Slashdot Mirror


Mythic Sues Microsoft Over Mythica MMORPG

An anonymous reader writes "Mythic Entertainment, developers of PC MMO videogame Dark Age of Camelot, has filed suit against Microsoft, arguing that Microsoft's upcoming MMORPG Mythica is too similar in name and content (it 'also employs Norse images and mythology') to its own name and flagship title. Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted..."

65 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. God Darnit! by mfivis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I know why my Elven Archer was set back to level zero and an 'a' was added to the splash screen.

  2. Fantasy by truth_revealed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted...

    How about this exciting new genre: plumbers, drywallers and electricians duke it out for world supremecy!

    1. Re:Fantasy by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about this exciting new genre: plumbers, drywallers and electricians duke it out for world supremecy!

      Plumbers? You're talking about Mario Bros., right?

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:Fantasy by ShortedOut · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Mario Brothers were plumbers.... they seemed to do well.

    3. Re:Fantasy by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or better yet - LawQuest! You could choose from classes such as Intellectual Property Lawyer, Personal Injury Lawyer, or the lowly Public Defender...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    4. Re:Fantasy by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or better yet - LawQuest! You could choose from classes such as Intellectual Property Lawyer, Personal Injury Lawyer, or the lowly Public Defender..

      That could be cool. You could level up your characters why chasing ambulances, then finally team up with other players to defend a celebrity accused of murder, hoping they will drop the golden precedent, etc. But you'd have to watch out for those PKers. You can't turn your back on a lawyer, not even a digital one!

      Oh, and we could have a new acronym: IANALBIPOO (..But I Play One Online)

    5. Re:Fantasy by catbutt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't something that is "dreamed up" fantasy by definition?

    6. Re:Fantasy by DdJ · · Score: 3, Funny
      How about this exciting new genre: plumbers, drywallers and electricians duke it out for world supremecy!
      Coming soon to a console near you: "The Sims: Blue Collar Babylon".
    7. Re:Fantasy by incom · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did anyone else notice the storyline to mario bros can only be explained if the mushrooms mario keeps eating are "magic" ones?

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    8. Re:Fantasy by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Plumbers? You're talking about Mario Bros., right?

      Super Mario RPG Online?

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  3. Lindows reference by DeathPenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I couldn't help but to grin at this:

    "We would expect Microsoft to react no differently if someone launched an operating system called Microsofta just as Microsoft did when confronted with an operating system called Lindows," Mythic President and Chief Executive Mark Jacobs said."

    While I got a kick out of it at first, it sort of seems to validate Microsoft's lawsuit. It certainly is an amusing twist of irony, though.

    1. Re:Lindows reference by stubear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really,

      Lindows is to Windows as OS is to OS.
      Mythic it to Mythica as Company is to game?

      Wait a second, something's not quite like the other here.

    2. Re:Lindows reference by cgranade · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that there is a huge difference between Microsofta and Lindows. Microsoft is not a generic term, whereas Windows is a generic term and is not even trademarked (the trademark is Microsoft Windows). In this case, Mystic is a generic term, so I would support MS in this case (ugh). I support Mystic suing, however, as it further forces the courts to clarify this issue, something that will help everyone, IMHO.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    3. Re:Lindows reference by One+Louder · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Mythic has a much better case than Microsoft has against Lindows.com.

      "Window" is a generic term used in the field of computer science to describe an artifact commonly found in graphical user interfaces.

      In this case, however, the term "mythic" is fanciful (though Microsoft may argue it's descriptive) in regards to a game, and Microsoft's usage includes the *entire* trademark.

    4. Re:Lindows reference by KefabiMe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if instead of "Lindows" it was called "X-Lindows"? X-Lindows could show its roots from the x-windowing system. Would that "X" in front of Lindows protect them from Microsoft?

      Microsoft is a made-up word. Windows is a generic term that has been in computer techie use since before Microsoft Windows was ever a product.

      Microsoft can trademark "Microsoft". They never should have been able to trademark "Windows" in a computing context.

    5. Re:Lindows reference by meatspray · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not completely over the name. The real problem is that both games have some thick roots in norse mythology.

