Talk:Ultima Underworld

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.
VG To-do:

Todo:

  • elaborate on the advanced features of UW versus Wolfenstein
  • compare advanced features of UW versus DOOM
  • reasons for lack of success compared to Wolfenstein and DOOM
  • story
  • development team
  • remake efforts - Underworld Adventures (UW), Labyrinth of Worlds (UW2)
  • why no UWIII - mention of ARX Fatalis


Contents

[edit] Influence on id Software

I removed the passage concerning the influence of Ultima Underworld on the development of Wolf3d and Doom. I wrote an E-Mail to John Romero a few years ago and he answered:

"I was friends with Paul Neurath who owned Looking Glass Technologies back then and he told me about a new technique they were using called “texture mapping” on their current game (which was UU). He told me this back in 1990. We finally used the technique one year later on Catacomb 3D and then Wolf3D after that. So yeah, we were inspired by Paul but we had never seen UU before Wolf3D was released, nor did Paul give us any more information other than saying the words “texture mapping” back then. J"

--knechtodawas

Well, who would destroy his/her own legend? :)

--Thoric 23:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I wondered why the overly famous Warren Spector wasn't mentioned (he was the producer), the genius Doug Church had done most of the programming and was also the project leader for the second title, credits are all on mobygames.com.

[edit] Release date

GameSpy says UW2 was released June 1, 1993, but I'm a bit dubious about this.--DooMDrat July 3, 2005 05:57 (UTC)

I don't think so. Search Usenet and you find people having bought the game in early '93. The files on the original disks are dated late December '92, so it was probably released in January. Magazine reviews also confirm this. Don't trust any modern gaming websites on release dates from when they were not yet online. TerokNor 3 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Phorque here. Here's what I've found (regarding release dates):

Moby games
I - March 1992
II - 1992
All Game Guide
I - 1991
II - 1992
IGN
I - june 1st 1991
II - june 1st 1993
Gamespy
I - june 1st 1991
II - june 1st 1993

I really don't know what to do. There's also a single CD release of both games that might make for a better infobox. Gah... any suggestions?

That Moby date is from me. Found it on Usenet, as written above. My old magazines confirm these dates (early 92 for UW1, late 92/early 93 for UW2). Forget the websites. Please change the dates back. TerokNor 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It's ok, change the dates back. I was just neatening it and ran into some confusion with the clashing sources. Maybe add the mag you own as a reference at the end of the article? - Phorque 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll ask around the TTLG forums.--Drat (Talk) 13:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Do so, but I think they will confirm these dates. Who would you rather trust, a magazine that reviewed the game when it came out or a website that went online five to ten years after it came out? TerokNor 13:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There are some people there who bought the games when they were released. Some may even have old magazines with reviews.--Drat (Talk) 14:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
From the information I got from a forum member:
  • UW1 was released in March 1992, according to Doug Church.
  • UW2 was released either released very late 1992, or early 1993. I went with 1993.--Drat (Talk) 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now that the articles have been split...

We need to deal with bypassing this disambig page (check Special:Whatlinkshere/Ultima Underworld. I will do a few here and there later.--Drat (Talk) 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Underworld2.png

Image:Underworld2.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)