Talk:Pool of Radiance

Old messages

Almost seems like this article should actually be titled something like Gold box engine. Atorpen 18:08 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, we should make a Gold box games entry or something. Sdibb 05:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Merge?

Isn't this game identical of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: Pool of Radiance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poulsen (talk • contribs) 15:28, December 15, 2005

[D] The games are actually somewhat different; the NES version with its really long and official title, though it does share many aspects of the same scenerio, is a console game and was severely retrofitted to not require the Adventurer's Journal and other external references (such as the copy protection and translation Code Wheel used in the original versions of the game). [D] is of the opinion that the pages should *definitely* remain separate, though having links pointing back and forth might be a reasonable idea to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.177.135 (talk • contribs) 14:03, February 1, 2006

NO MERGE PLEASE! The NES versions of most computer games are usually significantly different enough that they warrant having separate pages.76.226.204.123 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've performed the merge. I took into consideration the discussion at Talk:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Pool of Radiance#Merge? and the guidelines at WP:VG/GL. It's the same title, same publisher, and based on the same game: It's a "port." I have made a seperate section to discuss the differences; although please use WP:V when doing so. Marasmusine (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Talking about Neverwinter Nights...

There is a user created Pool of Radiance NWN module based on this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.255.239 (talk • contribs) 04:30, November 17, 2006

Hacking - Hex editing map locations

In 1989 I was hex editing a POR savegame, just as a hobby, and I set myself to the task of changing a savegame from one map location to another. It took me weeks to figure it out, but I made an AMAZING discovery: The Jumper. The programmers left in testing code that was accessed via map location 10 (I think) that presented an interface for "testing" various game features. (Any SSI programmers who developed this game, please confirm this.) One menu item allowed me to add any item in the game to any inventory, many unattainable via normal play. Another allows adding any Monster to your party, or a customizable area play with any set of features. It was a hex editor's pot-of-gold. It allowed me to look at various abilities of various monsters, change their allegiance to fight with me, and copy their abilities to my characters.

Now I am trying to reproduce it 17 years later and I have lost my notes of how I got there. I would appreciate any help anyone is willing to offer, as this was the coolest Easter egg I have ever seen. --Kwaske 07:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Icurafu

I signed up just to point out a little mistake. When I got to the ending of the game, all of my evil chars turned against me and took the offer of the boss. However in this wiki article it states that everyone refuses. This was the PC version. This made me very angry at the time because even with the evil chars winning, there was no alternative ending. (I had to hex edit to win)

PC and NES differences?

This Pool of Radiance page says there are many differences between the PC version and the NES console version. I've played both to their conclusion, the PC one first. I played the NES version with the specific intent of comparing the two (and an excuse to play a good game again). I don't recall finding many differences. I recall the specific monster encounters (for example- the trolls in the slums) having the same difficulty factor and needing the same tactics to win. Random encounters may've been a little easier on the NES.. but random encounters were never that hard on either version, so it's hardy a factor.

I agree that in the NES version, you couldn't customize your combat icons. Whoop-de-do. You couldn't customize your character portraits, either. But, you were still given a portrait and they were far better looking than the PC version, anyway. Graphics aside, gameplay is what made Pool of Radiance shine. For me, both versions were good and nearly identical in gameplay content. Both are very worthy of being called the same game.

In the NES version, however, they didn't worry about all the copy protection schemes, since they didn't think you could copy a cartridge (lets go back in time and tell them about mondern-day emulation). You didn't have to scan through journal entries to find out what just happened, nor did you have to use a code wheel just to start playing.

The only thing that makes me scratch my chin is that this page says the monster lairs in the wilderness are missing on the NES version. I do remember finding them on the PC version. For the life of me, I don't remember if I found them on the NES version or not. Monster lairs were just small additions. Not that big a deal, but it does make me want to go back and run through the game again :) Jiao9 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

