Betrayal At Krondor

An article is posted by David Wild, who is old and wise,
and with the following gibber, the Holy Lord Kalten replies:

> There is a Magician game? I loved the series, what the name? where can
> i buy it? wildd.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net thanks

Yes, there was the original game called Betrayal At Krondor by Dynamix out
in 1994. If you do a search on Google, you will find it as a free download.

There is also the sequel Return To Krondor.

BaK is the better game, but in today's gaming it really is very difficult to
get into given the dated graphics. If you use something like DOSBox to run
the emulation, it is a tad slow - but creating a boot disk is diffiicult
unless you have Windows 95/98 - you can't make one with Windows ME.

Return to Krondor is a later game which is still visually good to play
compared to today's games. However, it is flawed in many ways compared to
BaK, namely:
1) Lack of freedom of movement.
2) Very slow to move about.
3) Very small - easy to complete.
4) Realtime, rather than RPG turn-based in gaming (there are puzzles where
you have to complete but you are racing against the clock or must have
fairly fast reflexes to complete - I don't know what Raymond was thinking of
when he put these in the game - very fustrating).
5) Less variety and quantity of things to do.


Still, RtK was a good game with good story and music.

Cheers,

Kalten~!!!
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:07:31 +0000 (UTC), Timothy Dransfield
<dransf.DeleteThis@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>> But as complaints go, this is one of the silliest I've encountered.
>
>Feel free to think so. Nonetheless, it infuriated me while reading your books, and I quickly lost interest in the series.

Careful! Next thing you know, you will be told that your "life must
be very grim indeed."
James
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

J.S.T. <spamfree RemoveThis @spamfree.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:07:31 +0000 (UTC), Timothy Dransfield
> <dransf RemoveThis @ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> >> But as complaints go, this is one of the silliest I've encountered.
> >
> >Feel free to think so. Nonetheless, it infuriated me while reading your books, and I quickly lost interest in the series.

> Careful! Next thing you know, you will be told that your "life must
> be very grim indeed."

It is something I greatly fear
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

In article <ce0t2m$s37$1@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu>, Timothy Dransfield
<dransf.DeleteThis@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> J.S.T. <spamfree.DeleteThis@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:07:31 +0000 (UTC), Timothy Dransfield
> > <dransf.DeleteThis@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> But as complaints go, this is one of the silliest I've encountered.
> > >
> > >Feel free to think so. Nonetheless, it infuriated me while reading your
> > >books, and I quickly lost interest in the series.
>
> > Careful! Next thing you know, you will be told that your "life must
> > be very grim indeed."
>
> It is something I greatly fear


The "life must be grim" was a tongue in cheek response to "I was
irritated at the single line," remark. Which had me thinking if that
set a person off, what would leaf blowers, neighbors' barking dogs,
informercials, phone solicitors, and all the rest of life's little
irritants do to a fellow. Have him on a clocktower with a rifle?

Besides, comments that revolve around trivialities are by nature
trivial. Someone who wants to discuss the use of a trope, or whether
or not an attempt to twist a convention of the genre, or if a
character's motives made sense, or any number of more traditional
jumping off points for discussion, that person gets the benefit of the
doubt and a serious response.

But someone who's annoyed because I start each chapter with a single
declarative sentence or because a lot of characters end up married?
Hardly.

Best, R.E.F.
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:20:56 GMT, Raymond Feist
<raymond.RemoveThis@bittersea.com> wrote:

>The "life must be grim" was a tongue in cheek response to "I was
>irritated at the single line," remark. Which had me thinking if that
>set a person off, what would leaf blowers, neighbors' barking dogs,
>informercials, phone solicitors, and all the rest of life's little
>irritants do to a fellow. Have him on a clocktower with a rifle?
>

"Set off?" I simply put your book down and stopped reading it. But
now I am beginning to wonder: if you respond thusly to all such
'trivial' criticisms of your work, what will it take to get you up
into that clocktower?

