Re:Star Control II
by setr on Friday December 21, 2018 @04:15PM
(#18736710)
I mean, the wiki page itself notes that multiple involved in making it support the idea they were creative leads in section 4.2[0], and they’ve been the front of every interview and on the game’s splash... if they weren’t actually doing much, this would’ve been in a controversy beginning in 1992, not today
But I haven’t taken a look at the lawyer commentary. (I don’t know that I care enough to). But outside of the lawyers and stardock’s ceo commentary, I haven’t seem anything to imply they weren’t in charge of the whole thing.
But anyways, I didn’t care for the stardock’s game, so it doesn’t matter what the truth is for me. I just want a proper sc3 (though I’m expecting they’ll still try to “modernize” itand toss out all the fun with it, as most decade-apart sequels go; but a man can dream, can’t he?)
But I haven’t taken a look at the lawyer commentary. (I don’t know that I care enough to). But outside of the lawyers and stardock’s ceo commentary, I haven’t seem anything to imply they weren’t in charge of the whole thing.
But anyways, I didn’t care for the stardock’s game, so it doesn’t matter what the truth is for me. I just want a proper sc3 (though I’m expecting they’ll still try to “modernize” itand toss out all the fun with it, as most decade-apart sequels go; but a man can dream, can’t he?)
[0] http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Stardock_Systems_Inc._v._Paul_Reich...