the start :/ )
>I've always
>preferred top-down, but I think this floating perspective has a hell of a
>lot of potential. More so than 1st person if you ask me.
I think you could make a good case for calling it '2nd person' ;)
You're still watching the character perform though, rather than
performing *as* the character. Which, obviously, has its attractions
for certain people <EG>. OTOH, I haven't seen a single 1st person
which used even basic social inclusion/exclusion in the visual sense,
so there's room for a *lot* of improvement in immersivity there which
simply isn't possible with floating perspective.
Tyf
(I hope this gets out; my newsfeed has been going up and down faster
than a bunny in mating season :/ )
--
Behold the Mystery of Balance! Tyf SeaDragon -=UDIC=-
UDIC: d++ N- T---- Om+++ uA!7'!L!S'! u+++ uGA++ uC+ uF- uG+++
uLB- uA-- uB++++ nC+ nR++++ nH nP---- nI(B!) nS+++ nT----
DC.(mD): f--- s-- (h $-)b+++ CDa(>>) WL+ L(m(3t2@) - ~^) Bsi g--
Christopher A Tew
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:13:55 -0500, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from "James Dowd" <jjd...@erols.com>:
>Well you're making a lot of other people think the same thing.
Nobody can *make* any other person's perceptions and opinions change.
> That isn't
>very nice to do, especially to a company which made a lot of the games you
>love.
The Origin of yesterday isn't the Origin of today. Logos are
meaningless.
>Not to mention they already said
>U9 won't be another U8.
That was long ago. Things change. From what I remember, U8 did sell
quite well initially...and it did sell better than both of the
Underworlds, AFAIK. Also, it was the now-fully insane Richard
Garriott (have you seen him not call himself Lord British lately?
Have you noticed that he now seems to address everybody as "My Loyal
Subjects?" Folks, this guy has problems I don't even want to go into)
who said that, and it seems that he's not very involved in U9. Both
of the web articles that are relevant to this thread interview del
Castillo, and they both mention him as the head of the project, and
they both call U9 "his project." It's been awhile since Garriott was
the real big cheese in the Ultima world, so I suppose that everything
I just said doesn't matter much.
> You are assuming that Origin has a collective IQ of
>15, and that they lie. Does that seem very reasonable? I don't care if you
>agree, but it makes me mad that people are constantly saying U9 sucks when
>we have absolutely no evidence of it, either way.
Lost isn't saying that it sucks, he's saying that it will suck. The
future is uncertain. I do agree with his stance of expecting crap,
though, as that's the stance I take on, well, everything. That way,
I'm plesantly surprised on a pretty steady basis. :-)
Christopher A Tew
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:14:22 -0600, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon):
>My glass typewriter shows Andrew Charlton saying...
>[Snip]
>> Seems to me you've convinced yourself you're going to be disappointed
>> later, so you've decided to be disappointed now instead. That would be
>> okay, but you're trying to bring everyone else down with you.
>
> Oh, so we should just sit idly by and do nothing when it looks like
>Ultima IX is going to be a POS?
More like a good ol' Charlie Foxtrot.
Christopher A Tew
On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 16:10:57 -0500, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from GS...@ix.netcom.com (MdmeDis):
>Doesn't matter WTF it was designed to be. It sucks as far as quality is
>concerned. EA/Origin is about to learn what the American auto industry
>learned from the Japanese.
Gee, are you referring to Sony's Everquest, perchance? ;-) EA Sports
is already getting kicked around by Sony's sports game division.
Actually, the American game industry in general is going to get taught
how to do things by the Japanese, who are steadily encroaching on the
PC game shore (they've already totally taken over the console market),
with Squaresoft at the forefront. Right now, the only genres that
American game companies do *really* well are flight sims and
strategy/wargames. There are a few bright spots in the American CRPG
industry, but nothing close to the state of the Japanese CRPG industry
(and no, I'm not thinking about FF7 here...much).
Andrew Charlton
xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon) writes:
>My glass typewriter shows Andrew Charlton saying...
>[Snip]
>> Seems to me you've convinced yourself you're going to be disappointed
>> later, so you've decided to be disappointed now instead. That would be
>> okay, but you're trying to bring everyone else down with you.
>
> Oh, so we should just sit idly by and do nothing when it looks like
>Ultima IX is going to be a POS?
Based on Lost's comments, it only looks bad (What does POS mean anyway?)
because the previous two Ultimas were bad. There is literally nothing you
can do to change that fact. The last two Ultimas were bad before this new
info came along, they'll be bad when U9 is released.
It's begging the question. The hidden premise in everything Lost says is
that U9 will be crap. He's already decided. So stuff Lost says goes
roughly:
U9 is crap. (Hidden Premise)
U9 will have TombRaider Perspective. (Premise)
A tombraider perspective will make U9 crap. (Conclusion from 1 and 2)
Therefore U9 will be crap. (Conclusion from 3)
U9 is crap. (Hidden Premise)
Origin says U9 won't be an action game. (Premise)
Origin is lying. (Conclusion from 1 and 2)
He's not deciding U9 will be crap because a tomb raider perspective sounds
bad. He's deciding a tomb raider perspective will be bad because U9 will
be crap.
> Whatever happened to the customer expressing their opinions about
>the product being marketed to them?
Before playing it? Before knowing anything about it?
>I guess in your scheme of things we
>should all just be good little groupies and accept whatever Origin doles
>out to us.
Seeing it first might be a good start.
Lost Dragon
>He's not deciding U9 will be crap because a tomb raider perspective sounds
>bad. He's deciding a tomb raider perspective will be bad because U9 will
>be crap.
You are *wrong*.
I hate the tomb raider perspective - period. I hated it in the Tomb
Raider demo, I hated it in the Tomb Raider 2 demo. I hate it
irregardless of what game it appears in.
Of course, Tomb-Raider view aside, I'm not all that thrilled with the
idea of Captain C&C helping to produce U9 either. Whose brilliant
idea was that? What's wrong, not enough existing professional CRPG
enthusiasts available for hire? More likely they couldn't find anyone
else to touch U9 after all the dung it's been dragged through.
How long has it been in development now? What have we learned about
OSI projects that have spent too much time in development? Can you
say "Ultima Online?" Can you say "Released too early?" Can you say
"FUBAR?" Knew ya could.
OSI can spew chunks of PR debris until it is blue in the face. Until
someone not employed by Origin coughs up a review of U9 and posts new
screen shots, I'm sticking by my guns.
Gods, every trapping that I said UO would have is *still* there, even
with the latest patch. Why would I suddenly be wrong about U9?
MdmeDis
In article <34ba3742...@news.ihug.co.nz>, char...@ihug.co.nz
says...
> xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon) writes:
>
>
> He's not deciding U9 will be crap because a tomb raider perspective sounds
> bad. He's deciding a tomb raider perspective will be bad because U9 will
> be crap.
Seems to me he doesn't like Tomb raider perspective, particularly when
applied to a crpg. Logically, I think you have the cart before the
horse. He thought U9 would be bad *before* Origin grasped at this
inexplicable TR perspective straw - when they made that announcement,
'twas the final nail in the coffin. I don't think he cares about the TR
perspective per se.
Watching them come up with these idea de jour thingies makes me think
thus: they have always been a step behind graphically with U9 - they
still are. The only reason they are not scrapping it is the fact they've
got too much in development costs in it. If they can only come up some
half assed newish looking graphics - they can do with it what they did
with UO - dump it on the market and re-coup their costs.
> > Whatever happened to the customer expressing their opinions about
> >the product being marketed to them?
>
> Before playing it? Before knowing anything about it?
Its called Market Research. A common practice - many companies pay for
it. Origin has it for free - it doesn't utilize it most of the time; it
ignores the results when it does. (The recent poll they took re. the re-
releases)
> >I guess in your scheme of things we
> >should all just be good little groupies and accept whatever Origin doles
> >out to us.
>
> Seeing it first might be a good start.
Unfortunately, that is the finish. What is going to get changed then?
After the product is released doesn't seem to be a really productive
time to let a company know what you wanted.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows pol...@netcom.it.might.if typing...
[Snip]
> I would guess the only pattern that would work at Las Vegas is that
> the house is the only one who comes out on top. The odds in games of
> chance should be designed so that unless you are a statistical
> aberation (get lucky) you will lose money (or unless you rig the
> game). If their was a pattern you could take advantage of everyone
> would take advantage of it and the house would go out of business.
