Classic MMOG Raised From the Dead by Past Players 360
Chromain writes "Back in 1996, the Seattle-based company Starwave created one of the first graphical MMOGs: Castle Infinity. Though it was well received by all who tried it, it quickly sank under bad marketing, extended downtime, and sloppy leadership. Now, nearly 8 years since disappearing off the map, the game has been (quite literally) rescued from a dumpster by a group of past players. It's available for free at their new website."
/. already? (Score:2, Insightful)
First Outage (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How old is this guy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You can never go back.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of today's games suck, it's just that most people haven't realized it 'cause they're shiny and new.
-Jenn
Re:You can never go back.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can never go back.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and games have become longer on average. most games simply relied on the fact that you had to start over when you lost your last life.
Most old games would never hold up to modern expectations, even if graphics and such were not a factor. They often relied on novelty to get the player. Crap such as Space Invaders or Tempest is held in high regard.
And don't get me started on the games that weren't considered good even back then, the cheap dev costs allowed for a whole lot more of those to be thrown at the market. What passes for bad these days can often still be enjoyed though it won't be on par with the greatest titles.
Though, of course, you said the "vast majority" sucks which would just be a rephrasing of Sturgeon's Law and applied even back then. The "vast majority" can be disregarded because noone likes, buys or plays those games.
Re:You can never go back.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The main games played in my MAME collection are Tempest and Joust. They are simple, precise, and fun.
Re:How old is this guy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can never go back.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't be so quick with generalizations, my dad and I used to play the original Starflight (four colors, when was the last time a game fully used the available color pallet?) in the eighties. I played and it's sequel it off and on since. The graphics get the job done, even today (although I have the upgraded EGA version 16 colors and it still uses them all). If you aren't familiar with Starflight, Starcon II was very similar in overall goals and some mechanics (though the fictional settings are rather different). The big differences are that in Starflight; you only have one ship (though you can still upgrade it through bought or found technologies), you can select and train crew members, and lastly exploration and diplomacy are more important than combat to winning the game (though there can be quite a bit of ship to ship combat).
Oh, and games have become longer on average. most games simply relied on the fact that you had to start over when you lost your last life.
Maybe with arcade type games. However, it has taken almost twenty years for the games to get as long as Starflight was. And the story was more than just long, it was rather engaging too.
Though, of course, you said the "vast majority" sucks which would just be a rephrasing of Sturgeon's Law and applied even back then. The "vast majority" can be disregarded because noone likes, buys or plays those games.
Sturgeon's Law is called a law because there is validity in it. 90% of everything is crap, but the other 10% is what will be remembered for long after it was made. There are few older games that stand the test of time, but some do. Those are the reasons people make programs like DosBox and the like
Re:How can you claim copyright on this? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would come down to good faith. A reasonable person would see throwing away the source code, runtime environment, and hardware as divesting oneself of the rights to the property as allowing its destruction would deprive even the supposed retainer of the rights of the very rights he seeks to deny to others.
If IP in the trash stays in the trash, then that would certainly be an unconstitutional extension of copyright to infinity by denying it to the public domain.
If any act would deprive all of humanity access to the work, including the rights holder, those rights should be forfeit to the public domain.
Alas, while I think my position is morally sound, section 104A - Copyright in restored works, effectively allows creators to retain copyright over works restored by others, and moral rights in copyright in the UK has similar provisions.
However, it does suggest that until the work is restored, it is in the public domain. Once the work is restored, rights apparently go back to the original destroyer of the work as "if it had never entered the public domain in the United States."
Unless I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "restored" in that section. Is it work restoration or copyright restoration?