      It doesn't help that M$ created a fantasy game, called the norseland midgard, included Frost Giants, beserkers and volcanic zones then named it Mythica. (DAoC already has all of these covered)

      Truely, they're not stealing ideas from Mythic, they're just not being very creative with the given material. (*pictures the dilbert like product naming meeting that came up with mythica*) They're just rehashing that which has already been done (and played to death IMHO).

    6. Re:Lindows reference by VerbalPapsmear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. I don't really see any harm in calling the game Mythica. It's not like they're calling it Dark Ages of Camelota. As far as similar content goes, take a look for yourself: Mythica and DAOC

      Interestingly, if you go here ,the name of one "plane of existance" is called Midgard, as is the name of one of three realms in DAOC. Same legends aside, after visiting Mythica's page, I get visions of a 3D diablo 2 with a cracked out battle.net riding shotgun, not really DAOC. No mention of massive PVP, which in my opinion is what makes DAOC. I don't see a reason for Mythic to panic. DAOC is far more intriguing and well thought out imho.

    7. Re:Lindows reference by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They never should have been able to trademark "Windows" in a computing context.

      They're really good at trademarking generics, though. Microsoft Word, Microsoft Paint...
      It's even better in the fileformat realm: Doc (Document), Bmp (Bitmap)...

      Windows is a generic term that has been in computer techie use since before Microsoft Windows was ever a product.

      But when Lindows choose its name, they weren't refering to "windows" as elements of a GUI interface. They were clearly referencing Microsoft's Windows, and suggesting that their product is a replacement for it.

      "Windows", after all, would be a fairly silly thing to put in the name of a new operating system, since that GUI feature is such a minor feature. Microsoft calls their system that for historical reasons (because their OS grew out of what was originally a GUI addon to another OS). But Lindows doesn't have that excuse; they are clearly attempting to benefit by similarity to another's trademark.

    8. Re:Lindows reference by One+Louder · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I didn't say it wasn't a generic word, but that it's fanciful in that particular context - the same way "Apple" and "Amazon" are fanciful in their respective trademark categories.

      Also, spending time and money on a trademark does not somehow make a bad trademark a good one.

      As to the Mythic vs Mythica issue, there's a "reasonable person" test. If you told your Mom to buy you a role playing computer game made by Mythic Entertainment for Christmas, there's a reasonable chance you'd open your package and find a role-playing computer game with the name "Mythica" plastered across the front.

      In the case of Lindows.com, however, the chance of your Mom going into a store looking for Microsoft Windows XP and coming out with a box containing "LindowsOS" is very unlikely.

    9. Re:Lindows reference by Katharine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, similarities between the name of a company and the name of a product absolutely can cause confusion in consumer's minds, and therefore can be the subject of a valid trademark claim.

      However, the article isn't especially clearly written, which makes it hard to understand exactly what is going on here. It doesn't seem that the complaint is *only* about the similarity of "Mythica" to "Mythic."

      According to the article, Mythic Co. is complaining that the Norse images and mythology used in Microsoft's "Mythica" game is too much like Mythic's game (DaoC). It sounds like in addition to a regular trademark infringement claim they are also making another particular type of trademark claim: a trade dress claim. The classic example of trade dress is the distinctive shape and appearance of a Coke bottle. Trade dress can be as simple as the color of a product (think about the pink fiberglass insulation that they used to advertise with the Pink Panther) or as complicated as the decor of a restaurant.

      It obviously would be pretty difficult to make a Norse-based game without "Midgard," dwarves, Vikings, Thor, etc., so Mythic's arguments will likely rely heavily on the similarity of the "look & feel" of the two games, and the style of gameplay. You are right that "Mythic" isn't as "strong" a mark as a made-up word like "Kodak" would be, but at the same time, Mythic's claim against Microsoft will be stronger the more similar the two games are. I read elsewhere that the Microsoft game even uses the same names for the same levels as are used in DaoC, etc., so maybe the folks at Mythic really do have a point.