You just contradicted yourself. First you say there is a pattern,
then you just say there isn't a pattern. ;)
> Now you may see their the power of faulty pattern recognition when
> someone goes on a winning streak and assumes they will keep on winning
> the house I am sure loves that. So IMO the only way to take advantage
> of patterns in Las Vegas is to buy into a Casino.:)
Yep, 'cause all of the games favor the house over the _long_ run.
That is the pattern.
> On the subject of U9 it is obvious that the fact that U8 and UO are in
> many people's opinion substandard does not make it impossible that U9
> could be a great game because these two games are seperate.
None of us every said it was impossible for U9 to be good. Just
that Origin's latest two releases (U8 and UO) in the Ultima line don't
give us much hope.
In essence, (to use a baseball analogy) Origin has made two
strikes. We'd like them to step up to the base and hit a home run or
even just make it to first base, but the fact they aren't listening to
the signals being given them it stands to reason that they will strike
out. They certainly pissed away their stored up supply of good will so
they won't be making it to base by being walked.
> However,
> I will conside that the trend does seem towards sub-standard games
> but, since both parts of U7 were considered great but U8 is considered
> bad it is obvious that trends can be bucked. In fact: All trends will
> continue until they stop.
Yes, but the question is why did the trend stop? Was it because
the trend was 'broken' or was it because people stopped trying?
> Taking all this into consideration I will
> conceide that the odds are not in favour of U9 being a great game.
> However the odds were in favour of U8 being a great game and look what
> happened. Also if you like gambling in Las Vegas chances are you like
> the odds being against you.:)
If you play any of those games, anywhere, the odds are against you
unless you assume the role of the house.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Christopher A Tew typing...
[Snip]
> That was long ago. Things change. From what I remember, U8 did sell
> quite well initially...and it did sell better than both of the
> Underworlds, AFAIK. Also, it was the now-fully insane Richard
> Garriott (have you seen him not call himself Lord British lately?
> Have you noticed that he now seems to address everybody as "My Loyal
> Subjects?" Folks, this guy has problems I don't even want to go into)
> who said that, and it seems that he's not very involved in U9. Both
> of the web articles that are relevant to this thread interview del
> Castillo, and they both mention him as the head of the project, and
> they both call U9 "his project." It's been awhile since Garriott was
> the real big cheese in the Ultima world, so I suppose that everything
> I just said doesn't matter much.
Now here is a thought.
Have Garriott be put in charge of the development of an Ultima,
like he was on, say, Ultima V or Ultima VI.
Next, let Origin develop another Ultima at the same time in the
manner they've developed U8, UO, and U9.
Then release both Ultimas at the same time and see what happens.
Dueling Ultimas, anyone?
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Andrew Charlton typing...
[Snip]
> Based on Lost's comments, it only looks bad (What does POS mean anyway?)
POS = Piece o' shit
POL = Prick on legs
> because the previous two Ultimas were bad. There is literally nothing you
> can do to change that fact. The last two Ultimas were bad before this new
> info came along, they'll be bad when U9 is released.
And who said anything about retroactively changing U8?
By the way, do you have much confidence in Origin who still can't
fix the fundamental problems with UO? Which is a game that Origin is
touting as being permanently changing?
> It's begging the question. The hidden premise in everything Lost says is
> that U9 will be crap. He's already decided. So stuff Lost says goes
> roughly:
Hidden premise? <chuckle> Lost has been quite vocal and _public_
that he thinks U9 will be crap.
> U9 is crap. (Hidden Premise)
> U9 will have TombRaider Perspective. (Premise)
> A tombraider perspective will make U9 crap. (Conclusion from 1 and 2)
> Therefore U9 will be crap. (Conclusion from 3)
>
> U9 is crap. (Hidden Premise)
> Origin says U9 won't be an action game. (Premise)
> Origin is lying. (Conclusion from 1 and 2)
Cute, but your first lines are invalid because of your false claim
of a hidden premise.
> He's not deciding U9 will be crap because a tomb raider perspective sounds
> bad. He's deciding a tomb raider perspective will be bad because U9 will
> be crap.
I believe Lost has answered this point quite definitively. (Let me
know if you have problems comprehending the word 'definite'. ;))
[Snip]
> Before playing it? Before knowing anything about it?
Gee, I usually like to tell someone how I want my driveway laid out
before they start pouring the cement. It is a bit too late to do
anything after the cement has cured (that is, U9 is released).
[Snip]
> Seeing it first might be a good start.
Do you really think Origin has the balls to let people has a look
at U9? I don't think Origin could even come up with a workable alpha at
this point.
Michael Kozlowski
In article <34ba3742...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
Andrew Charlton <char...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon) writes:
>
>> Whatever happened to the customer expressing their opinions about
>>the product being marketed to them?
>
This _is_ Usenet, after all. If people weren't allowed to spout
uninformed and baseless opinions here, most groups would be pretty empty.
(And, of course, people have been bitching about U9 since there was a U9
to bitch about. I remember that the big topic in '95 was that U9 wouldn't
support 486s. Horror of horrors.)
--
Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
Recommended SF (updated 12/5): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
"Ghost of Carl Sagan Warns Against Dangers of Superstition" --The Onion
Matt Kimmich
On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 09:29:41 -0500, GS...@ix.netcom.com (MdmeDis)
wrote:
<snip>
>> >I guess in your scheme of things we
>> >should all just be good little groupies and accept whatever Origin doles
>> >out to us.
>>
>> Seeing it first might be a good start.
>
> Unfortunately, that is the finish. What is going to get changed then?
>After the product is released doesn't seem to be a really productive
>time to let a company know what you wanted.
Sure, but IMO what Lost is doing isn't very constructive criticism.
His posts are mainly along the lines of "UO was crap, U8 was crap - U9
will be crap." What can Origin get out of that - they shouldn't let U9
be crap? I'd have thought that they're not actively trying to make it
crap, so telling them not to won't change very much, will it?
Lost Dragon
>Sure, but IMO what Lost is doing isn't very constructive criticism.
>His posts are mainly along the lines of "UO was crap, U8 was crap - U9
After an lengthy attempt to create, through Origin, a better relation
to its fans, (something that would have entailed considerable
out-of-pocket expense), I have found that OSI gives far better LIP
service than they do CUSTOMER service.
Constructive criticism, or blatant flaming - it does not matter
because Origin does not care, nor are they listening.
<insert Boomer's forthcoming chide of "we love you man" here>
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Matt Kimmich typing...
[Snip]
> Sure, but IMO what Lost is doing isn't very constructive criticism.
> His posts are mainly along the lines of "UO was crap, U8 was crap - U9
> be crap? I'd have thought that they're not actively trying to make it
> crap, so telling them not to won't change very much, will it?
I guess it isn't pretty when we treat Origin like they treat us...
cr...@interlog.com
MdmeDis wrote:
> In article <34ba3742...@news.ihug.co.nz>, char...@ihug.co.nz
> says...
> > xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon) writes:
> >
>
> >
> > He's not deciding U9 will be crap because a tomb raider perspective sounds
> > bad. He's deciding a tomb raider perspective will be bad because U9 will
> > be crap.
>
> Seems to me he doesn't like Tomb raider perspective, particularly when
> applied to a crpg. Logically, I think you have the cart before the
> horse. He thought U9 would be bad *before* Origin grasped at this
> inexplicable TR perspective straw - when they made that announcement,
> 'twas the final nail in the coffin. I don't think he cares about the TR
> perspective per se.
>
> Watching them come up with these idea de jour thingies makes me think
> thus: they have always been a step behind graphically with U9 - they
> still are. The only reason they are not scrapping it is the fact they've
> got too much in development costs in it. If they can only come up some
> half assed newish looking graphics - they can do with it what they did
> with UO - dump it on the market and re-coup their costs.
>
> > > Whatever happened to the customer expressing their opinions about
> > >the product being marketed to them?
> >
> > Before playing it? Before knowing anything about it?
>
> Its called Market Research. A common practice - many companies pay for
> it. Origin has it for free - it doesn't utilize it most of the time; it
> ignores the results when it does. (The recent poll they took re. the re-
> releases)
>
> > >I guess in your scheme of things we
> > >should all just be good little groupies and accept whatever Origin doles
> > >out to us.
> >
> > Seeing it first might be a good start.
>
> Unfortunately, that is the finish. What is going to get changed then?
