How to go about getting a company to make a real game?

Acutally, I didn't find the movie very good at all. Since both the movie and the book Mazes and Monsters came out during the peak of anti-D&D hysteria, they always seemed to me to be blatent attempts to make money from all that hysteria. I did read the book, but it didn't seem very realistic to me then, and still doesn't today.

I was surprised to find out a few years ago that there are still anti-D&D people out there. A guy I knew on another board posted that he picked up a D&D book at a garage sale and got a lot of strange looks from other people there. I thought that kind of thinking died out, but I guess not.

 

I'm fully aware it will be awful, I'm hoping it will be so bad that it will be all the more entertaining to watch.

 

What happened is that D & D fell off the radar of these groups, because there were other things to target like the Pokemon craze or video games that moved people to violence. Events like Columbine (focusing on Doom and Wolfenstein 3D) help galvanize their cause.

People fear what they do not understand and some people prefer to remain in their ignorance. Far easier to blame an external demon than get at the real root of the problem.

 

Wait,wait, wait!
A Spelljammer PC game?!? Really?!? Damn, I NEED to put my hands in this!!!
Spelljammer is the most intresting and original campaign cenario I've ever seen - saddly I'm one of the few persons that think this way...
I have doing a lot of contents for this scenario throught the years, and playing alone in spellammer campaings, and a PC game means that I'm able to do this without beung considered crazy for the other RPlayers - what is very serios, once "normal" people consider RPlayers a bunch of crazy damneds...

 

That's how I tried to run the game in the past. I recall that there were points in the game where there is some inherent delay so that you can read some of the text. When I got to that point, it just went so fast that I didn't know what to do. This was on a much slower computer than I have now, so I don't think that using the DOS box now will make things any better since my current computer is many times faster than my older one which was already too fast.

 

Yes. I had it. I thought it sucked. I can't remember too much. All I remember was that it was too easy to die really early. I kept dying in some battle really early on and got fed up and did not continue. I think you had only one character to start. Maybe you pick up NPC allies along the way. I'm not sure.

I got Eye of the Beholder and thought that sucked too. If your front guys drop, your back row guys still cannot attack because your front guys are in the way. However, the monsters who dropped your front guys can still attack your back row guys. :roll:

They tried to make it feel like a first person shooter, but it had some stupid properties. For instance, you can get hit in a direction you are not looking. Like none of the 4 party members can look in different directions. You have to turn your entire party because they always face the same way. Like really. It's like playing 3E or 4E with facing only your entire party has to face the same way all the time.:roll:

If you have any melee characters, you have to accept the fact that these characters will never ever ever ever be able to attack a monster first before the monster attacks them. Every time I move my party adjacent to a monster, the monster always attacks first before I can click on my guy to attack. Every time I wait for a monster to move adjacent to my party, the monster always attacks first before I can click on my guy to attack.

All of these things just ticked me off so much. My friend gave me a trainer for the game, but I still couldn't stand it. I could not believe they made 2 sequels. Maybe there's something that I overlooked that would have made the game more fun and less stupid for me. If so, I'd like to know, not that it would make me want to play it again.

 

That book and movie was there just to make money. From my understanding, D&D had nothing to do with the death of the individual upon which the book and movie was based. As I recall, some reporter noted that the victim had some D&D books in his room and wrote a story with the angle that suggests a possible link there. It's pretty much guilt by association. You could just have wrote the same article but repalce D&D book with any book the reporter saw in his room.

It's still out there. A few years ago, someone asked me if there were daemons and devils in D&D.

 

I didn't realize that it was based on an actual person. I'd look it up, but reading about all the stupid, ignorant comments by stupid, ignorant people making stupid, ignorant assumptions just makes me mad.

I vaguely remember a case where a kid did something illegal (kill someone?) and, since he was a DM and had a DMG (remember that huge demon on the cover), a lot of people including the prosecutors blamed D&D. Like I said, stupid, ignorant people.

 

I think fantasy does contribute some "moral courseness" to one's nature. For example, I played World Of Dinkcraft for 3 years and in that time I came across many, many individuals that I wanted to use my ranger tracking skills to hunt them down, don my +12 suit of full plate armor of Etherealness and bash their !@#$%^& heads in with my +16 Sledge-O-Matic Maul Of Pulping.

Also, when I'm called into the bosses office at work, I envision myself having to go explain myself to the Grandmaster Of Assassins on why I bungled the last job.

These are the types of things that get me through the week until week's end so I can go tithe another 150 gold coins to my church (the casino).

 

I may have been mistaken with some of the details. There is so much stuff out there about what happened and many of them wrong or unconfirmed. Here's a link that talks about the incident if you are interested: http://www.rpgstudies.net/cardwell/attacks.html

The person in question is Dallas Egbert III. You'll probably find more stuff about it. Be warned. This is the internet age and some things you read (including what I wrote ) may not be reliable.

I think that most people are indifferent about D&D. Some are fanatical about how evil it is. Then there are the people who actually play and know that it is just a game. If anyone behaves erratically, they will do so regardless of whether or not they play D&D. If an individual is normal and healthy, D&D will not cause them to become irrational.

Anyway, I don't think the general perception of D&D will really cause companies to shy away from making a D&D computer game. There are many games out there that I think are a worse influence on young people if they are not mature enough to know that it is just a game and make believe. Any bad press about D&D is probably more likely to generate more interest in such a game than actually hurt it.