  4. That would be nice by mahdi13 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted..."
    Come on now, you know that would require creativity and a capacity for originality! Two things that do not exist in the MMORPG world!
    --
    "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    1. Re:That would be nice by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 2


      Let's see, you have two choices, fantasy and reality. Since (most of us) live in reality, why would we make games based on that (even though we do, Sims Online, anyone?)

      Which pretty much leaves fantasy. Of course there are many different types of fantasy. The ever-popular "medieval" fantasy involving elves, trolls, dragons, knights, etc. Covered. (UO, EQ, DAoC, etc) There's also, science fiction fantasy. Covered. (SW, etc)

      Umm, what exactly are you looking for? A Steam Punk MMO game involving cross-dressing vampires who must battle alien space creatures from the future? I guess that could be considred creative.

    2. Re:That would be nice by calebtucker · · Score: 2

      "Come on now, you know that would require creativity and a capacity for originality! Two things that do not exist in the MMORPG world!"

      Come on mods.. this isn't necessarily a troll. MMORPG makers almost HAVE to stick to the formula that works. Why risk coming up with a new idea when you generally know what people like.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    3. Re:That would be nice by secolactico · · Score: 2, Informative

      Come on now, you know that would require creativity and a capacity for originality!

      And even when they dream up a non-wizards-and-dragons genre, they end up being unoriginal.

      For example: Anarchy Online and Star Wars Galaxies. Same game mechanics, different window dressing.

      --
      No sig
  5. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    You meant to say Microsoft is suing Mythica, right?

  6. In other news... by TimTurnip · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...direct descendants of King Arthur are suing Mythic for unauthorized use of the his namesake.

    --

    Chicks dig my good /. karma.

  7. Go MS! by Saville · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope Microsoft wins this lawsuit.

    This is stupid. No other company can make a RPG that features Norse gods?? Its not like they were invented by that company.

    1. Re:Go MS! by Siergen · · Score: 2

      "This is stupid. No other company can make a RPG that features Norse gods?? Its not like they were invented by that company" No, the main issue is that M$'s new online game is almost identical to the name of one of the established companies in this field. The fact M$'s new game will also follow the same folk-lore as 1/3 of Mythic's current main product makes things worse, but the main issue is the almost identical name.

    2. Re:Go MS! by SoSueMe · · Score: 5, Funny

      A.P news has a qoute fron Odin: "I'm pretty thor over all of this".

    3. Re:Go MS! by Himos · · Score: 3, Funny
      I've noticed your use of the $ sign as a subtle commentary on Microsoft.

      My hat goes off to you dear sir. Your subtle linguisitcs have taken me aback.

  8. A genre other than fantasy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you realize how silly I'd look with my new "hobbit" foot and ear implants if fantasy becomes passe?

  9. I can see the point with the name... by Liselle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... because when I first heard of it, I was immediately confused, because I didn't remember Mythic making any any MMO of the sort (I play DAoC).

    But as far as the content, best of luck to them. DAoC was brilliant in that it didn't rely on some license for the core game (like Star Wars), but they also didn't just make something up out of the blue. Mythic took heavily from already-existing Norse mythology, Arthurian legends, Camelot, etc, and put it all together in a surprisingly good story. If somebody else does the same thing, what sort of legal leg do they have to stand on?

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    1. Re:I can see the point with the name... by Kirk+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bull shit!

      I was a subscriber for 7 months to DAOC and not ONCE did I EVER feel Norse, Celtic, Druidic, or Athurian mythology. I felt trapped in a computer-spawned land of worthless badger slaying, griefing, and fort tug-of-war.

      DAOC was everquest without the interesting locations. Please don't say it "took heavily" from such great legends you know it didn't have jack shit to do with.

      A NPC named Lancalot sits in the middle of his castle and gives you quests to steal daggers from trolls. Oh yeah, I'm enthralled now!

    2. Re:I can see the point with the name... by Liselle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You would have enjoyed the RP servers, and paying close attention to some of the out of the way quests. The epic quests were really interesting if you did them all. Look at what they recently did with the new Trials of Atlantis expansion! It's not the fault of Mythic if someone chooses to spend their time ignoring the content, and smashes bunnies for another carrot instead. "The grind is in your mind."