> After the product is released doesn't seem to be a really productive
> time to let a company know what you wanted.
> --
> 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?
o0h god... havent you seen UIX screen shots? it's top down perspective, RG
probably meant "UIX will use a rotating perspective... as an example of this i
will bring to light the 3D-ness of tombraider" he didn't mean it will be a
tombraider perspective, he just made an example of a rotating perspective. He
could have used Mario64 as an example. i'm sure the comment was just trying to
illustrate an example that a game using a rotating perspective.
|-----------Annoying Dragon------------
|No wonder some turn towards dolphins.|
| ! cr...@interlog.com ! -==UDIC==- ! |
-----<ask F-15 about the dolphins>----|
Scorch Dragon
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 03:33:53 GMT, tikicat@L_V_D_I.net (Christopher A
Tew) wrote:
>>Not to mention they already said
>>U9 won't be another U8.
What they say and what they do is very different.
>That was long ago. Things change. From what I remember, U8 did sell
>quite well initially...and it did sell better than both of the
>Underworlds, AFAIK. Also, it was the now-fully insane Richard
>Garriott
Lost in his own little world. In U9 I have no doubt LB is will be
really old and if the Guardian didn't drive him insane he would have
gone senile anyway.
>(have you seen him not call himself Lord British lately?
>Have you noticed that he now seems to address everybody as "My Loyal
>Subjects?" Folks, this guy has problems I don't even want to go into)
No please elaborate. In fact I think there should be a new thread
entitled "Richard Garriott's mental health problems". His prowness in
the mental department has been in doubt ever since U8 came out.
¸.·´¯`·.¸_¸.·´¯`·.¸_[Scorch Dragon]_¸.·´¯`·.¸_¸.·´¯`·.¸
(xxx][========> -==UDIC==- <========][xxx)
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
"Speak when you are angry and you will make the
best speech you will ever regret."-Ambrose Pierce-
Ophidian Dragon
Fortran Dragon <xy...@ponyexpress.net> wrote in article
<MPG.f15e5d1c...@news.alt.net>...
> My glass typewriter shows Matt Kimmich typing...
> [Snip]
> > Sure, but IMO what Lost is doing isn't very constructive criticism.
> > His posts are mainly along the lines of "UO was crap, U8 was crap - U9
> > will be crap." What can Origin get out of that - they shouldn't let U9
> > be crap? I'd have thought that they're not actively trying to make it
> > crap, so telling them not to won't change very much, will it?
>
> I guess it isn't pretty when we treat Origin like they treat us...
No, if we did that we'd just not buy anything and pretend Origin doesn't
exsist. Or order our minions (?) to go out and buy the games while never
doing it ourselves....
-Ophidian Dragon
James Dowd
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>My glass typewriter shows pol...@netcom.it.might.if typing...
>[Snip]
>> I would guess the only pattern that would work at Las Vegas is that
>> the house is the only one who comes out on top. The odds in games of
>> chance should be designed so that unless you are a statistical
>> aberation (get lucky) you will lose money (or unless you rig the
>> game). If their was a pattern you could take advantage of everyone
>> would take advantage of it and the house would go out of business.
>
> You just contradicted yourself. First you say there is a pattern,
>then you just say there isn't a pattern. ;)
But the Ultima series is a totally different kind of pattern. Let's say
you're playing a game, and you win a lot. Then, you lose a few times, but
never for the same reasons. Is this a trend? No, it's just bad luck. If
you lose consistently for the same reason, you're an idiot. Now, let's look
at Ultima. U8 sucked for many reasons that can basically be summed up by
saying it was an action game. UO is basically a beta version of a game.
Notice that UO, AFAIK, has never been accused of being too much of an action
game, and I don't recall U8 ever being called a beta game. I'm not saying
Origin has just been "unlucky," but the cause of two straight bad games is
not necessarily that Origin now sucks at making games. In U8, they
apparently decided to go in a different direction from previous Ultimas. It
failed, and they claim to have learned their lesson. UO suffered from an
entirely different problem - it was released early. Of course, U9 might
have more new problems, but there is no reason to believe that it will have
any of the problems UO or U8 have. (Unless, of course, the constant whining
about U9's release date causes Origin to release it early, too...)
>> Now you may see their the power of faulty pattern recognition when
>> someone goes on a winning streak and assumes they will keep on winning
>> the house I am sure loves that. So IMO the only way to take advantage
>> of patterns in Las Vegas is to buy into a Casino.:)
>
> Yep, 'cause all of the games favor the house over the _long_ run.
>That is the pattern.
Of course, that has nothing to do with luck - it is designed that way.
Game-making has nothing to do with luck, either, but there is no "design" in
the same way as a casino when making a game series. Casinos are meant to
make you lose.
>> On the subject of U9 it is obvious that the fact that U8 and UO are in
>> many people's opinion substandard does not make it impossible that U9
>> could be a great game because these two games are seperate.
>
> None of us every said it was impossible for U9 to be good. Just
>that Origin's latest two releases (U8 and UO) in the Ultima line don't
>give us much hope.
>
> In essence, (to use a baseball analogy) Origin has made two
>strikes. We'd like them to step up to the base and hit a home run or
>even just make it to first base, but the fact they aren't listening to
>the signals being given them it stands to reason that they will strike
>out. They certainly pissed away their stored up supply of good will so
>they won't be making it to base by being walked.
How, exactly, do you figure that they aren't listening to our signals?
What, they didn't listen to us when we said "U8 was bad, no more action
games" and they proceeded to make another action game... oh wait, they
didn't. They made UO, which was released early. So what do we say now,
"Those bad people, how dare they release a game early instead of listening
to us and not making it an action game!" Does that make any sense? No.
>> However,
>> I will conside that the trend does seem towards sub-standard games
>> but, since both parts of U7 were considered great but U8 is considered
>> bad it is obvious that trends can be bucked. In fact: All trends will
>> continue until they stop.
>
> Yes, but the question is why did the trend stop? Was it because
>the trend was 'broken' or was it because people stopped trying?
The trend stopped because Origin had a new idea, they tried it, and it
failed. Maybe, just maybe, they learned from their mistakes.
>> Taking all this into consideration I will
>> conceide that the odds are not in favour of U9 being a great game.
>> However the odds were in favour of U8 being a great game and look what
>> happened. Also if you like gambling in Las Vegas chances are you like
>> the odds being against you.:)
>
> If you play any of those games, anywhere, the odds are against you
>unless you assume the role of the house.
Again, the comparison between a casino and the gaming industry is completely
invalid. Casinos are meant to make you lose. Do you believe that companies
make a series of games that's good, but then purposely make the last couple
suck just so you get pissed, but they get their money anyway? If not, ditch
the casino comparison.
James Dowd
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>> Before playing it? Before knowing anything about it?
>
> Gee, I usually like to tell someone how I want my driveway laid out
>before they start pouring the cement. It is a bit too late to do
>anything after the cement has cured (that is, U9 is released).
Good point, but there is a minor flaw and a major flaw in it.
Minor flaw: It's not our driveway to design, we just use it. (no one likes
it that way, but that's the way it is)
Major Flaw: When's the last time anyone suggested anything about U9? All
I've heard is the word "crap" four hundred times per post when talking about
U9. So, if you hire the same guys that did a bad job redoing your driveway
twice in a row (after 12 good jobs) to redo your driveway, saying "And don't
make it crap like the last two!" is not very helpful. I'm just basically
saying, there is no suggesting going on, only preemptive whining.
Christopher A Tew
On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 10:50:33 -0600, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon):
> Now here is a thought.
>
> Have Garriott be put in charge of the development of an Ultima,
>like he was on, say, Ultima V or Ultima VI.
Only if Dr. Cat is writing the story with Warren Spector dropping a
dime (that's slang for "assist"). Uhh, with Ken Demarest somewhere in
the mix.
Lost Dragon
>make it crap like the last two!" is not very helpful. I'm just basically
>saying, there is no suggesting going on, only preemptive whining.
I am through wasting my time on suggestions. Huge texts have been
sent to Origin. They ought to have suggestions out their little
fellowship ear-holes.
David Young
> >>the product being marketed to them?
> >
>
> uninformed and baseless opinions here, most groups would be pretty empty.
This newsgroup could DO with some emptying, IMHO... how Usenet tends to
be doesn't change the fact that "crap, crap, crap" won't help OSI make a
game the way people want it.
