Forums > Game Forums > Ultima: Escape from Mt. Drash > Why's it a separate entry then?
Patrick Bregger (301035) on 9/7/2015 1:42 PM · Permalink · Report
Probably unofficial
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 9/7/2015 3:10 PM · Permalink · Report
Indeed, this is a fan remake and not merely a "port" as the description suggests.
Freeman (65099) on 9/7/2015 11:21 PM · Permalink · Report
From the readme file:
"The game itself has been partly ported directly from the BASIC source and partly redesigned and reimplemented by me. I didn't change any of the algorithms used though to keep it as close to the original as possible."
If I added the word 'unlicensed' to the description, would that be better? Or, what would be the best way of handling it?
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 9/8/2015 2:54 AM · Permalink · Report
Unlicensed is somewhat of a magic word, yes. I have dealt with the "rebuilt from the original source code" situation in the past and even then we have opted to split the entry. (This suggests in some sense also that The Ur-Quan Masters should have a separate entry from Star Control 2.)
Freeman (65099) on 9/8/2015 5:28 AM · Permalink · Report
That's interesting, what was the reasoning then for including Ur-Quan Masters under the SC2 entry? As I see, SC2 is still being sold, while UQM is a freeware open-source port of the game. Also, I haven't played it but it seems that UQM goes well beyond just being a straight port of SC2, while in this case the Windows author of Drash sought to produce a 1 to 1 version of an abandon-ware(?) game.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 9/8/2015 12:41 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
UQM is just a rebuild using the Toys for Bob-owned assets from the 3DO version, isn't it? The only gameplay difference that I can think of is an optional remixed soundtrack.
To republish Escape from Mt. Drash today would I think require the cooperation of both EA (Origin) and Activision (Sierra), and frankly if they were going to cooperate on one venture this one probably isn't the one to boost 8)
Freeman (65099) on 9/8/2015 7:46 PM · Permalink · Report
Yes, you're right, the differences don't appear to be very great. Version differences aside, though, would the difference in this case versus the case of Drash be that Toys For Bob "released the partially ported sources of Star Control 2 3DO version to the fan community" while in the case of Drash permission was never given to do anything with the game?
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Unlicensed is somewhat of a magic word, yes. I have dealt with the "rebuilt from the original source code" situation in the past and even then we have opted to split the entry. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
Do you have a link to one of these split entries? I'd like to read the description.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 9/9/2015 12:23 PM · Permalink · Report
I see the case for lumping the two, but it's telling that the game's authors, who have no legal rights to use of the name Star Control which was it seems owned by the publisher, had to release it under a different name. The license is the only tractable thing missing, but if they can't call it Star Control 2, which it patently is, why should we be able to?
I'm not super unhappy with the current arrangement, I'm just exploring the thought space around it.
I can't think of a specific split "built from code" entry, but for instance: virtually every version of the primordeal text adventure ADVENTURE is built by taking a very close look at the source code of earlier versions, yet despite even minor differences we split them. This applies equally to any type-in BASIC game like Wumpus or Eliza or Life that finds itself remade, often just being translated from one dialect of BASIC to another.