Talk:Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultima5.png

Image:Ultima5.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Shadowlord names in Article

Since finding out their names is a big part of the game, should this major spoiler be given on this page? I removed them a while back but User:MannPower put them back in. -- 92.229.183.52 (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are major spoilers, and they don't add anything to the article. I'd recommend they be removed. (Anyone else have any thoughts?) Scottman 01 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This note is almost ten years old, and no objections have arisen since I brought it up again. I'll clean it up. Scottman 01 (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler says "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Dream Focus 19:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. The names still add nothing to the article other than a bit of fan service. But rather than just two people disagreeing, I'd be interested in getting other parties' opinions on the matter here if you'd like. Scottman 01 (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Each of the Shadowlords represents the antithesis of one of the three guiding principles: Faulinei, the Shadowlord of Falsehood opposes Truth; Astaroth, the Shadowlord of Hatred opposes Love; and Nosfentor, the Shadowlord of Cowardice opposes Courage. Mentioning their connection to the three guiding principles I think is important. Mentioning these major characters of the game, the ones you are fighting against, by name is something you'd do in any article about a game. Not fan service to state the facts. Also people could easily Google for the names if they wanted to find them. They wouldn't see them here and be able to remember them at a glance, so they'd still have to find them in the game if they wanted to play fair. Dream Focus 21:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Good thoughts. And honestly I'm fine with spoilers myself; I only brought them up because of this note (so again thank you for pointing out the newer rule regarding spoilers here). The only question is the relevance of their names, which seems to be a matter of opinion at this point. (Anyone else?) Scottman 01 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Version differences

I have included some highly specific info on game box differences which is probably not of interest to many people. However, I searched for quite a long time to try to ascertain the specifics of the differences and couldn't find this information anywhere including the collectible Ultima sites so thought I would list it here. If anyone has any information about the other releases it might be nice to include those also. Thomascjackson (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work. You can never have too much information. Anyone who doesn't like it, can just skip over it. Dream Focus 13:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shadowlord cage question

I played the game long ago on my Apple 2, and I recall when you met a Shadowlord in town, and it caught up to you, you would enter a battle scene, and could just run away. But its been so long my memory could be in error. Did it put you in a cage instantly, or just after it got close enough to touch you? Dream Focus 13:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I last played Ultima V on my Commodore 64, so yeah, it's been a while for me, too, but I don't remember any cages from Shadowlords. All I remember is that glass swords could be used to drive them away (temporarily defeat them), but usually I just ran away from them if I happened to encounter them. I think the 'cage' bit may either be an error, or perhaps something added to a later port of the game. I doubt its veracity.

87Fan (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no "cages", but when the player enters combat with a Shadowlord, they are surrounded by a barrier and cannot leave without either dispelling the barrier with Lord British's staff, or by dying. Scottman 01 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Game Trivia - Apple Crack

I'm posting this in the talk section since it may not be relevant at all to the main posting, but a bit of trivia since IV had a talk section on it as well.

The group "Black Bag" is wholly credited as the group securing the "official" crack of the game, 1 week after the release of the game. The Black Bag cracker was "The Chief Surgeon." The reason for the release was that the game became unplayable and would crash (and yes, a call to "buy legit" was posted on many forums once this issue was uncovered). A legitimate purchase of the game was made and was hand delivered to CS to analyze and compared to about 4 other "cracked" versions to see why all of those crashed. Within about 3 hours, the issue was found, which was a boot-sequence read issue in which the cracking groups failed to uncover in the rush to "be the first". At the time, this boot-sequence copy protection had been labeled as "one of the best" that the industry had implemented. An Easter-Egg is embedded into the boot screen thanking 2 others who helped with this "last crack" of the infamous group.

I could post a whole section on why this release was made, since by this time most of the cracking groups were releasing "cracked" games more for "show" than "quality" as in years previous. I am sure that there would be high debate on the "illegal" activities that occurred by nascent teenagers who were the "first" group of computer software "hackers/crackers" in which Wiki may not take lightly in it's postings. The underground piracy groups of those times was very tight-knit and tight-lipped as well. If there would be a more appropriate section, then I wouldn't mind posting it there.