SlightlyMad Dragon.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Christopher A Tew saying...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 10:50:33 -0600, my net caught this bit of flotsam
> from xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon):
>
> > Now here is a thought.
> >
> > Have Garriott be put in charge of the development of an Ultima,
> >like he was on, say, Ultima V or Ultima VI.
>
> Only if Dr. Cat is writing the story with Warren Spector dropping a
> dime (that's slang for "assist"). Uhh, with Ken Demarest somewhere in
> the mix.
Ah yes, Classic Ultima. <sigh> All we now have left is New
Ultima.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows James Dowd saying...
> Good point, but there is a minor flaw and a major flaw in it.
> Minor flaw: It's not our driveway to design, we just use it. (no one likes
> it that way, but that's the way it is)
Umm, no. We are paying for that driveway so we do have some say in
the design. After all, if we don't like the design the builders won't
get their money.
> Major Flaw: When's the last time anyone suggested anything about U9? All
> I've heard is the word "crap" four hundred times per post when talking about
> U9. So, if you hire the same guys that did a bad job redoing your driveway
> twice in a row (after 12 good jobs) to redo your driveway, saying "And don't
> make it crap like the last two!" is not very helpful. I'm just basically
> saying, there is no suggesting going on, only preemptive whining.
I'd suggest a trip down DejaNews lane. Look at all of the
criticisms about U8 and UO (to some extent). Most of us who are
regulars know what people mean when someone says U8 was flawed, they
liked SI's key ring, U6's combat system, etc..
Basically, we've talked about what we want to see in U9 for several
years. Origin has done nothing to address those points over the years.
So, when the guys building the driveway ignore you when you keep
saying (for several years) that you like the car pad they had in that
other driveway, the red rock from that particular quarry, etc., you
finally get tired of talking about what you want and just start
complaining about their complete lack of customer service.
If you still think Origin is a wonderful startup, go read the Denis
Loubet interview in the Trinsic Telegraph. Origin has gone corporate in
a big way and it appears that everyone in the company is more interested
in power politics than quality products.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows David Young saying...
[Snip]
> This newsgroup could DO with some emptying, IMHO... how Usenet tends to
> be doesn't change the fact that "crap, crap, crap" won't help OSI make a
Then maybe Origin should read the several years worth of
suggestions...
MdmeDis
In article <34ACE81D...@uq.net.au>, yo...@uq.net.au says...
> Michael Kozlowski wrote:
> >
> > In article <34ba3742...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
> > Andrew Charlton <char...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > >xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon) writes:
> > >
> > >> Whatever happened to the customer expressing their opinions about
> > >>the product being marketed to them?
> > >
> > >Before playing it? Before knowing anything about it?
> >
> > This _is_ Usenet, after all. If people weren't allowed to spout
> > uninformed and baseless opinions here, most groups would be pretty empty.
>
> be doesn't change the fact that "crap, crap, crap" won't help OSI make a
> game the way people want it.
>
>
What will? We've tried lengthy suggestions, petitions, talking to
individuals, responding to questionnaires, setting up fan clubs.
Basically, all there is left is bad-mouthing to the point it becomes so
embarrassing they have to do something. The game magazines seem to feel
the same.
James Dowd
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>> Good point, but there is a minor flaw and a major flaw in it.
>> Minor flaw: It's not our driveway to design, we just use it. (no one
likes
>> it that way, but that's the way it is)
>
> Umm, no. We are paying for that driveway so we do have some say in
>the design. After all, if we don't like the design the builders won't
>get their money.
Actually, the builders will get their money from someone else who does like
the design. The chances of no one liking the design are pretty slim. It's
like a company making an amusement park, more than like a driveway - they
pay to build it, we pay to use it. If they choose to listen to our
suggestions, good. If not, that's their right. If they feel that doing
such and such will get them more money, or whatever, they can. It may be
good buisness to listen to the customer, but only a warped mind would think
that the customer actually has any power. It's their amusement park, and if
they don't want a roller coaster, then we don't get one. Again, it isn't
smart not to listen, but don't let that fool you into thinking they have to
listen.
>> Major Flaw: When's the last time anyone suggested anything about U9? All
>> I've heard is the word "crap" four hundred times per post when talking
about
>> U9. So, if you hire the same guys that did a bad job redoing your
driveway
>> twice in a row (after 12 good jobs) to redo your driveway, saying "And
don't
>> make it crap like the last two!" is not very helpful. I'm just basically
>> saying, there is no suggesting going on, only preemptive whining.
>
> I'd suggest a trip down DejaNews lane. Look at all of the
>criticisms about U8 and UO (to some extent). Most of us who are
>regulars know what people mean when someone says U8 was flawed, they
>liked SI's key ring, U6's combat system, etc..
So do I - so what? I really don't get what you're trying to say. Any
criticisms about UO or U8 that I know of were made after someone saw the
game, at the very least. It isn't the same situation as U9 because U9
hasn't been released yet.
> Basically, we've talked about what we want to see in U9 for several
>years. Origin has done nothing to address those points over the years.
>
> So, when the guys building the driveway ignore you when you keep
>saying (for several years) that you like the car pad they had in that
>other driveway, the red rock from that particular quarry, etc., you
>finally get tired of talking about what you want and just start
>complaining about their complete lack of customer service.
Just because you're tired of saying something doesn't make it right, or even
useful, to just criticize. It doesn't help. If whining does anything to
the people making the driveway, it's gonna make them mad and they'll leave,
and you'll need someone else to make your driveway. And again, it isn't
your driveway - it's someone elses that you pay to use.
> If you still think Origin is a wonderful startup, go read the Denis
<snip>
When did I ever say Origin was wonderful in any way? Frankly, I agree with
most of you - U9 probably will be crap. I just get annoyed that everyone
goes spurting about how it's so crappy based on assumptions that make little
or no sense. And BTW, it really isn't very polite to put words in someone's
mouth, thank you very much!
Walker
Walker looks up from his tome. In article
<MPG.f14a9459...@news.alt.net>, xy...@ponyexpress.net says...
<snip>
> > Fine, go write Origin and tell them everything you don't like about U9.
> > Considering that, at this point, you've never seen the real U9 and you know
> > almost nothing about it, there is nothing to complain about! When U9 comes
> > out and sucks, then complain. Don't say "Origin, how dare you have made U9
> > an action game!" when Origin hasn't yet made U9 an action game.
I think boomer is doing an admirable job. <G>
> Oh, so we can't tell Origin about those things we like or dislike
> in the prior Ultima games or in CRPGs in general?
>
> Most companies (the intelligent ones, anyway) would actually go out
> and do this little thing called 'market research' to discover what their
> installed base wanted. Keeping your existing customers happy is more
> profitable.
>
> Most of use would like to see U9 be the best CRPG ever, but
> Origin's track record with its most recent releases doesn't leave us
> with much hope.
Call me a cynic, but...
IMVHO, I think that "we" (Dragons, not necessarily by name, but in mind)
are not the fanbase EA are aiming for with UIX. They want a _whole_ new
base. I mean, think about it; How many Ultima fans like "us" are there?
Certainly a lot less than there are "potential fans" ie. the console
generation. I think they would happily sacrifice us for the hordes of new
fans they can create for a new Ultima, and if they can pick up a few of
us along the way it's a bonus. We thought U8 and UO sucked, people new to
Ultima, or fans of Diablo might have thought it was brilliant. As for
your market research, that's exactly what they've done, people liked Tomb
Raider. A lot of people (myself
included).
--
[The candle flickers as Walker once again resumes
his poring over the Histories]
<==Walker==>
Walker
Walker looks up from his tome. In article
<snip>
> It's begging the question. The hidden premise in everything Lost says is
> that U9 will be crap. He's already decided. So stuff Lost says goes
> roughly:
>
> U9 will have TombRaider Perspective. (Premise)
> A tombraider perspective will make U9 crap. (Conclusion from 1 and 2)
> Therefore U9 will be crap. (Conclusion from 3)
>
> U9 is crap. (Hidden Premise)
> Origin says U9 won't be an action game. (Premise)
> Origin is lying. (Conclusion from 1 and 2)
>
> bad. He's deciding a tomb raider perspective will be bad because U9 will
> be crap.
perspective could be bearable, it might be annoying but if the game
itself is good enough I'd be willing to put up with it. eg. U7's
ridiculous system of feeding and key searching in your damn backpack.
