![[Home]](funwiki.png)
History of MasterOfMagic|
Master of Magic is an ancient Microprose game which runs on expanded memory, and for this reason, as well as others, it is probably the single most temperamental piece of software I have ever owned (and used). Care for a copy of Ultima VII: Serpent Isle? ;-) Expanded memory was the first way in which Microsoft circumvented the 640k limit, and was replaced quickly (very quickly, as far as I can tell), by extended memory, so using it on a modern computer requires expanded memory emulation. After mucking around with config.sys and other fun DOS/Windows?? controls, I got the game working again. The game itself, while not really worth the trouble, is fun. It's more or less like Civilization (the first version, not Civ II or Civ III) in a fantasy setting, with spells instead of technology. I suspect that Master of Magic was also inspired by Magic: The Gathering, because of the great similarities in some of the spells and the five-color magic system (and I'm not talking about Fireball).--CurtisVinson |
|
Master of Magic is an ancient Microprose game which runs on expanded memory, and for this reason, as well as others, it is probably the single most temperamental piece of software I have ever owned (and used). Care for a copy of Ultima VII: Serpent Isle? ;-) Expanded memory was the first way in which Microsoft circumvented the 640k limit, and was replaced quickly (very quickly, as far as I can tell), by extended memory, so using it on a modern computer requires expanded memory emulation. After mucking around with config.sys and other fun DOS/Windows? controls, I got the game working again. The game itself, while not really worth the trouble, is fun. It's more or less like Civilization (the first version, not Civ II or Civ III) in a fantasy setting, with spells instead of technology. I suspect that Master of Magic was also inspired by Magic: The Gathering, because of the great similarities in some of the spells and the five-color magic system (and I'm not talking about Fireball).--CurtisVinson |
|
::MikeBuchanan preferred that the text be integrated - that would MakeItEvenBetter. He felt a little bad when he contradicted Curtis, but Curtis was wrong (it's not that much trouble and it *is* worth it). ::::The nifty thing about FunWiki is that everyone (even Curtis) is entitled to an opinion. While creating and updating content is a GoodIdea, it's generally best to leave author-signed opinions alone. Non-signed descriptions are fair game, though you should still have a good reason for massive revisions of someone else's content. (Not that the lack of a good reason has stopped me in the past, but I digress.) --WillShipley ::::::Okay, but someone might want to change MakeItEvenBetter because it says "Let each page be a work of the group. . . Edit pages by evolving the existing text, instead of simply appending a comment. This takes more effort, but it is what gives the WikiWikiWeb its unique strengths." -MikeBuchanan |
|
* MikeBuchanan preferred that the text be integrated - that would MakeItEvenBetter. He felt a little bad when he contradicted Curtis, but Curtis was wrong (it's not that much trouble and it *is* worth it). ** The nifty thing about FunWiki is that everyone (even Curtis) is entitled to an opinion. While creating and updating content is a GoodIdea, it's generally best to leave author-signed opinions alone. Non-signed descriptions are fair game, though you should still have a good reason for massive revisions of someone else's content. (Not that the lack of a good reason has stopped me in the past, but I digress.) --WillShipley *** Okay, but someone might want to change MakeItEvenBetter because it says "Let each page be a work of the group. . . Edit pages by evolving the existing text, instead of simply appending a comment. This takes more effort, but it is what gives the WikiWikiWeb its unique strengths." -MikeBuchanan **** True; though it also says "Do use signatures when your contribution is personal, or when you want to take responsibility for what you wrote. Try to avoid making significant changes to a signed comment, unless you also change or remove the signature." Now, I'll grant that you removed the signature when you modified Curtis' original text, but you also added your name to the block, which made prior authorship even more confusing. Anyway, I think you and I are running into a conceptual difference on the nature of signed comments . . . anyone else want to offer a third opinion? --Will |