What do you say? :) I've been wanting to get to this one for some time, and finally got my chance. Maybe I put a bit too much into it, but we can scale some parts back a bit. ;) Some parts need some work, but it's nothing that can't be done. BOZ (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a place to look for sources, when I have a bit more time: Amiga Magazine Rack. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Been getting a lot of use out of that! There is also a review in a foreign language magazine that I will probably not be able to make use of. :) BOZ (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm all done with that! Drilnoth pointed some links above that I need to check out as well. I've really built this one up, I think, and while there's still a bit to go, I think it's not far from ready for a GA nom. BOZ (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm now going through the list of links that Drilnoth has posted near the top of the talk page, below all the project banners. I used the Dvice.com piece and the High Score! book a bit, but I think I'll leave off the New Straits Times as I think we have plenty of reviews already - don't think that you can't add something from that if you like, though. :) I browsed the MobyGames, IGN, and Allgame links yesterday and saw some useable stuff in there, so I will have another look when I have a bit of free time. BOZ (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've used about as much as I want to use of these. Just going to tweak a bit more, rewrite the lead tomorrow or Thursday, and take a break with this one! BOZ (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) If there's anything you can to do help out, feel free to pitch in! BOZ (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this article is looking great, it has certainly developed a lot since I worked on it in June. Well done, guys! Marasmusine (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Diff Not sure if this is still accurate, since I haven't played the game. I don't understand if you can bring in a character from another game or something, or what. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that this was the first game in the series, I don't think it was possible to bring characters into this game, although pretty sure you could bring characters from this game into Hillsfar and Secret of the Silver Blades. :) BOZ (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What a spell "slot" is is not clear. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can cast 5 1st-level spells, then you have 5 1st-level spell slots, basically. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Diff I'm not sure if this accurately reflects the game. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so? BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"shopkeepers who might sell specific holy items" Some of them sell them, and some don't? Or in some games they sell them, and in other games they don't? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. I can try to look that up in whatever source I found it in, and see if I can make sense of it? BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"The party can also go to the hiring hall and hire an experienced non-player character adventurer at the dueling grounds to accompany the party" Do they hire them at the hiring hall, or at the dueling grounds? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Should 'old Phlan' be '"Old Phlan"'? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"clearing of this block" What's a block? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I put something about that. A block is a square area in the game, like the slums or the civilized portion of the city, or the castle, or whatever. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"impostor Tyranthaxus" Why is he an imposter? Because he's not a Bronze Dragon? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He is a possessing spirit pretending to be a dragon. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll try and work some more on it tomorrow. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

The line: "Pool of Radiance was the first official game based on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.[1][2]" is incorrect. There were official AD&D games on the Mattel Intellivision and Mattel Aquarius long before this. The statement can not even be corrected to say "first official computer game" because of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragon Treasure of Tarmin Cartridge" appearing on the aforementioned Mattel Aquarius. The line could read: "Pool of Radiance was the first official game based on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons since Mattel's Advanced Dungeons & Dragon Treasure of Tarmin Cartridge from 1983 for the Mattel Aquarius.[1][2]" 64.9.35.4 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Bill Loguidice, bill@armchairarcade.com

Those games were not based on the AD&D rules system, even though they had used the licensed name. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the language be clarified to reflect that?64.9.35.4 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Bill Loguidice

What do you propose? I'm working to improve this article, so any help is appreciated. I don't remember what the Dragon review specifically said, but I can go back into it and look. BOZ (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BOZ Sadly with this game coming out in June 1988 and Heroes of the Lance by SSI coming out in January 1988, there is no way this statement can hold true because the same company released a game 5 months prior for all the same systems with AD&D boldly on the cover. It may have been the first in the SSI Gold Box series, but it wasnt the "first adaptation of AD&D for home computers" by a long stretch as many other pages on Wikipedia refute that claim. shadzar-talk 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dragon #143 review

I know I went overboard with the Dragon review, and I'll confess it was totally on purpose. You'll notice that the majority of the reviews here are available online (most are here), but Dragon of course is not. I knew that most of it was probably overkill, and we shouldn't use too much of the license holder's fawning praise. :) Still, Dragon did take a critical eye to some things and did discuss other aspects of the game that no other reviews did, so it is important to make use of it. My thinking was, I might as well put the stuff in there long enough for everyone else to get a good look at it, and then trim out what really doesn't help the article (suggestions?) because then other people can judge for themselves. For the other reviews, anyone else can read them because I have linked to them.

Anyway, here is everything I had from that review in the Reception section to begin with, much of which has now been trimmed:

Hartley, Patricia, and Kirk Lesser of Dragon magazine's "The Role of Computers" column gave Pool of Radiance a three-page review in Dragon #143 (March 1989). The reviewers praised Pool of Radiance as "the first offering that truly follows AD&D game rules", calling it a "great fantasy role-playing game" that "falls into the must-buy category for avid AD&D game players." The reviewers advised readers to "rush out to your local dealer and buy Pool Of Radiance!" They considered the game Strategic Simulation's flagship product, speculating that it would "undoubtedly bring thousands of computer enthusiasts into the adventure-filled worlds of TSR."