I already had fears that UIX was going to be crap before I even got an
ISP. Why? Because earlier this year I got Pagan. That's why. It's lucky I
didn't shell out for a new 55.6k modem for UO from what I've been
hearing.
Matt Kimmich
>> Sure, but IMO what Lost is doing isn't very constructive criticism.
>> His posts are mainly along the lines of "UO was crap, U8 was crap - U9
>> will be crap." What can Origin get out of that - they shouldn't let U9
>> be crap? I'd have thought that they're not actively trying to make it
>> crap, so telling them not to won't change very much, will it?
>
> I guess it isn't pretty when we treat Origin like they treat us...
Oh brother... I don't care whether it's pretty or not, but when it
gets boring & monotonous I do. Also, if Origin is indeed treating us
like shit, then doing the same thing to them and saying: "They started
it..." strikes me as being extremely. childish.
Matt Kimmich
On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 06:34:50 -0600, lost...@cris.com (Lost Dragon)
wrote:
>>make it crap like the last two!" is not very helpful. I'm just basically
>>saying, there is no suggesting going on, only preemptive whining.
>
>I am through wasting my time on suggestions. Huge texts have been
>sent to Origin. They ought to have suggestions out their little
>fellowship ear-holes.
Okay, I accept that, no problem. But I think you've now moved on to
wasting your time on flames and rantings that don't help either -
unless they're a good vent for your frustrations.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Matt Kimmich saying...
[Snip]
> Oh brother... I don't care whether it's pretty or not, but when it
> gets boring & monotonous I do.
Oh, so long as the criticism entertains you it is ok?
> Also, if Origin is indeed treating us
> like shit, then doing the same thing to them and saying: "They started
> it..." strikes me as being extremely. childish.
Not what I said.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows James Dowd typing...
[Snip]
> But the Ultima series is a totally different kind of pattern. Let's say
> you're playing a game, and you win a lot. Then, you lose a few times, but
> never for the same reasons. Is this a trend? No, it's just bad luck.
Bad luck _is_ a trend.
> If
> you lose consistently for the same reason, you're an idiot.
Or just unlucky.
> Now, let's look
> at Ultima. U8 sucked for many reasons that can basically be summed up by
> saying it was an action game. UO is basically a beta version of a game.
> Notice that UO, AFAIK, has never been accused of being too much of an action
> game, and I don't recall U8 ever being called a beta game. I'm not saying
> Origin has just been "unlucky," but the cause of two straight bad games is
> not necessarily that Origin now sucks at making games.
Considering that Privateer 2 was released this year and it sucked,
UO was released only _three_ months ago and it sucks, that it stands to
reason that Origin has serious problems developing decent games.
Now, if WC:P is good and bug-free then perhaps Origin has got their
act together (or at least the WC team).
> In U8, they
> apparently decided to go in a different direction from previous Ultimas. It
> failed, and they claim to have learned their lesson. UO suffered from an
> entirely different problem - it was released early. Of course, U9 might
> have more new problems, but there is no reason to believe that it will have
> any of the problems UO or U8 have. (Unless, of course, the constant whining
> about U9's release date causes Origin to release it early, too...)
Unless Origin does a half-assed job on U9 and releases it too
early. <sigh> Which is entirely possible given the advances in the
state of 3D video cards in the last couple of years.
[Snip]
> Of course, that has nothing to do with luck - it is designed that way.
Luck has a lot to do with it. From your perspective, of course.
> Game-making has nothing to do with luck, either, but there is no "design" in
> the same way as a casino when making a game series. Casinos are meant to
> make you lose.
<rotfl> Luck has loads to do with the success of a game design.
Myst was lucky. Doom was lucky.
[Snip]
> How, exactly, do you figure that they aren't listening to our signals?
> What, they didn't listen to us when we said "U8 was bad, no more action
> games" and they proceeded to make another action game... oh wait, they
> didn't. They made UO, which was released early. So what do we say now,
> "Those bad people, how dare they release a game early instead of listening
> to us and not making it an action game!" Does that make any sense? No.
Three months ago Origin released UO without fixing _any_ of bugs
rampant in the UO beta. (You could play the release version of UO with
your beta CD without any patches.) Unless a miracle has happened at
Origin in the last three months...
[Snip]
> The trend stopped because Origin had a new idea, they tried it, and it
> failed. Maybe, just maybe, they learned from their mistakes.
Maybe, but that doesn't seem to be the case very recently.
[Snip]
> Again, the comparison between a casino and the gaming industry is completely
> invalid. Casinos are meant to make you lose. Do you believe that companies
> make a series of games that's good, but then purposely make the last couple
> suck just so you get pissed, but they get their money anyway? If not, ditch
> the casino comparison.
The 'casino comparison' was an analogy which was meant as a simply
example. I didn't expect that you would take it as the Grand Example
For The Computer Gaming Industry.
Origin seems to be focusing on the gaming console market. Which is
a mistake. For a good discussion of that see Martin Cirulis's column in
the latest CGW.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows James Dowd typing...
[Snip]
> the design. The chances of no one liking the design are pretty slim.
True, the builders will get some money, but there is no guarantee
that they'll make a profit or even break even. And making money is the
name of the EA game.
> It's
> like a company making an amusement park, more than like a driveway - they
> pay to build it, we pay to use it. If they choose to listen to our
> suggestions, good. If not, that's their right. If they feel that doing
> such and such will get them more money, or whatever, they can. It may be
> good buisness to listen to the customer, but only a warped mind would think
> that the customer actually has any power.
The customers have the ultimate power (no pun intended). No
customers, no more builders.
Also, it is a simple financial reality that it costs two to three
times to recruit a new customer than to keep an old customer. Companies
that ignore their installed base have a nifty name: defunct.
> It's their amusement park, and if
> they don't want a roller coaster, then we don't get one. Again, it isn't
> smart not to listen, but don't let that fool you into thinking they have to
> listen.
If they want to be around next season they do.
[Snip]
> So do I - so what? I really don't get what you're trying to say. Any
> criticisms about UO or U8 that I know of were made after someone saw the
> game, at the very least. It isn't the same situation as U9 because U9
> hasn't been released yet.
Many of us saw UO before it was released. Origin fixed nothing
between the end of the beta and the release. That was only three months
ago.
[Snip]
> Just because you're tired of saying something doesn't make it right, or even
> useful, to just criticize. It doesn't help.
Sure it does. Just because you don't like doesn't mean it isn't
useful. People bitched and bitched and bitched about some sort of
manual for UO. Guess what? Origin finally had to provide a manual.
> If whining does anything to
> the people making the driveway, it's gonna make them mad and they'll leave,
> and you'll need someone else to make your driveway. And again, it isn't
> your driveway - it's someone elses that you pay to use.
If they fuck up our driveway, well, they'll eventually be out of
business because someone else will make a good driveway for us. Just
look at Fallout - which was low budget. Or FF7 (which should be scaring
the hell out of Origin if they have any sense).
It will be interesting to what happens with M&M VI and Wiz8 this
year.
> > If you still think Origin is a wonderful startup, go read the Denis
> <snip>
>
> When did I ever say Origin was wonderful in any way? Frankly, I agree with
> most of you - U9 probably will be crap.
I hope that U9 will be the new high-water mark of CRPGs, surpassing
U4. The odds aren't good.
> I just get annoyed that everyone
> goes spurting about how it's so crappy based on assumptions that make little
> or no sense.
The assumptions are based on Origin's recent actions, including the
ongoing debacle called UO. Hell, Origin can't even get their act
together and release all of their old Ultima games on a single CD at a
reasonable price.
> And BTW, it really isn't very polite to put words in someone's
> mouth, thank you very much!
Note the word "if" and the lack of any double quotation marks.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Walker typing...
[Snip]
> Call me a cynic, but...
> IMVHO, I think that "we" (Dragons, not necessarily by name, but in mind)
> are not the fanbase EA are aiming for with UIX. They want a _whole_ new
> base. I mean, think about it; How many Ultima fans like "us" are there?
We are the crucial fan base. If we pan U9 it simply won't sell
very well. Our opinions influence a lot of people. Maybe not so much
on the net, but our word-of-mouth opinions about U7, U8, and UO matter.
> Certainly a lot less than there are "potential fans" ie. the console
> generation.
Which would be incredibly stupid for Origin or EA to do. I mean,
why buy a $2000 computer for a game that is a clone of something on a
$200 console?