I am unaware of the IBM-PC version having any "cracking groups" make a release, but it would be interesting to read about it in this talk section if someone is willing to contribute.Landon Statis (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the cracking group has anything to do with this article. Perhaps make one on their own. I find it unlikely any of them will come forward, revealing their real names, confirming information, and admitting they violated copyright laws and are thus subject to legal persecution. And since they didn't use their real names, how can you be certain who is who? Anyone can claim to have been that hacker. And couldn't they just copy the entire disk and run it? I remember in Ultima 7 you had to enter in information, answering questions from the book, at various stages, to keep the game playing. There was no internet verification of a legal copy in those days, and for my Apple 2e I recall playing Ultima 5 on disk, there no hard drive even. If there were any questions you had to answer, and I don't recall there being for this particular game, those who uploaded illegal copies would just upload the questions and answers as they appeared. I don't see is how there is anything to actually crack. Dream Focus 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no explicit "look up something in the manual and type it in as copy protection," but without the "feelies" that accompanied the game, it would have been near impossible to win. At one point you had to tell someone what the next notes were in "Stones", and you couldn't leave the conversation until you did. So without the manual, that would have meant shutting down the computer. The translation of runes was also necessary for a lot of in-game information, although most of us probably learned it by heart pretty soon. (On the Apple ][e, there were 4 floppies, along the lines of Boot/Dungeon, Britannia/Underworld, Towne/Villages, Castle/Keeps. Both sides of the second disk were read-write, the others read-only.) 71.22.16.150 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have first hand knowledge of this particular game for the Apple //: I own a legitimate copy of this game, 5 disks and a manual in the original cardboard game box. It contained 5 5.25" Floppy Disks, first disk was the boot/runtime disk which had a unique boot read-sequence that did not allow for bit-copying to take place to make an effective boot copy. It was a new copy-protection scheme that Origin Systems had developed at the time and was considered "one of the best" when it was released. The other 4 disks were copyable, but only contains data files, and no program/execution files to run the game. This was also the last version made on the Apple // platform as Origin System shifted to the PC for further game development (this has been cited in the original article).

As for the veracity of the information contained here-in, I can only say that this is from first-hand knowledge, and not any 2nd or 3rd party story that has been handed down. This is also not any admission of "guilt" or any "illegal" activities or any proposal of such.Landon Statis (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

magic carpet not required for get the scepter?

The article states that you didn't need to use the magic carpet to get the scepter. How was one supposed to get it? There were false floors surrounding it. Was there some other method for getting over them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.16.150 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Been too long since I played it for me to remember. The guys at the Ultima Wiki [1] say you need it. The Official Book of Ultima, page 216, says to use the magic carpet to get it, not mentioning any other way. "Getting the Sceptre -- the Easy Way" is what that section is called. So another way might be there. Anyway, since more than one person, you and those editing the Ultima wiki, say you need it, then unless someone says otherwise, I say remove that bit. Doing so now. Dream Focus 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Old note, but just to weigh in, this is correct; there are pit traps surrounding the scepter, and the magic carpet is the only way to cross them. Otherwise you fall down and insta-die in a lava pit. (I suspect Addams was just being creative when she titled that part "Getting the Sceptre -- the Easy Way"....) Scottman 01 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Amulet and the Ankh

Regarding how the Avatar drives back the Shadowlords in the intro cinematic, the game differentiates between the amulet and the Ankh. "Hastily you retrieve the amulet and Ankh that lie at your feet" in one paragraph, then "Without warning, the amulet, tightly gripped in your hand, emits a bright blue glow." (Screenshots of these passages can be googled.) Scottman 01 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Merging Ultima V: Lazarus

Any thoughts on merging Ultima V: Lazarus with this article? As one of the lead designers and producers of Lazarus (as well as being one of those mentioned to work in the games industry for over ten years because of it), I'd love it if it had its own page, but after a few months of working on that entry, Lazarus doesn't seem to have enough to warrant an article of its own. It can, however, be pared down to fit here fairly easily. Scottman 01 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not much information could be merged. Got enough content to be its own article anyway. Anyway, you have to put mergeto and mergefrom at the top of the articles in question if you want a discussion about this. Dream Focus 20:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I actually worked hard to champion Lazarus having its own Wikipedia article, only to be informed by editors with much more experience that there's really not enough. They had some pretty good points and I'd be happy to start said discussion. Scottman 01 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that Lazarus is notable enough to stand on its own (only 3 references, and 2 of them are simple reviews). We should absolutely merge the articles. Lazarus deserves a section in this article that hits the highlights. This has been a 'discussion' for a year with no movement, so let's not let this linger. Anyone else want to chime in? 87Fan (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I boldly merged the content given that this discuss was a year old with relatively no movement, and the original page didn't warrant its own article. 87Fan (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted you. It passes the general notability guidelines so warrants its own article. Having multiple reviews in reliable sources is how a video game is determined to be notable. Dream Focus 22:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Some additional reviews are listed on their official site. [2] Computer Gaming World went out of business, and the archive of their magazine issues is hard to read and search through. [3] But its got enough coverage mentioned in the article already to pass WP:GNG Dream Focus 22:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)