Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!csn!boulder!wilkinson.Colorado.EDU!judd From: judd@wilkinson.Colorado.EDU (Mr. Integral) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games Subject: Re: Eye of the Beholder Keywords: 3000 Message-ID: <1991May21.183719.9030@colorado.edu> Date: 21 May 91 18:37:19 GMT References: <726@digigw.digital.co.jp> <11356@mirsa.inria.fr> <1991May20.195524.22828@b17a.ingr.com> Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 157 Nntp-Posting-Host: wilkinson.colorado.edu In article <1991May20.195524.22828@b17a.ingr.com> maj@silk.Berkeley.EDU (Bilbo Baggins) writes: >|> It is just a copy of dungeon master. Apparently SSI stole the whole game >|> mechanics from FTL, and got good review from the IBM press since they apparently >|> are better known in the IBM world than FTL. I am against copyrights on >|> user-interfaces, but SSI lies makes me sick. >|> >|> The REAL innovators are FTL. Play Dungeon Master and Chaos Strikes Back to see >|> what EoB is. DM & CSB makes full use of the amiga (you can track monsters by >|> listening to stereophonic noises, no disc access, even between levels!!!). Too >|> bad Sundog wasn't ported to the amiga (or was it?). SSI has made really crappy >|> software before, FTL have produced ONLY true masterpieces. >|> >|> I don't mean EoB is crappy, only all good things in it comes from FTL, not SSI. >|> >|> Colas Nahaboo, colas@sa.inria.fr, Bull Research, Koala Project, GWM X11 WM >|> Phone:(33) 93.65.77.70(.66 Fax), INRIA, B.P.109 - 06561 Valbonne Cedex, FRANCE. > >I have to differ with you here, SSI and EA are the true Inovators here because >they are the only ones who have the guts to take a system improve it and PORT This is an advantage? Porting is the key reason I buy so few games on the Amiga. Looking at animation IBM-style is not my idea of a good time. Same goes for sounds, interface (hires pointer, etc), can I put it on my HD, did they port it or does it actually Multitask, etc. Second, in the first sentence you reference SSI as 'innovators' and yet three words later state that they merely take an already existant system and simply modify it. Certainly not innovative. >it to different machines, something the asses at FTL have not. And the only So, you're mad at FTL because your computer didn't quite have the capabilities to handle the program? Or just upset that they didn't make a version for your copmuter. Strange to hear that from a non-Amiga user... >way you can say that SSI has only produced crappy stuff is if you only have an >amiga and you keep your head stuck in the sand. Back when FTL and amiga both >were dreams SSI was writing some of the best and most original RPG's around. BzzzzZZZZZzzzztt. Let's extend this to all of SSI's programs, of which I played quite a few on my C-64. Graphics and sound were invariably pathetic, the games themselves were often not particularly interesting (most of the wargames were the SAME GAME, just with different terrain and unit stats), and far overpriced. I will leave your 'most original' comment for another paragraph. >If you don't like SSI's way of creating Eye of the Beholder, then that's fine, >but when you say its a copy, you are dead wrong. I remember playing Dungeon Master >on a friends amiga, yes I have a PC and therefore can't get DM, and I remember >how it was complicated, and how that you consumed food too fast, as well as other MoooommMMMMIIIIIEEEEEE! You, you mean, a game where you actually had to apply a modicum of INTELLIGENCE?!?!? Aw, that is kinda rough. Where does the food comment come from? I never ran out of food. Finally, what are these mysterious 'other problems' you mention? The fact that it doesn't multitask and that I can't put it on my HD? You are right, those are problems, albeit minor ones for that particular program. >problems. I agree that the visual display in Eye of the Beholder is very similar >, but I would not say that it is a copy of Dungeon Master. Enhanced graphics and changed (pronounced "change-ed") plot doth not an original make. It is a copy. An improved copy, perhaps, but a copy. > >PS. Let us take a look at great games that each company has produced > > SSI: PHANTASIE A quaint game, I am fond of it and played it on my 64. However, it was compiled basic, hurtin graphics, hurtin sound. I like it though, and would even call it original, for the most part. > Wizards Crown Never played it. Never looked too interesting. > Pool of Radiance Never played it. Always looked quite similar to Bards Tale, (which, I might add, looks quite similar to Wizardry), although combat looked different. Also looked like an IBM port. > Eye Of The Beholder A copy of Dungeon Master, and from what I've been reading, not complex at all, albeit very pretty to look at. > (as well as all of their sequel's to each of the above" Ooooh, you mean Phantasie II and III, those incredibly boring games? Since I never played/saw any of the others, I will not comment. And let's not forget Questron, that neat game (no sarcasm there) whose interface was liscensed from the Ultima folks (probably Sierra On-Line at that time?), and Questron II, yet another game from the same guys that brought us that neat looking but quite trite game, Legacy of the Ancients. > > The first two both won awards for being the best rpg in the year > they were released. Note Also that All of these games except for > the last, has been ported to just about every machine. Big Deal(tm). Hero's Quest was in the number one spot for several weeks, yet was laughed out of the Amiga market. The point being, for those who as yet have not grasped it, is that just because everyone else buys a game, movie, computer, book, etc., does not mean that it is a good/ original/quality item. Usually portability detracts from a game, since the designers generally bow to the lowest contender, usually an IBM. You don't see The Killing Game Show on other platforms, do you? Does this make it a bad game? > > FTL: DUNGEON MASTER > > (If ther is anything else that FTL has made that worth crap please > let me know, and Don't list Chaos Strikes Back because that > requires the DM game as well) CSB does not require DM. You can always borrow the DM instruction manual from someone, or have someone explain the rules to you. Incidentally, what does this have to do with whether or not CSB is "worth crap?" Nothing? > > Note here that the morons at FTL, who by the way make me sick, > have never bothered to port it to the IBM machines. Use your brain for a second here. Why do you suppose that is? Expense? Compuer requirements? Quite frankly, I don't know why. Maybe they are actually men of vision, who realize where the future is in machines? If you find out why, I would be curious to know. Also, how did the people at FTL earn the classification 'morons,' and why do they make you sick? Simple inflamed rhetoric, perhaps? This is really about Eye of the Beholder, and SSI's products. I remember a sudden shift in game design right after Summer Games came out. Most games were being designed with good graphics, sound, etc. Unfortunately, they began to depend on this for the game. Before this time, almost every game you saw was 1)original, and 2)fun, otherwise the programmer would not earn any money. After this there was a marked decrease in original, fun games, and a marked increase in ripoffs with enhanced sound and graphics and such. You may draw the analogy to SSI and specifically Eye of the Beholder at your leisure. With a few exceptions, I have never, ever, found the ripoff to be nearly as good as the "ripee," (assuming the "ripee" was any good in the first place). This is the Nintendo mentality. "Hey, this game sells, let's change things around a little, and sell another two million copies." Too bad. > ingr!b17a!silk!maj@uunet.uu.net -Steve -- judd@sgt-york.lanl.gov // You gotta get in to get out. ...!ncar!boulder!tramp!judd \X/ -Genesis