> I think they would happily sacrifice us for the hordes of new
> fans they can create for a new Ultima, and if they can pick up a few of
> us along the way it's a bonus.
If they sacrifice us it will mean the end of Ultima.
> We thought U8 and UO sucked, people new to
> Ultima, or fans of Diablo might have thought it was brilliant. As for
> your market research, that's exactly what they've done, people liked Tomb
> Raider. A lot of people (myself
> included).
I'm with Lost on the Tomb Raider interface. It was totally un-
intuitive to me.
Besides, what has an action game to offer to a CRPG which
traditionally stress fully featured NPCs, player interactions, strong
storylines, good plots, non-linear decision trees, etc.?
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows James Dowd typing...
[Snip]
For someone who is complaining about 'people putting words in your
mouth' you've certainly got a twitish air about you today. ;)
Lost Dragon
>Okay, I accept that, no problem. But I think you've now moved on to
>wasting your time on flames and rantings that don't help either -
>unless they're a good vent for your frustrations.
Ok. I can respect your opinion, but it's not going to change my
attitude or the way that I am currently posting.
I have teeth too, and Origin deserves to be gnawed on.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Michael Kozlowski typing...
[Snip]
> With U9, OTOH, they know what they're doing. They've been making
> single-player RPGs for decades, and they pretty well know what's going to
> work and what's not.
Fourteen years is not 'decades'. For someone who had a bee in
their bonnet about proper use of language last years your lapses are
quite funny. ;)
Also, the Origin of Ultima 7 is not the Origin that made Ultima 8,
and neither are the Origin making Ultima 9. The failures with UO do
indicate a corporation that is more concerned with their quarterly
financial statement than with quality and long-term viability.
James Dowd
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
>[Snip]
>> Call me a cynic, but...
>> IMVHO, I think that "we" (Dragons, not necessarily by name, but in mind)
>> are not the fanbase EA are aiming for with UIX. They want a _whole_ new
>> base. I mean, think about it; How many Ultima fans like "us" are there?
>
> We are the crucial fan base. If we pan U9 it simply won't sell
>very well. Our opinions influence a lot of people. Maybe not so much
>on the net, but our word-of-mouth opinions about U7, U8, and UO matter.
Well now, someone's big-headed today. Do you really think it matters
whether we like U9 or not? Many of us dislike UO, myself not included, and
yet it is doing quite well. No one gives a shit whether we like an Ultima
game or not - if it gets a good review, people who have never heard of us
will buy it, tell their friends, and it will be popular. Besides, let's
face it - no matter how bad U9 is, most of us will end up buying it anyway.
It's an Ultima game - you may not buy it, but many of us would undoubtedly
get it just to have it.
James Dowd
Walker <11322...@compuserve.com.spam.mongers.will.die.in.hellfire> wrote
in message ...
>IMO the perspective has nothing to do with it. I think a Tomb Raider
>perspective could be bearable, it might be annoying but if the game
>itself is good enough I'd be willing to put up with it. eg. U7's
>ridiculous system of feeding and key searching in your damn backpack.
>I already had fears that UIX was going to be crap before I even got an
>ISP. Why? Because earlier this year I got Pagan. That's why. It's lucky I
>didn't shell out for a new 55.6k modem for UO from what I've been
>hearing.
And people say that what we say doesn't affect how other people think. If
this doesn't prove it, I'll be damned. So now what do you have to say, all
you U9 whiners who claim that what you post will not affect whether other
people will buy U9? I would like to also add that, regardless of the
quality of UO or U8, I find both quite fun. Yes, even U8. Heck, I -*like*
being able to jump around and stuff, although the fact that you use those
skills mainly for doing useless puzzles is annoying. If they could have
found a better way to use jumping, it would have been better - but anyway...
I am not sure why people don't find U8 fun (or, if they do, why they
complain about it) As for UO, I think the real reason people don't find it
fun is because everyone is out trying to get money, honor, and skills. I
have plenty of fun in UO, and I don't try to get anything. And after all,
isn't that why we play games - to have fun?
Lost Dragon
>be doesn't change the fact that "crap, crap, crap" won't help OSI make a
>game the way people want it.
Trying to work through their existing channels was certainly a waste
of my time. Origin is a closed system. They feed us whatever they
want, we take it and proclaim it to be the gospel.
I'm not going to do that anymore. When it's brown and it stinks, it
ain't roses.
James Dowd
Fortran Dragon wrote in message ...
> Also, the Origin of Ultima 7 is not the Origin that made Ultima 8,
>and neither are the Origin making Ultima 9. The failures with UO do
>indicate a corporation that is more concerned with their quarterly
>financial statement than with quality and long-term viability.
I guess we should just pray that they manage to fit both into the game this
time. At least this, if true, makes U8 a non-factor in U9's "good"-ness.
After all U8 wasn't rushed. (Maybe it should have been - they might not
have gotten around to the moving platforms yet ;) )
Lost Dragon
>So now what do you have to say, all you U9 whiners who claim that what
>you post will not affect whether other people will buy U9?
I'd say "Woo-hoo!"
If U9 is another OSI dog then it deserves to die a slow, horrible, and
grisly death. If what I have to say deters an impulse buy, then it
has been MORE than worth it.
Sitting around "hoping" OSI would pump out a decent game got us U8.
I guess it's easy to tell who the company cheerleaders are. I for one
am interested in a quality product, and if that is not what is
forthcoming, then I feel more than justified in dragging Origin
through the mud.
What's this I hear about U9? Laratar and her band of C&C soviets?!?
Time for more mud.
Michael Kozlowski
In article <MPG.f173d61e...@news.alt.net>,
Fortran Dragon <xy...@ponyexpress.net> wrote:
>
> Considering that Privateer 2 was released this year and it sucked,
Yes, but Privateer was one of those second-tier games that Origin only
marginally oversees. I'd be more inclined to look at WCIV, which was
(IMHO) a pretty damn good game.
>UO was released only _three_ months ago and it sucks, that it stands to
>reason that Origin has serious problems developing decent games.
It seems a big disingenuous to suggest that U9's problems are related to
UO's. As bad as UO might be, it is in almost every way a pioneering
product. Nothing quite like it has ever been done, and they've got to
iron the bugs out as they go.
With U9, OTOH, they know what they're doing. They've been making
single-player RPGs for decades, and they pretty well know what's going to
work and what's not.
--
Michael Kozlowski m...@cs.wisc.edu
Recommended SF (updated 12/5): http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/sfbooks.html
"Ghost of Carl Sagan Warns Against Dangers of Superstition" --The Onion
Sith Dragon
On Fri, 2 Jan 1998 23:35:13 -0500, "James Dowd" <jjd...@erols.com>
wrote:
>After all U8 wasn't rushed. (Maybe it should have been - they might not
>have gotten around to the moving platforms yet ;) )
IIRC, that's not true. My understanding is that they shipped Pagan
when they did because of financial reasons, and *not* because it was
"finished."
Sith Dragon Visit my webpage at http://www.walrus.com/~sith for the
-==(UDIC)==- latest in Ultima IX and Ultima Online news plus the new
Ultima IX FAQ.
James Dowd
Sith Dragon wrote in message <34aec2a9...@news.walrus.com>...
>On Fri, 2 Jan 1998 23:35:13 -0500, "James Dowd" <jjd...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>>After all U8 wasn't rushed. (Maybe it should have been - they might not
>>have gotten around to the moving platforms yet ;) )
>
>IIRC, that's not true. My understanding is that they shipped Pagan
>when they did because of financial reasons, and *not* because it was
>"finished."
Oh well, I didn't really know, I was guessing. It did ship late, I think,
because the quotes say so... or was that U7 or SI? Dunno. UO shipped early
(in a way) so it's still sort of different... I guess...
Screw it, you win.
Michael Kozlowski
In article <MPG.f17778c7...@news.alt.net>,
Fortran Dragon <xy...@ponyexpress.net> wrote:
>My glass typewriter shows Michael Kozlowski typing...
>[Snip]
>> single-player RPGs for decades, and they pretty well know what's going to
>> work and what's not.
>
Noted. Consider the statement amended to "...making single-player RPGs
for over a decade." The substantial point of the sentence remains the
same.
>For someone who had a bee in
>their bonnet about proper use of language last years your lapses are
>quite funny. ;)
It's a given that any of us will make mistakes; what's important is
realizing when one is made and acknowledging it, rather than brushing it
off with half-witted protests that proper usage is irrelevant.