The Dragon reviewers criticized the installation program for the MS-DOS version, stating that "you must have the patience of Job"; so much code was packed onto the three floppy disks that the program had to be compressed, and uncompressing the code took nearly 30 minutes. However, the reviewers considered the final product to be more than worth the time spent waiting.

The Dragon reviewers felt that the game "plays truer to the AD&D game rules than any software adventure we have yet experienced. Only a few minor differences exist in the creation of your characters, which is normally accomplished by using multisided dice." The reviewers wanted strong characters to begin with, in order to enter the game and quickly build up experience points and hit points, allowing the characters to investigate as many areas of the game as possible. They tested the random character creation system, noting that on the C64/128 version it took 207 "rolls" to create an acceptable human fighter with a strength score of 18 (out of a possible 18). To get acceptable attribute scores of 18 as a primary characteristic, 6 rolls were required for a dwarf fighter, 110 for a halfling thief, 50 for a magic-user, 73 for a cleric, and 350 rolls to get a multi-classed cleric/magic-user/fighter with acceptable attributes in all prime requisites. The reviewers found that it required roughly half the number of rolls to get the same results on the game's MS-DOS version. The reviewers noted that rolls for the initial number of gold pieces owned and languages known are missing during the character creation process; the computer automatically assigns a gold piece figure to each character, and the reviewers felt that language did not seem to be a problem to characters of above median intelligence.

During gameplay, the Dragon reviewers noted that random encounters seemed to be based on the encounter tables found in the AD&D game manuals. They also observed that the depictions of monsters confronting the party "looked as though they had jumped from the pages of the Monster Manual."

The Dragon reviewers criticized the "notoriously slow" technology of the C64/128 system. "Due to the large number of disk accesses required for the various scenes and activities throughout the game, and due to the agonizingly slow disk reads, the game tends to bog down, especially during lengthy combats where the computer must manage numerous enemies. Casting a spell can also lead one to prolonged yawning while waiting for various screens to appear; the screens allow you to decide who will cast what spell on whom." The reviewers added that the C64/128 version would become nearly unplayable without a software-based fastloader utility which Strategic Simulations integrated into the game. Conversely, the reviewers felt that the MS-DOS version is extremely fast, so much so that they had to slow the game operation down in order to read all the on-screen messages. They found that the MS-DOS version played at twice the speed of the C64/128 version when using the Enhanced Graphics Adapter (EGA) graphics mode.

Plot rewrite

The plot summary, as it was originally before I started working on the article, was mostly unsourced. I was able to source a few of the bits that were there, but I could not find sources for the majority of the section. Thus, I rewrote it from scratch, and I am including the plot summary below, as it was before I started working on the article. I removed a lot of information which I could not source, so if you can find sources to back this stuff up, please feel free to add it back in!:

The game takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting, in and around the Moonsea region and the City of Phlan, which has been overrun by forces of evil. The city had originally held off many attacks, but the forces were marshalled by a bronze dragon which was believed to be possessed by a powerful spirit named Tyranthraxus. The object of the game is to have the party clear the old city of its marauding inhabitants, so the people of Phlan can rebuild and repopulate the areas.

The party begins in the civilized section of "New Phlan" that is governed by a council. This portion of the city is a place for the party to buy equipment at the shops, rest up in the inns, listen to rumors in the pub, and contract with the clerk of the city council for various commissions. The party can also go to the hiring hall and hire an experienced adventurer to accompany the party.

The party's objective is to ultimately free Phlan from the monsters and the boss, Tyranthraxus. There are many missions from the Phlan city council the party can undertake, some optional, which will give rewards for successfully accomplishing the tasks. The only real mandatory task is for the party to clear the areas on the outskirts of Phlan so it can make its way to Valjevo Castle and defeat Tyranthraxus.

Beyond this region the party enters the area of the slums, which have been overrun with low-level monsters such as goblins and orcs that the party must clear out (gaining experience in the process). Further into the slums, the going gets tougher, with ogres and trolls for opponents.

The next commission is to clear out Sokol Keep, a fortified area located on an island. This is filled with undead, among other opponents. Inside the keep is a specter who suffers under a curse. When you remove this curse, the keep is cleared and the shipping lanes to the city are finally opened.

