Talk:Ultima IX: Ascension

message: There was a considerable number of debate in rcgud about U9 even as the development progressed. I distrinctly remember that there was this guy who had a "semi-official" FAQ, and Origin gave information to him, and people almost shot the messenger in the end. Everyone knows what happened *after* U9's release; I'd be terribly interested on details on what happened *before*. Someone care to fill in more of this? --Wwwwolf 12:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everyone knows what happened *after* U9's release etc". That's probably why this article is so poor, and why articles of this nature are generally poor. It's because the only people who care enough about the subject, and who know enough about the subject to do it justice, are fans. And fans have immersed themselves so deeply into their obsession that they cannot see it objectively, from the outside. As a consequence an audience like myself, knowing very little about the subject, but curious about the past, ends up wondering what happened to the other eight-tenths. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I notice nothing is noted how the developers closed down and never reopened their own company message boards after the release due to the massive negative fee back. It's a shame how big business can destroy such a great series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanteogo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the boards were not closed due to "massive negative feedback" - although it's true that there were many unhappy posts. The fact was that it takes time, money, and staff members to run official message boards, and once the last official patch was done, we needed those resources for the then-recently-announced Ultima Online 2. - Amy Sage (Cynthe)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elderberries (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone remember more about the U9 controversy? 

message: Always interesting to see your name used in Wikipedia. Also to see that original synopsis is now tagged as the plot with my name...odd. Credit should be given where due. Even though I released it, that plot was birthed through many long hours of work by John Watson, Brian Martin, Myself and Chuck Zoch...and of course, Richard. I just happen to be lucky enough to sit in the drivers seat on the design for a while. Anyway, I wanted to be sure and point out that there really was no "official" plot prior to ~1995. Many of the ideas and general guidelines for where the game was going to go and how we wanted it to end had been built up by Richard, John Watson and Brian Martin. I was brought in on April Fools (very appropriate) day 1994 to begin work with them to actually nail down a full and complete plot. There was actually a couple of minor versions before the synopsis I released, but these were just working items and not nailed down. I still have the first official design document with the entire (many many pages) plot in it.
What is written about the next version of the plot under Ed's guiding hand is pretty much as you have written. It was very different and quite a departure. It had some unique elements, but didn't fit the proper mold.
The final versions was the best they could do given the constraints given to the team (short on time, money, and personnel). The pressures on the final team were tremendous.
Had EA not focused the course of development towards UO (given the profitability of UO it is difficult to blame them for opting on that course), then UIX would have been a drastically different animal. We actually were probably one year from alpha, when the UO shift occurred.
-Robert "Bob" White: rwhite.astro@gmail.com
I've now tried to include a paraphrase of the original Bob White plot, which is, I feel, an important part of the evolution of the game, based on the original Usenet posting. --Stormwyrm 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob White Plot 

message: :Image:Ultima9.jpg 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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ultima9.jpg

message: The article currently reads: Ultima IX was commercially unsuccessful, with sales of roughly 75,000 copies in the United States by August 2000.  Now then, the game sold at 40 dollars, so that's three million dollars.  Stores take 30%, cost of manufacturing and all, but still, game development cost were lower back then.  It still made some money didn't it?  Sold far more copies than the first few games of the series did.  Do we have a list of the sales figures of all the games in the series for comparison?  The reference has no link to anywhere I can read anything to see exactly what it said.  Did it use the phrase "commercially unsuccessful"?  Dream Focus 05:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Desslock said: "Other commercially successful RPGs such as Fallout sold around 150,000 units, while Planescape: Torment and Ultima IX: Ascension each sold only a lowly 75,000 units." JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  commercially unsuccessful? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ultima IX: Ascension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701160459/http://www.forgottenworld.de/index.php/screenshots/ultima-ix-patchs-and-forgotten-world-releases to http://www.forgottenworld.de/index.php/screenshots/ultima-ix-patchs-and-forgotten-world-releases
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcgamer.com/reviews/reviews_592.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdmag.com/articles/024/177/ultima9_review.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interactive.org/iaa/finalists_pc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I saw that Noah Antwiler (TheSpoonyOne) had his wikipedia page deleted, so I don't know if he's conisdered notable anymore, but would his videos on Ultima 9: Ascension be considered valid sources?
He was after all, for years, a video game critic, and I think they could support the statements made in the "Reception" section.
Namely, this statement here:
"One of the chief criticisms of Ultima IX was that the story did not do justice to the continuity of earlier parts of the series, and in fact, it largely ignores it."
He is a little profane in his statements, but it should capture how devoted fans of the Ultima Series felt about Ultima 9.
Videos Here: 
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQUVfo_kBMU
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yn0PXkaIsM
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoSNjYjy4Ek
- Anonymous commenter who learned about Ultima through this review
104.174.66.159 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SpoonyOne's video?