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  10. a new genre? by happystink · · Score: 3, Funny

    Umm, maybe when someone invents a new genre that still gives me a reason to airbrush naked chicks on unicorns onto my van, THEN I will give up on fantasy. Until then, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    --

    sig:
    See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.

  11. What new genre would that be? by NitroWolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've given that quite a bit of thought... but realistically, what new genre could you devise that would be fun to play?

    A Sci-Fi setting is about as close as you can get for that sort of gameplay... and that's stretching it. It's Fantasy-Sci-Fi at that point. As AO amply demonstrated, the whole Sci-Fi themed RPG on a computer doesn't work out so well, and ends up being pretty silly.

    Fantasy is really the only theme you can have and be "believable," as far as believability in that sort of setting goes.

    Once you move up technologically/time period wise, you have something completely different. Why, you ask? Simply because combat becomes something less personal (which personal is the whole focus of MMORPGs) and more destructive.

    Any time period set in current day and the future has the potential to have weapons of mass destruction, making game play decidedly un-fun when a nuke comes in and wipes out your whole city without you being able to do anything about it. The fact is, medieval/fantasy is about the only realm you can safely have interactive person-to-person RPGs (note I said RPG, not FPS) and have them remain fun. That's simply because it's more of a drawn out conflict between people, whereas anything set in modern day or the future is a conflict between equipment and wars of attrition, not skill.

    I dislike fantasy books, but love SF books. I would love to see a game based on SF... but the more I've thought about it, there's not one single SF themed multiplayer game that I think would be fun without borrowing heavily from fantasy. It's all about personal combat, in the end, and nothing caters to that like fantasy.

    1. Re:What new genre would that be? by hirebrand · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I would love to see a game based on SF... but the more I've thought about it, there's not one single SF themed multiplayer game that I think would be fun without borrowing heavily from fantasy.
      Well, there is Fallout. That was a rather popular sci-fi RPG. Besides, why do massively multiplayer games all have to be role playing? Planetside is a pretty great game.
    2. Re:What new genre would that be? by Felonius+Thunk · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It shouldn't really be that hard to do more than fantasy, but you do make a good point about keeping it person to person. I can imagine at least a few genres possible, though, that would/could still revolve around 'man-to-man' fighting and similar interactions:
      • post-apocalyptic/dark future sci-fi (Road Warrior or Gammaworld)
      • superheroes (isn't there something like this coming?)
      • adventure a la Indiana Jones/Alan Quartermain
      • swashbuckling/pirate style adventures
      I'm not sure how many people would want to immerse themselves in these settings compared to fantasy, but the potential is there to restrict interactions to a pretty interpersonal level.
    3. Re:What new genre would that be? by bishiraver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or even swashbuckkling/pirate style in a postapocolyptic dark scifi universe, focusing on ship combat and boarding. Say that most projectile weapons in the person-to-person combat are infeasible because of the likelyhood to pierce the hull of the ship the battle is taking place in. Ship-to-ship combat may be equipment based (and to some extent, player skill based), but boarding would involve player-skill melee combat. Or maybe I'm just being a moron, I really don't know. It seemed a good idea at the time.

    4. Re:What new genre would that be? by luisdom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mmmm... Dune?

      A whole universe full of different cultures, close combat, range combat ;)...
      Oh. I forgot. And Kevin J Anderson & Herbert's son to spoil it all.

  12. Re:It's about time Microsoft gets a little of it's by Squidgee · · Score: 3, Informative
    Lindows was an OK suit; Lindows was obviously infringing on MS's trademark, and they deserved to have the sued out of tyhem by MS.

    I'm sorry, but Linux was in the wrong that time; MS was in the right.

  13. Re:And Kellogs owns the image of a Tucan... by SoSueMe · · Score: 2, Funny

    What "Mickey Mouse" type of thinking is that?

  14. Myth(ica) by CottonEyedJoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....Or perhaps Microsoft took the name from another fantasy game, Myth. Developed by wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft, Bungie, and also employing elements of norse mythology.

