Page 1 of 1

Any ideas why IG changed their name to 'Atari'.

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:42 am
by utilae
Maybe it was because Moo3 was so bad. :lol: They didn't want to get recognised or be seen to be associated with it. :lol:

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:34 am
by MuaDib
I think it is because they wanted people to know where they stand as far as quality and tech progress is concerned.

In particular they had the 2600 Games Console in mind ...

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:00 am
by Daveybaby
Its because theyre not satisfied with merely trying to destroy gaming in the present, they want to try to retroactively fuck over all of our good memories of gaming from the past.

Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 7:12 pm
by DeathCow
C'mon, dave, tell us how you really feel. ;)

Posted: Mon May 17, 2004 12:58 pm
by haravikk
Hey, don't diss the 2600, Duke Nukem Forever works on it :P

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:08 pm
by boolybooly
lol tech progress

I have 2 names in my Atari file.

Imperium Galactica 2
MoO3

Both hugely damaged after their involvement with The Publisher Formerly Known As Infogrames.

I would like to think they bought the name Atari as a fig leaf to cover the pulsing putrid evil which is their reputation in 4X gaming circles, plus people always spell Infogrames wrong because it is such a strange name. But its probably more to do with brand recognition by uninformed punters buying Xmas pressies, ie marketting as ever.

Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:32 pm
by damunzy
I would also add the game Civ3 to that list - yet another game that got involved with Infogrames and was a big disappointment for a lot of the veteran Civ players.

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:08 am
by noelte
damunzy wrote:I would also add the game Civ3 to that list - yet another game that got involved with Infogrames and was a big disappointment for a lot of the veteran Civ players.
To me, winning at the highest level in Civ3 is much harder than doing so in Civ2. In fact, i was never able to conquer all opponents in Civ3 as i usualy did in Civ2. But Civ3 is also a great game and i'm looking forward to see civ4.

Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:57 pm
by damunzy
noelte wrote:
damunzy wrote:I would also add the game Civ3 to that list - yet another game that got involved with Infogrames and was a big disappointment for a lot of the veteran Civ players.
To me, winning at the highest level in Civ3 is much harder than doing so in Civ2. In fact, i was never able to conquer all opponents in Civ3 as i usualy did in Civ2. But Civ3 is also a great game and i'm looking forward to see civ4.
Not all Civ verterans, but a lot. But you do have to admit that making multiplayer available only with a $30 expansion called Play The World, which had MANY new problems in it (like not being able to play people in other countries), is pretty sleazy - just Infogrames's/Atari's style. :D

I am looking forward to Civ4 also. Hey, and they promised multiplayer out of the box!

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:09 am
by Daveybaby
Heh, IIRC they promised MP out of the box for Civ3 as well.

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:46 pm
by damunzy
It was only suggested (civ3). This time they promise (civ4). ;)
Maryland will burn if MP isn't in Civ4! (Firaxis is located somewhere in Maryland, USA.)