>Besides, comments that revolve around trivialities are by nature
>trivial. Someone who wants to discuss the use of a trope, or whether
>or not an attempt to twist a convention of the genre, or if a
>character's motives made sense, or any number of more traditional
>jumping off points for discussion, that person gets the benefit of the
>doubt and a serious response.
>
>But someone who's annoyed because I start each chapter with a single
>declarative sentence or because a lot of characters end up married?
>Hardly.

Strange how we can dwell so on the trivial.
In any case, I was surprised you responded at all. After all, if
writer's are entitled to their 'vanities' so are readers.
De gustibus,
James
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

J.S.T. wrote:
> Strange how we can dwell so on the trivial.
> In any case, I was surprised you responded at all. After all, if
> writer's are entitled to their 'vanities' so are readers.
> De gustibus,
> James

You're not the only one who's surprised.

But keep it up--your posts aren't as humorous as Thrasher's or Cleve's but
they'll do in a pinch.
--
chainbreaker
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

In article <ce1bfs$h0f$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>, Ross Ridge
<rridge.TakeThisOut@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> Timothy Dransfield <dransf.TakeThisOut@ls04.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > Nonetheless, it infuriated me while reading your
> > books, and I quickly lost interest in the series.
>
> Raymond Feist <raymond.TakeThisOut@bittersea.com> wrote:
> >If you've lost interest in the work, why bother to comment?
>
> To answer the question on whether your work can carry an epic game.
>
> Ross Ridge

However, I don't see any issue that addresses that question. From
where I sit, it's in the same league as "I didn't read the book because
I didn't like the cover art."

In the end, it's entirely meaningless to debate before the fact. The
game will be created by people who (obviously) think the work can carry
an epic game. After the fact those who try it can decided if those who
built the project were correct or not.

Best, R.E.F.
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

In article <ce1pmo$qm0$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>, Ross Ridge
<rridge RemoveThis @csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> Raymond Feist <raymond RemoveThis @bittersea.com> wrote:
> >If you've lost interest in the work, why bother to comment?
>
> Ross Ridge <rridge RemoveThis @csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > To answer the question on whether your work can carry an epic game.
>
> Raymond Feist <raymond RemoveThis @bittersea.com> wrote:
> >However, I don't see any issue that addresses that question.
>
> I'm sure you don't.
>
> > From where I sit, it's in the same league as "I didn't read the book
> >because I didn't like the cover art."
>
> Indeed, similarily, it could have a significant impact on the success
> of a game released by a little known game company.


Probably not. As the "little known game company" won't be releasing
it. They will act as an "art house," or "design agency," and the
company who releases it will be huge. I cant' discuss who that is,
right now, as negotiations aren't finalized, but it's one of the five
biggest companies in the home electronics/gaming field.

Best, R.E.F.
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

In article <02j8g0lgfoktlt2vqam79uv7vsr5o5kqr7 RemoveThis @4ax.com>, J.S.T.
<spamfree RemoveThis @spamfree.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:20:56 GMT, Raymond Feist
> <raymond RemoveThis @bittersea.com> wrote:
>
> >The "life must be grim" was a tongue in cheek response to "I was
> >irritated at the single line," remark. Which had me thinking if that
> >set a person off, what would leaf blowers, neighbors' barking dogs,
> >informercials, phone solicitors, and all the rest of life's little
> >irritants do to a fellow. Have him on a clocktower with a rifle?
> >
>
> "Set off?" I simply put your book down and stopped reading it. But
> now I am beginning to wonder: if you respond thusly to all such
> 'trivial' criticisms of your work, what will it take to get you up
> into that clocktower?
>
> >Besides, comments that revolve around trivialities are by nature
> >trivial. Someone who wants to discuss the use of a trope, or whether
> >or not an attempt to twist a convention of the genre, or if a
> >character's motives made sense, or any number of more traditional
> >jumping off points for discussion, that person gets the benefit of the
> >doubt and a serious response.
> >
> >But someone who's annoyed because I start each chapter with a single
> >declarative sentence or because a lot of characters end up married?
> >Hardly.
>
> Strange how we can dwell so on the trivial.
> In any case, I was surprised you responded at all. After all, if
> writer's are entitled to their 'vanities' so are readers.
> De gustibus,
> James


True. I responde to any civil question or opinion. And in the end,
your opinion is certainly the only one that counts for your choices.
You either buy an entertainment or you don't.