There are a variety of other locations that are encountered as the party ventures further into the city, including Kuto's Well, catacombs filled with a bandit horde, a thieves' guild, Podol Plaza, and a buccaneer bar called the Pit. With the party making impressive progress, they are next contracted to go to the old Textile House, to recover the treasure of a council member. Pressing onward, the party can enter Mendor's Library, a temple of Bane in the wealthy section, Kovel Mansion, and the deadly Valhingen Graveyard.

thumb|240px|Encounter with Tyranthraxus, before the final battle.

Eventually the party ventures outside the city by boat, where they encounter a silver dragon. Various side treks and adventures occur, including visiting an encampment of the Zhentarim, as the party continues to build up experience and aid the city by defeating the plans of the mysterious "Boss".

The party reveals a traitor in the city council, and is commissioned to hunt him down. At some point the party will have to assault Stojanow Gate, a difficult task against bugbears and ettins. The party then enters Valjevo Castle and its inner sanctum, descends a stairwell to encounter some guards of the impostor Tyranthaxus (who assumes the form of a bronze dragon). After defeating his guards, the party refuses his offer to join his side and engages the dragon boss in a deadly battle, emerging victorious.

Good article nomination?

I have never done this before, but I am impressed with this article, maybe we can consider it as a Wikipedia:Good articles nomination? Ikip (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan, man! I was waiting for one more person to do a peer review, and then I was going to nominate it. In fact, I'm going to contact that person and see what's up. BOZ (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm borrowing this space to note that four non-free images is likely to be too much, one of which itself is a collage, which is considered to be another three non-free images. Not a good idea if you plan to run the gauntlet of the article improvement processes. --Izno (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The collage is a new addition - in fact, I hadn't noticed it until you said something.  ;) I imagine we could do without the overland map then? The collage takes care of something requested during the peer review, which is that we needed screen shots of the combat and exploration modes. I killed the excess combat screen. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pool of Radiance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Having gone through the article, it's fairly well-written and constructed. However, I've found three issues that need to be resolved before I pass:

• Lead too long – per Wikipedia:Lead section#Length, the number of paragraphs in the lead should be two or three. Currently, it has four, with the article being around 20K characters of prose. Please reduce the lead down to two or three paragraphs according to that guideline. My recommendation is three, and you might not even have to remove much stuff if at all from the lead—more or less rearranging it and making into three paragraphs.
• Two potentially unverifiable portions. Please source with verifiable sources or alternatively remove them:
  • "Gameplay" section – The "Gold Box" game engine features two different modes: a first-person perspective for exploring areas and interacting with non-player characters (NPCs); and a combat display which resembles a strategy-board, where characters and enemies are represented by small icons. Combat is turn-based and requires the player to move characters around the battlefield to approach the enemy.
  • "Legacy" subsection, very last sentences – Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor was released in 2001 from Ubisoft. This game takes place in the ruins of Myth Drannor, once considered to be one of the biggest and most beautiful cities in the Forgotten Realms, but now the elven city is in ruins. This game uses rules updated for the Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition game.

Other things to remember

• No images below L3 headings – please don't place images directly below a L3 heading as the software doesn't like that (for whatever reason).
• Alt text for images – remember to place alt text in the images, as this is a requirement for FA.
• Redundant citations – except for quotes, you only need to place a citation at the end of the content and not at the end of every sentence.

Conclusions

– Placed on hold pending further improvements. MuZemike 20:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

– Passed. MuZemike 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the review! I'll try to get to everything as soon as possible. It's glad to know I'm not too far off. :)

Regarding the lead, I seem to remember being told at peer review (by more than one person, I think) that this article needs more than one paragraph. If you're sure I don't I can merge it into 2-3. I'll take a look at the rest before long. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation, as noted above, is three. MuZemike 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I meant above to say that people were recommending FOUR paragraphs for this one. :) But yeah, I can work it out to three. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys should work this out as reasonable editors, exactly as you are doing. But, the size of leads is a somewhat hotly contested thing right now. I don't really recommend bothering reading all about it, but here's a link.[1] My summary of it is that the correct size of a lead hasn't been spelled out that well at this point, and people are discussing (arguing) about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a preference; I only put it to four in the first place because others were insisting that this was the right thing to do. ;) Three is fine by me. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The layout of the lead of this article, as it is, is excellent in my view. (Yes, I am aware of the discussion going on with the lead length, and will adjust fire when consensus necessitates such a change.) MuZemike 07:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing to improve in the lead, and that is the very beginning. The first sentence in the article should always be the most basic description as can be (see changes here). The following sentences in the lead can do the same, which I will leave to you. The second sentence should describe, in the most basic terms, its relation to AD&D. The rest of the information should naturally follow. MuZemike 07:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. Passed. MuZemike 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great - thanks for the review!  :) BOZ (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Discussion (Dec 2012)

Ok, so the result of the AfD was Keep pending that it gets merged. So. Let's getting merging. Web Warlock (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I had my "unfinished buisness" dream last night, so I am ticking things off of my list of things to do. This was one of them. Merge and redirect completed. If someone wants to edit or undo, that is good by me. Web Warlock (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The projection in the combat part is not isometric: it's cavalier

My efforts to change this in the article have all been undone on the grounds that there is no external source explicitly stating that the game is not isometric, and that clear descriptions of different projections and comparisons between them and the game's screenshot are not sufficient verification.

