Talk:Ultima IX: Ascension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

The "nitpick" external reference currently gets a 404 error.

Contents

[edit] Anyone remember more about the U9 controversy?

There was a considerable number of debate in rcgud about U9 even as the development progressed. I distrinctly remember that there was this guy who had a "semi-official" FAQ, and Origin gave information to him, and people almost shot the messenger in the end. Everyone knows what happened *after* U9's release; I'd be terribly interested on details on what happened *before*. Someone care to fill in more of this? --Wwwwolf 12:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Everyone knows what happened *after* U9's release etc". That's probably why this article is so poor, and why articles of this nature are generally poor. It's because the only people who care enough about the subject, and who know enough about the subject to do it justice, are fans. And fans have immersed themselves so deeply into their obsession that they cannot see it objectively, from the outside. As a consequence an audience like myself, knowing very little about the subject, but curious about the past, ends up wondering what happened to the other eight-tenths. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice nothing is noted how the developers closed down and never reopened their own company message boards after the release due to the massive negative fee back. It's a shame how big business can destroy such a great series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanteogo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the "four distinct versions" to the development history of Ultima IX. That section probably needs some editing, and I really need to track down the references for it. There are a few paragraphs in the section, notably at the beginning and the end, that I did not write. There wasn't much to this section before I edited it, and some of what was there was inaccurate. I do think that the paragraphs that I wrote are pretty objective though. I mean, it's almost 8 years after the game was released -- I was sorely disappointed with many aspects of it at first, but time has allowed me to appreciate the things in the game that were done properly. Plus, I now work for EA and I don't harbour any negative feelings towards the company. Keldryn 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob White Plot

Always interesting to see your name used in Wikipedia. Also to see that original synopsis is now tagged as the plot with my name...odd. Credit should be given where due. Even though I released it, that plot was birthed through many long hours of work by John Watson, Brian Martin, Myself and Chuck Zoch...and of course, Richard. I just happen to be lucky enough to sit in the drivers seat on the design for a while. Anyway, I wanted to be sure and point out that there really was no "official" plot prior to ~1995. Many of the ideas and general guidelines for where the game was going to go and how we wanted it to end had been built up by Richard, John Watson and Brian Martin. I was brought in on April Fools (very appropriate) day 1994 to begin work with them to actually nail down a full and complete plot. There was actually a couple of minor versions before the synopsis I released, but these were just working items and not nailed down. I still have the first official design document with the entire (many many pages) plot in it.

What is written about the next version of the plot under Ed's guiding hand is pretty much as you have written. It was very different and quite a departure. It had some unique elements, but didn't fit the proper mold.

The final versions was the best they could do given the constraints given to the team (short on time, money, and personnel). The pressures on the final team were tremendous.

Had EA not focused the course of development towards UO (given the profitability of UO it is difficult to blame them for opting on that course), then UIX would have been a drastically different animal. We actually were probably one year from alpha, when the UO shift occurred. -Robert "Bob" White: starman91@cybermesa.com

I've now tried to include a paraphrase of the original Bob White plot, which is, I feel, an important part of the evolution of the game, based on the original Usenet posting. --Stormwyrm 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • There's just a few problems: The Usenet posting was a paraphrase/summary in itself, not actual thing, so this is a paraphrase of a parapar.. prapar... rapra... pa-ra-phrase. *phew* The second thing, is it really encyclopedic to include the whole thing? This plot summary is very very long and detailed. Perhaps, perhaps, needs to be paraphrased even further. The third thing is, I can't possibly say the Bob White plot should be put here in full unless we also paraphrase the actual released game's plot - otherwise, we're talking about a bit fancrufty approach, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I've tried to trimmed the plot summary further to include only the most important highlights of the story. Later I'll try to write I can of the official plot and come up with a summary of that later. Admittedly it will be hard to present it in a way that is not so opinionated. :-/ --Stormwyrm 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hail Wikipedians!

I am the avatar. I jest thee not, I am the real Avatar of Brittannia. I have happened upon thine article which doth summarize my game, and I hath started wondering whether or not it would be acceptable to add a section showing my dismay towards the release of this evil. It hath proven to be far more troublesome than the guardian itself. I suppose the point is for me to leave thee with a question, dost thou findeth it acceptabe for me to begin the addition of a section which shalt state that the Avatar does not approve of this desecration of his series of games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.130 (talk • contribs) .

And I feel I must add, the voice in the game sounds naught like myself, 'tis a true shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.14 (talk • contribs) .

Hail, Avatar, and welcome back to Earth! Allow me to explain how things work in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, we have three Principles, Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research. This way, the Virtues of Wikipedia are

  1. Impartiality (NPOV)
  2. Accountability (V)
  3. Deduction (OR)
  4. Mediation (NPOV+V)
  5. Descriptivity (NPOV+OR)
  6. Conservativeness (V+OR)
  7. Trust (NPOV+V+OR)
  8. Reliability (nil)

This law thou shalt follow, your Titan-of-Etherhood be damned, or be branded a Troll. Thus decreed Lord Jimbo.

In other words: You're allowed to have an opinion, but if you want to put that an article, you must prove other people like that way. Find sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Though 'twould be against my nature to stray from the virtue of Humility, I must state that I feel that I am quite trustworthy and capable of knowing more about the virtuous Ultima franchise than the average mortal human. Also, I feel that though that which I would type shall be only opinion, it doth be the opinion of the Avatar. I feel that it would be informative for me to add it since I was the main character of this game.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.68 (talk • contribs) .
Still, we're not a publisher of original thought, and usually don't take details like this directly from persons involved, unless the same stuff is documented somewhere else too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ultima9.jpg

Image:Ultima9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)