But that's neither here nor there.
> Also, the Origin of Ultima 7 is not the Origin that made Ultima 8,
>and neither are the Origin making Ultima 9.
'Strue. But the Origin of U7 wasn't the Origin of U6 or U5, either. I'm
willing to chalk up U8 as an aberration, whereas you find it indicative of
a trend.
*shrug*
I suppose that we'll see who's right 'round about the turn of the
millennium when U9 is finally released.
>The failures with UO do
>indicate a corporation that is more concerned with their quarterly
>financial statement than with quality and long-term viability.
P'raps. Or, maybe, those failures are indicative of a game that's
pioneering the relatively new arena of online RPGing. I'm willing to give
Origin the benefit of the doubt, but I can certainly understand how others
are not.
And as an aside, I'll note that IMHO, many of the problems that plague UO
are endemic to online role-playing in the large. It is my firm belief
that the vast majority of online gamers are blithering idiots, and no game
mechanics can ameliorate the effect that they'll have on the game. Even
if/when Origin manages to fix the mechanical problems that plague UO, I
still believe that the game will be largely unplayable.
James Dowd
Lost Dragon wrote in message <34b3bcfd...@news.concentric.net>...
>>So now what do you have to say, all you U9 whiners who claim that what
>>you post will not affect whether other people will buy U9?
>
>I'd say "Woo-hoo!"
>
>If U9 is another OSI dog then it deserves to die a slow, horrible, and
>grisly death. If what I have to say deters an impulse buy, then it
>has been MORE than worth it.
And what if it isn't bad? What if it's the greatest game ever, but half the
dragons stopped reading the NG after it became all whining, and no one ever
found out that U9 was good? Then what? Huh? Then again, that's hardly
something you have to worry about... ;)
>Sitting around "hoping" OSI would pump out a decent game got us U8.
>
>I guess it's easy to tell who the company cheerleaders are. I for one
>am interested in a quality product, and if that is not what is
>forthcoming, then I feel more than justified in dragging Origin
>through the mud.
Hmph. Everyone has me pegged wrong, I guess. My personality makes me more
inclined to argue what I believe are facts, and not opinions. As I have
said, I think U9 will, in all probability, be a POS. I feel it is wrong to
crucify Origin before anyone has seen U9, is all. The fact, as I see it, is
that everyone is whining about something that doesn't exist yet. Think
about it: who whines about how crappy the afterlife is?
>What's this I hear about U9? Laratar and her band of C&C soviets?!?
Think movies - just because someone produces one thing doesn't mean that all
his movies are the same. I would assume the same holds true for
programming. And, I happen to have a huge C&C strategy guide, with an
interview of del Castillo... he does not talk about anything but the
interface, realism, and the compromises that needed to be made to make C&C
fun. He was hired to make a war game, he made a war game, and a damn good
one IMHO. So if he was hired to make an Ultima game, maybe he'll make an
Ultima game. As for the Laratar crap, I'm sick of hearing it. It is the
most pathetically stupid argument I have ever heard about anything. The
whole thing is based on a view, for God's sake!! Pardon me if I cound
pissed, but I am.
James Dowd
Whoops! Forgot a few things:
James Dowd wrote in message <68kina$lmr$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>>Sitting around "hoping" OSI would pump out a decent game got us U8.
No, sitting around expecting another U7 is what got you U8. IMHO, U8 is a
good game, for one reason - I find it fun. Maybe it isn't in the Ultima
tradition, maybe it should have been called Super Ultima Bros. 8, but it was
still fun to me. I, apparently unlike a lot of you, have a very open mind
when it comes to liking things. I mean, I play RPG's (Ultima and FF)
strategy games (Total Annihilation, as well as all 10 C&C CD's) Sports games
(NHL '93, '94, 2*'95, '96, '97, and '98, plus Sierra's Baseball '94, '96,
and '98 and Football '95 and '98) and shoot 'em ups. (Duke3D) not to
mention I like most console games, found the Postman to be an OK movie, and
can stand to listen to music from Metallica to... whatever my parents listen
to. ;) And I get fun out of every single one. (Did I mention UO?) Well,
I think I've blabbed enough, just had to get that out.
>whole thing is based on a view, for God's sake!! Pardon me if I cound
That, obviously enough, should have read "sound." Also, "view" refers to a
camera view. (seemed a little vague to me) Just had to point that out,
seeing as I was replying to myself anyway. And if you think that whole
paragraph sounds very juvenile and babyish, so do I, but :p anyway!
Ophidian Dragon
James Dowd <jjd...@erols.com> wrote in article
<68kjeu$sc0$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
> Whoops! Forgot a few things:
>
> James Dowd wrote in message <68kina$lmr$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
> >>Sitting around "hoping" OSI would pump out a decent game got us U8.
>
> No, sitting around expecting another U7 is what got you U8. IMHO, U8 is
a
> good game, for one reason - I find it fun. Maybe it isn't in the Ultima
> tradition, maybe it should have been called Super Ultima Bros. 8, but it
was
> still fun to me.
It might have been fun. I didn't mind it that much. But I wanted to play
an Ultima, not Super Mario Bros. Hey, if they do Tomb Raider, I wonder how
big the female Avatar's breasts will be....When are they going to learn
that enormous breasts do not make someone sexy. I mean, breasts are erotic
and all, but a lot of people just go so far that it's disgusting.
-Ophidian Dragon
Lost Dragon
>Then what? Huh? Then again, that's hardly something you have to
>worry about... ;)
No doubt. If U9 turns out to be wonderful, I'll slap myself on the
wrist, say "bad Lost" and go buy it. If it's a piece of gutter trash,
then I'll pat myself on the back, say "good Lost" and gloat quietly in
the corner.
>crucify Origin before anyone has seen U9, is all. The fact, as I see it, is
>that everyone is whining about something that doesn't exist yet. Think
I believe in preventative medicine. If nothing else, Boomer will
notice the mess and do something to prove me wrong and settle
everyone's scales. If that doesn't happen, well hey, I tried.
Whining *AFTER* the game has already been released is pointless.
>about it: who whines about how crappy the afterlife is?
What'd be the point?
>interview of del Castillo... he does not talk about anything but the
>interface, realism, and the compromises that needed to be made to make C&C
He might be the best thing since green on grass, but I don't see any
CRPG credits to his name. I do see most of the CRPG talent bailing
from Origin though. Are they saying to me that the best they could do
was hire somebody who's only done war games? I believe I already saw
that U9's combat would be real-time (which stinks in and of itself).
I'm not seeing the hallmarks of a great game here.
>fun. He was hired to make a war game, he made a war game, and a damn good
Red Alert. Hated it. Point, click, click, click, tank rush, game
over.
>one IMHO. So if he was hired to make an Ultima game, maybe he'll make an
>Ultima game.
Great. Hire Generic Joe and you'll get generic output.
>As for the Laratar crap, I'm sick of hearing it.
Well, <cough>. Too bad.
>It is the most pathetically stupid argument I have ever heard about anything. The
>whole thing is based on a view, for God's sake!! Pardon me if I cound
>pissed, but I am.
I hate the Tomb Raider view. HATE HATE HATE. I don't even think I
like the idea of a rotatable camera. IMO, it's yet another gimmick to
attract new PC owners (look mommy, cool graphics), when the time could
have been better spent on other development.
Once again, Origin's fascination with reinventing the wheel does its
fans another injustice.
Hmph. The failed U8 engine became Crusader: No Remorse. I wonder
what U9's engine will be? Nay, skip that. I wonder how big the
breasts of the hero from U9's spin-off game will be. I'll bet she
wears tight shorts as well.
Andrew Charlton
GS...@ix.netcom.com (MdmeDis) writes:
>In article <34ACE81D...@uq.net.au>, yo...@uq.net.au says...
>> This newsgroup could DO with some emptying, IMHO... how Usenet tends to
>> be doesn't change the fact that "crap, crap, crap" won't help OSI make a
>> game the way people want it.
>>
> What will? We've tried lengthy suggestions, petitions, talking to
>individuals, responding to questionnaires, setting up fan clubs.
What makes you think those things haven't worked?
--
____/\___ Erraticus
___/__\__) -==(UDIC)==-
(__/ \__ \\//
/ \ \/
Andrew Charlton
xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon) writes:
> Besides, what has an action game to offer to a CRPG which
>traditionally stress fully featured NPCs, player interactions, strong
>storylines, good plots, non-linear decision trees, etc.?