How am I supposed to produce adequate proof in a situation where the proof that is readily available is completely ignored? The article on isometric projection provides immediate visual evidence that the projection employed in the Gold Box games is not isometric. The oblique projection article to which my edits linked shows a matching description in cavalier projection.

Calling various games' perspectives isometric where they are not is a very common mistake. Very often any game that has a top-down view that isn't true 3D gets the honor of being "isometric". The IGN article that was used as a citation to prove the perspective's isometry is but an example of said phenomenon.

Finally, a comparison that I urged my countereditors to conduct:

PoR screenshot

Cavalier projection

Isometric projection

So, how do we solve this thing?

91.157.203.137 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Similar discussions have come up for a lot of games. It should be handled at a higher level than the individual games since these have been called Isometric for decades. I strongly recommend this discussion being done first at the WP:Video Games talk page. There, many editors (not just those watching this article) can be part of the discussion and can come to a consensus). Caidh (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Isometric perspective on Pool of Radiance. BOZ (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the wikilink to an article that better describes the kind of projection used. If this cavalier perspective is being described as "isometric" by (non-reliable in this case) game magazines, Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art should be updated to reflect that. Diego (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The solution you just implemented seems reasonable to me. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Pool of Radiance → Pool of Radiance (video game)
• Pool of Radiance (series) → Pool of Radiance

– Per WP:NCVGDAB, the series should occupy the primary spot. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Honestly, I'm not sure that "Pool of Radiance" is even the name of the series of games; do we have a WP:RS to back that up? I have doubts that the series of games that the original Pool of Radiance spawned is well known by that same name. This is not the same as the Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate series of games, where the sequels had Roman numerals and it is easy to clearly identify that the games are part of the same series by their names. BOZ (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• @BOZ: You may have a point. I will withdraw this if consensus is to merge the series article into Gold Box, or some other name is thought of._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I don't have any particular feelings about the series page at all, other than being skeptical about its name when the article was first created; merging into Gold Box would make sense if that is what other people would want to do. BOZ (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviews

• Jeux & Stratégie #55

207.229.139.154 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

References

June Release Date is Inaccurate

Checking into this entry for a research project, I was surprised to see a major discrepancy between the release date information given here (June 1988) and on MobyGames (October 1988 for C64). Unfortunately, a quick look at contemporary publications suggests that the June date is indeed inaccurate.

To begin with, the only source cited in support of the June date is a one-liner in Dragon magazine stating that Pool of Radiance would release in June 1988. However, SSI's own Summer 1988 catalog lists the following projected dates for the game:

• C64 - July 1988
• IBM - August 1988
• Apple - September 1988

It's hard to say whether this was an error on the part of Jim Ward, who wrote the Dragon piece, or an unplanned delay after SSI had given him the June date. What is clear that the development of Pool of Radiance did not go according to schedule: a preview article in Computer Gaming World Issue 49, published in July 1988, claimed the IBM version was only "nearing completion" and explicitly warns that their advance copy was "not complete." The Fall 1988 SSI catalog then bumped the IBM version to November 1988, the Apple edition to January 1989, and stated the C64 version is available "now."

Since the catalog itself isn't dated, pinning down an approximate release for the C64 version requires looking at contemporary magazines. A retailer ad in Issue 51 of CGW (September 1988) lists the C64 version of Pool of Radiance as "coming soon." The following issue (October 1988) has the C64 edition available for sale and the IBM version "coming soon." The earliest professional reviews of the C64 version also appeared in October 1988. As an additional data point, the Internet Archive hosts a cracked copy of the C64 version dated September 12, 1988. This suggests an early September release for the C64.

As for the IBM edition, in the November 1988 issue of CGW, both the IBM and C64 versions are advertised. CGW itself would review the game the following month, indicating that SSI was able to keep their revised release date of November 1988. Iconocaust (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)