Talk:Captain Black Tavern

Images?

As I was making great and better revisions in the shops of Ultima IV, it occurs to me, that some of the shops are not using the original images. Why using these ones? --Arthgon (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this exact issue a few years ago, but I can't remember where. I personally wouldn't object to images from the original U4 being used in place of ones from the VGA patch -- I think it's important to represent the games as they were released by Origin rather than with improvements made by fans. Others may think differently though; as I recall there wasn't unanimous agreement about this. --Terilem (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Be good if we could find that discussion. I find it strangely inconsistent that we have such strict and well-thought policies on canon but whatever images we put up are whatever looks good. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is one discussion on it. And here is the one it is referencing. Personally I prefer non-fan patch versions. But I am accepting of fan patch screenshots as long as they are clearly marked that way (hence the Category:Ultima_IV_Upgraded_Screenshots). -- Fenyx4 15:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I don't want to discourage people doing work this is what I'm thinking the policy would be "Fan upgraded graphics are allowed in screenshots but original versions are preferred. As such it is encouraged to replace fan upgraded screenshots with original graphics when able." Thoughts? -- Fenyx4 16:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not bad. Another way we might want to put it is that originals should predominate. This would mean that the top graphic should be original, while images farther down a medium- to long-length article could have some nicer-looking unofficial ones. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How many of those 'upgraded' images are being used in comparison of the originals? There are only two or three shops who use them. Personally, I do not like this upgrade. Too bland and all to my taste. I also think that the most people wants to feel nostalgic as they look at the original screenshots. Well. If you know what I mean. --Arthgon (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are at least 50 for u4 in the category I linked. But there are more that didn't make it into the category. Like these. Doesn't look like U3 upgraded photos got separated out at all... And when it comes to Exult... Yeah, there are a lot. -- Fenyx4 18:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

However, consider this: The original CGA-graphics of Ultima II and III look absolutely atrocious to the eye. I completely understand that only the upgraded EGA-graphics were chosen for screenshots, especially since they do remain very faithful to the original. I do understand why filtered shots from Exult (and those with status bars) are also not optimal. So to put up my opinion: We should keep our hands away from II and III (CGA would be a huge step backwards), and VII with status bars and/or filters should be replaced. For IV, I don't think a restrictive replacement policy should be used.--Tribun (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I think the CGA images should only to be used in the way to show the newer generation how they looked like in those days. It IS a part of the history. Perhaps we should determinate which categories should be staying 'upgraded' and which ones should be returned to its original version. What do you think? --Arthgon (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Using aesthetic appeal to justify prioritizing unofficial material seems awfully revisionist to me, and sets a precedent I'm not comfortable with. I doubt anyone will argue against CGA looking woeful by today's standards but that's just the way it was, for better or worse. Same with U4. Tempting though it may be, we aren't here to make the games look pretty. I don't think you can go wrong with a purist approach, whereas using patches and upgrades as the predominant representation certainly does have the potential to create a misleading impression. --Terilem (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. For those who are not familiar with its original contents, may have the impression that those 'upgraded' images were perfectly normal for those days. Which is not. Although, the original images are not that sophisticated by today's standards, it IS canon. As it were made by Origin and not by fans. Indeed, we are not here to make the games look pretty, we are here for the preservation to maintain or restore access to all things of Ultima. --Arthgon (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I for my part would never agree to any sort of screenshot-replacement on a larger scale just because of purist views. Sorry, but while authencity otherwise is good, making the shots unwatchable by switching them to CGA is where I draw the line.--Tribun (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is CGA brought up all the time? There are many versions of the older games out there. Amiga versions usually look pretty great. Consider me in the purist camp as well! --Warder Dragon (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Using other versions like the Amiga sounds like a good solution for both sides, but I think we also need to consider what's familiar. We want to minimize the "what's that?" and "that's not how it happened" experiences for the readers of our articles. I'll wager that half our readers don't know what an Amiga is. (Although, readers who know what DOS is, but not an Amiga would be quite a bit less) The Ultra-Mind (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We could that, however we need to discuss which version we should use for which subject. On the other hand, the newer and spoiled generation probably recognise DOS than the ones that were in the past. (Apple, c64, MAC, Amiga, Atari, MSX) --Arthgon (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also from what I know, only few any longer play II and III on the PC with their original graphics, so I think most that re-discovered these games especially with GoG only know the EGA-graphics - especially since the games are virtually unplayable without being patched due to technical and speed reasons.--Tribun (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that because the newer generation does not know how it was in those days, there is not need to preserve II and III with the original graphics? --Arthgon (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What I want to say is, their first reaction would be: "WTF is that supposed to be?" While it's fine to show what it looked like originally when it does make sense, I fail to see the point of a replacement-spree.--Tribun (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the trouble with these newer generation. They're too much spoiled with those "superior" graphics and/or music that supposed to be more important for them than a well-written plot or backstory. But that is another story. What about using the CGA AND the EGA to explain what it suppose to be?--Arthgon (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Putting the new alongside the old? That would bloat a lot of the smaller articles. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I know. But I was making a sort diplomatic approach, because of the newer generation who probably does not know how it used to be. Even with a good detailed explanation below the images. With the eye of authentically and historically, I still think that the originals are better at place, than those bloaded VGA of Ultima IV.--Arthgon (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a though: Wouldn't it become too confusing for the new generation if there two many different versions of images for shops (is it okay that I change the only two shops who are using VGA to its original version?), NPC and places? --Arthgon (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think people can handle a mixture of versions across pages... In in a certain light I sorta like it for the same reason you wanted two versions next to each other. It helps record different versions and exposes people to them.

But we seem to be getting a bit lost due to a BUNCH of different topics coming up. So I'm going to break down each topic into separate sections below. (Hopefully I cover them all but if anyone feels something is left out please add it.) -- Fenyx4 04:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fan Graphics: Yes or No

So, I think fan graphics should be allow but discouraged (by encouraged their replacement). -- Fenyx4 04:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fan Graphics: Ruling across the board or specific to each game

I think the ruling on fan graphics should be the same for every game. -- Fenyx4 04:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Original Versions: Any version or a subset of encouraged versions

I wish I could say that I'd be fine with any original version but then I see something like this or this (yeah, that is Ultima 4 not 5) and I conclude that certain versions should be discouraged. -- Fenyx4 04:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to expand on this point. Those versions look an awful lot better to me, but the problem I might have w/them is that they are unfamiliar. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the PC98 one burns to look at. And the FM-TOWNS one has the problem of being too familiar. It looks like U5 even though it is from U4. But this is precisely why I wish we could just say 'any original version' because otherwise it is all subjective. -- Fenyx4 16:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, mistaking one game for another. So there's another problem we need to watch out for. Yes, I suppose I see it the same way: the more esoteric platforms should not be used as the main image. The Ultra-Mind (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We also should prevent that the articles gets flooded by too many versions. (c64, Amiga, MAC, MSX, Atari, Apple, etc) By this it will become too crowded if you know what I mean. Can I make a suggestion, to use the EGA and CGA and one that is most likely well-knowned?--Arthgon (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Original Versions: Ruling across the board or specific to each game

So many different versions and ports I think if we do encourage a subset then it would have to break it down by game. -- Fenyx4 04:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)