A camera angle.
Lost Dragon
>Whoops! Forgot a few things:
Gah, you again.
>No, sitting around expecting another U7 is what got you U8. IMHO, U8 is a
>good game, for one reason - I find it fun.
I'm sorry that your perception of a good game is so distorted.
>Maybe it isn't in the Ultima tradition, maybe it should have been called Super
>Ultima Bros. 8, but it was still fun to me.
Maybe it *should* have been called Crusader: NR to begin with. Why
does Origin have such a problem with keeping a product line
consistent? Is it *that* difficult? I think they are much more
interested in appealing to the younger market than they appealing to
what used to be a very loyal fan base (and I'm talking about everyone,
not just people in UDIC).
>I, apparently unlike a lot of you, have a very open mind
>when it comes to liking things.
Actually, I like most new games when they come out. I do HATE it when
a sequel suddenly feels like some entirely new product however.
What's the point of doing a sequel if you're going to recreate the
entire feel of the series?
>I mean, I play RPG's (Ultima and FF) strategy games (Total Annihilation,
>as well as all 10 C&C CD's) Sports games
Total Annihilation was over-hyped. The "3d" terrain looked pixellated
and it really screamed for 16 bit color. The interface was less than
optimal. Dark Reign was/is a much better game.
>(NHL '93, '94, 2*'95, '96, '97, and '98, plus Sierra's Baseball '94, '96,
I hate sports games.
>and '98 and Football '95 and '98) and shoot 'em ups. (Duke3D) not to
What, no Fallout, Quake 2, Dark Reign, UO? I'm playing those right
now..
>can stand to listen to music from Metallica to... whatever my parents listen
Just picked up "Reload" today. Yesterday I listened to a CD of flute
soloists performing some very beautiful folk music.
So you see, I'm not necessarily stuck in a rut as you would believe.
Christopher A Tew
On Fri, 2 Jan 1998 08:46:47 -0600, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon):
>My glass typewriter shows Christopher A Tew saying...
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 10:50:33 -0600, my net caught this bit of flotsam
>> from xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon):
>>
>> > Now here is a thought.
>> >
>> > Have Garriott be put in charge of the development of an Ultima,
>> >like he was on, say, Ultima V or Ultima VI.
>>
>> Only if Dr. Cat is writing the story with Warren Spector dropping a
>> dime (that's slang for "assist"). Uhh, with Ken Demarest somewhere in
>> the mix.
>
> Ah yes, Classic Ultima. <sigh> All we now have left is New
>Ultima.
I forgot about Denis Loubet, too.
This would be a good time for "Whatever happened to:"
Dr. Cat: I completely forget where he's ended up, but I know that
he's still working on Furcadia (www.realtime.net/furcadia), which I
haven't gotten around to playing yet. I probably should, though.
Ken D: President of Titanic Entertainment, a Internet game mfr.
(www.titanic.com). They did NetStorm. I really wish that they'd do a
CRPG, as most of the 8 people that comprise that company worked on U7.
Warren Spector: He's now doing a first person sci-fi CRPG for Ion
Storm (www.ionstorm.com)which is currently under the ironic working
title, "Shooter." Here's what he's said about it in the Eye On Storm
Daily thing:
"Shooter (ironic working title), the game I'm working on, is a
first-person, 3D roleplaying game -- no big surprise there. Will it be
like System Shock or Underworld? You can pretty well count on it but
with a healthy dose of inspiration from console Adventure/RPG games
like Chronotrigger, Suikoden, Final Fantasy, Zelda... Basically, what
that means is you can expect a level of immersion comparable to
Underworld or Shock but with a level of focus and character
interaction more like the console games. One of the things I like best
about the best of the console stuff is you're never up in the air
about WHAT you're supposed to be doing -- the fun is in figuring out
HOW to do it -- way cool. And, while conversations will be an
important part of Shooter, I want to fall back to the somewhat
simpler approach of the console games. In Shooter, expect
conversations to fall somewhere between the huge, branching
conversations of Underworld and the abstracted, email only world of
Shock. And we're going to rip off the whole idea of travel maps so
players don't have to grind their way across an entire world hoping
they find something fun to do. As far as the setting and genre go,
we're talking near future science fiction. The current storyline
(subject to change as we get further into development) is set about
midway between our time and the time of System Shock -- call it real
world plus about fifty years. It's a world where robotics is in its
infancy and human augmentation (cyborging, if you will) is
just moving out of the experimental stage and into the mainstream. The
major thing we're asking players to buy is that everything the
conspiracy buffs have been saying for the last fifty+ years is true.
Think of the game as the X-Files meets System Shock and you won't be
too far off."
Sounds interesting to me...
Denis Loubet: He's the art director guy for Illusion Machines
(www.illusionmachines.com...there's almost nothing to see there),
another OSI spin-off (they're common in Austin) who're doing a r/t
strategy game set in the Stone Age. I'd rather see him doing art for
a radical new CRPG, but what the hell...
Hmm, is there anybody else who worked on Ultima Classic that I can
research? Then again, I knew what all of them were doing in the first
place...just needed to find URLs on that foray.
-Cat
-
"It's a bittersweet symphony, this life..."
"I'm gonna keep catching those butterflies
in that dream of mine..."
-all from The Verve.
-----
Lost Dragon
>A camera angle.
A lousy camera angle fit only for watching inflated breasts collide
with one another whilst jumping over alligators.
Lost Dragon
>What makes you think those things haven't worked?
A better question is "Where is the evidence that they have worked?"
Christopher A Tew
On Fri, 2 Jan 1998 18:08:10 -0600, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from xy...@ponyexpress.net (Fortran Dragon):
> Now, if WC:P is good and bug-free then perhaps Origin has got their
>act together (or at least the WC team).
Well, WCP is pretty much Wing Commander 1-4 with better graphics. By
this time, the gameplay should be close to Elite or i-War, but no....
:P There are also bugs, such as a fatal error that occurs right after
your capship disappears out from under you during launch. :P Anyway,
it's great eyecandy for 3dfx users, but it doesn't have much gameplay.
> Unless Origin does a half-assed job on U9 and releases it too
>early. <sigh> Which is entirely possible given the advances in the
>state of 3D video cards in the last couple of years.
That's likely to happen, given the long development cycle.
e you lose.
> Origin seems to be focusing on the gaming console market. Which is
>a mistake. For a good discussion of that see Martin Cirulis's column in
>the latest CGW.
It's a mistake because if Origin focuses on PSX over PC, they'll get
creamed by developers like Squaresoft, Konami, and Capcom. They'd be
a third or fourth tier third party console game manufacturer. They
could release a port of WC:P on the PSX and watch it get panned, as
there's already a better game out for that platform. It's called
Colony Wars, and it's by Psygnosis.
And hell, what else could OSI port to the PSX? Longbow 2? ;-) I
expect to see a dead Andy Hollis before that obscenity could happen.
Christopher A Tew
On 3 Jan 1998 05:28:19 GMT, my net caught this bit of flotsam from
m...@vega23.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Kozlowski):
>In article <MPG.f17778c7...@news.alt.net>,
>Fortran Dragon <xy...@ponyexpress.net> wrote:
>
>> Also, the Origin of Ultima 7 is not the Origin that made Ultima 8,
>>and neither are the Origin making Ultima 9.
>
>'Strue. But the Origin of U7 wasn't the Origin of U6 or U5, either.
The Origin of U7 was still Origin, not EA. Plus, back then, Origin
more or less had a stranglehold on game industry talent. They had far
more talented programmers and designers than any other American game
house. After EA bought Origin out, that all changed.
Christopher A Tew
On Sat, 3 Jan 1998 00:37:47 -0500, my net caught this bit of flotsam
from "James Dowd" <jjd...@erols.com>:
> As for the Laratar crap, I'm sick of hearing it. It is the
>most pathetically stupid argument I have ever heard about anything. The
>whole thing is based on a view, for God's sake!! Pardon me if I cound
>pissed, but I am.
Yeah, but the fact that they gave Tomb Raider as an example of the
view indicates their mentality. They could've said, "Fade to Black,'
which used the same sort of view but was far more intelligent and
engaging than TR. It came out before TR and Mario 64, to boot. By
using TR over that game indicates to me an action game mentality.