And certainly, I'll just keep muddling through. If I got upset with
people who either didn't care for my work or who didn't bother to read
it, I'd be upset with about six billion people and there doesn't seem
to be much future in that.

Best, R.E.F.
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 03:20:22 GMT, Raymond Feist
<raymond.TakeThisOut@bittersea.com> wrote:

>True. I responde to any civil question or opinion. And in the end,
>your opinion is certainly the only one that counts for your choices.
>You either buy an entertainment or you don't.
>

Well said.

>And certainly, I'll just keep muddling through.

May good fortune shine on your muddling.
James



> If I got upset with
>people who either didn't care for my work or who didn't bother to read
>it, I'd be upset with about six billion people and there doesn't seem
>to be much future in that.
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

On that special day, Raymond Feist, (raymond@bittersea.com) said...

> but it's one of the five
> biggest companies in the home electronics/gaming field.

Reading these words way too fast, they appeared to me as "electronic
fences and mine field", which does even have some reason, seeing how
many companies ate each other in the recent years, announced and
renounced games still in development, because they won't gain revenue,
or cost too much in development investment, and so on. I understand why
you are not wanting to tell more; we Germans call too early bothering
"caring for unlaid eggs"


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam.TakeThisOut@t-online.de


--
Ah, Information. A good, too valuable these days, to give it away, just
so, at no cost.
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

J.S.T. <spamfree.DeleteThis@spamfree.com> wrote in message news:<ei26g0l5recn4lbg59relnid4bm7e1dtg5.DeleteThis@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 01:13:00 GMT, Raymond Feist
> <raymond.DeleteThis@bittersea.com> wrote:
>
> >There was no point. It was what is known in publishing as a "vanity,"
> >i.e. a decision from an author that has no specific reason, other than
> >I liked it.
>
> Unfortunately, your literary likes and mine apparently do not
> completely overlap!

Steven Brust calls this the "cool" theory of literature. That is, an
author writes about what he thinks is cool, and a reader will like his
work to the extent that they both agree on what is "cool."

ObFeist: Pug is cool. Cooler than Milamber, actually.

Max Wilson
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor 

In article <bb391204.0407271707.9618980 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>, Hemlock
<wilsonm80 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> J.S.T. <spamfree DeleteThis @spamfree.com> wrote in message
> news:<ei26g0l5recn4lbg59relnid4bm7e1dtg5 DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
> > On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 01:13:00 GMT, Raymond Feist
> > <raymond DeleteThis @bittersea.com> wrote:
> >
> > >There was no point. It was what is known in publishing as a "vanity,"
> > >i.e. a decision from an author that has no specific reason, other than
> > >I liked it.
> >
> > Unfortunately, your literary likes and mine apparently do not
> > completely overlap!
>
> Steven Brust calls this the "cool" theory of literature. That is, an
> author writes about what he thinks is cool, and a reader will like his
> work to the extent that they both agree on what is "cool."
>
> ObFeist: Pug is cool. Cooler than Milamber, actually.
>
> Max Wilson


Milamber gets progressively less "cool" as time passes, because as
forces converge, he has fewer choices on a strategic level, but more
confounding choices on a tactical level. In other words, the
likelihood is ever mounting that whatever he does, it's going to turn
out wrong. At the end, he rejects this confinement and returns to what
he was at the start, an "unknown," full of potential.

We'll see that theme repeat in the next trilogy, but on a much larger
scaled stage than in the Riftwar.

Best, R.E.F.
 >> Stay informed about: Betrayal At Krondor