File talk:British-U3.png

Seeing these screenshots makes me wonder again whether we should be passing off fan patches as official source material. I know they're far prettier graphics, but for our purposes here I'm thinking we should be showing the games as they were released by Origin. --Terilem 23:37, 24 March 2012 (PDT)

That's why I originally did all the Ultima IV screenshots in EGA (16-color), but Ultima II/III PC were CGA (4-color). CGA is NASTY to look at, and I don't want to have all the Location Maps in CGA. It may be more true to the original material, but it's so ugly. The problem is a lot of the Ultima games were released on nearly a dozen systems, should we use Apple II, C64, PC, Atari, Amiga, NES, SMS, PC98, PC88, X68000, FM-Towns?

I should probably redo the Ultima III screenshots in EGA, though, since there's only 2, and EGA looks almost identical to the original Amiga release of Ultima III. Dungy 04:23, 25 March 2012 (PDT)

I guess EGA would be a fair compromise; at least it's the same basic tileset and, as you said, does look a hell of a lot like the Amiga version anyway. --Terilem 04:48, 25 March 2012 (PDT)

I'm kind of a purist myself (I don't like the Death Star blowing up with the Praxis effect, there were 4 kids on the Cosby Show, not 5, etc...) Sure, CGA is ugly, but U9's plot was ugly. It's still there.

I think that for the main images we should try to be using what's most familiar to the reader, which would be from the most common platforms. I believe that would discount FM-Towns, for instance. The Ultra-Mind 21:20, 25 March 2012 (PDT)