  15. SIMS Online by blunte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's called SIMS Online

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  16. Man are you guys idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Microsoft is not being sued because it's making a norse gods game. It's being sued because it made a norse god game that's called MYTHICA. Y'see, to establish trademark violation, you have to establish TWO THINGS. First, you have to establish that the trademark is sufficiently similar. Second, you have to establish that the two names in question are for products which are in the same market and could confuse customers. If Microsoft named renamed Microsoft Word to Microsoft Mythica, it'd be fine. But it didn't. It gave the name Mythica that is very similar to another product with an existing similar trademark. Game set and match -- Microsoft will go down on this one for certain.

  17. Not much to add here, except that Microsoft... by LenE · · Score: 4, Informative

    doesn't own Myth anymore.

    I thought exactly the same as you when I read this at first, except that Bungie divested itself of the Myth "franchise", a less than brilliant move that seemed to be part of the acquisition deal when they were kidnapped by Microsoft.

    Actually, I remember vividly that all copies of Myth II for all platforms were recalled by Microsoft within hours of the acquisition. It took several months to locate a store that still had the Loki published Linux version of Myth II, and to this day, you can still no longer purchase a Windows or Mac version of Myth II. Myth III was released by someone else.

    Bungie is not referred to on that page about Mythica, so it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

    -- Len

  18. Re:It's about time Microsoft gets a little of it's by blunte · · Score: 4, Informative

    But the bigger argument about Lindows vs. Windows is that Windows shouldn't have been given trademark. That would be like Ford trademarking "Car".

    News Release
    Ford Motor Company has just released Car v4.8. In other news, Ford sues General Motors for releasing a new compact "car".

    MS should lose the trademark on the Windows name. Lindows may indeed be playing off the Windows name, but the windows name is far too generic. Many operating systems have for 20 years used "windows" as a primary feature of their graphical interfaces.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  19. Hentai? by Atario · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, you got me, that's still fantasy.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  20. Didn't Bungie do a game called Myth...? by jwhatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And didn't Microsoft buy Bungie? Seems Mythic doesn't have a tripod to stand on. Maybe Robert Graves, Edith Hamilton, and a few other authors should sue all us fantasy gamers for stealing their thunderbolts. Anyone remember when you had to name your game X&X (ala D&D) to sell your game at all (oh I guess that would be Dungeon or Adventure to the early video game crowd).

  21. Re:tribal confusion by Haeleth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The mythology of Arthur puts the time period way before 1200 AD. The pre-romantic story, derived from Celtic mythology, via Geoffrey of Monmouth, Wace, and Layamon, and appearing in the second book of Malory (in the form of a rip-off of a C14th epic poem, the so-called Alliterative Morte Arthur), tells of the Roman emperor Lucius, who demanded tribute from the Britons; Arthur refused to pay, and invaded Rome instead. But at the moment of his victory he was suddenly called home, his throne having been usurped, and he was killed in the civil war that ensued.

    Most of the stuff about damsels in distress was added later by the French, who admittedly applied a liberal coating of 1200-ness to the story, but only because that's when they wrote their versions; that's just like today's modern-dress productions of Shakespeare.

  22. EverQuest community watches on.... by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're always amused as The Next Big Game looms on the horizon.... Did you know that DAoC was going to kill EverQuest's role as the #1 MMORPG? No? Perhaps that's because you were waiting for Neverwinter Nights? Star Wars Galaxies? PlanetSide? Anarchy Online?

    Perhaps you have not learned your lesson and are waiting for WoW?

    It amazes me that each new game comes out and again misses the point. It's not the graphics (most long-term EQ players turn off all the bells and whistles they can); it's not the storyline (the EQ storyline reads like Christopher Tolkein on quayludes); it's not the marketing (when is the last time you saw an add for SWG, NWN or DAoc? Now what about EQ? I think EQ gets less press than the Slash engine ;-)

    So what is it? It's the fact that the game is large enough and growing to absorb enough user-base that there is a community that has real staying power... somehow, THAT is what another game needs to replicate, and it emphasizes all of the things that most game companies do not want to spend money on... Perhaps Sigil will get it right. they did once before....

  23. Dark Age of Camelot is STUNNINGLY UNORIGINAL by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I used to play DAOC. I used to love DAOC. But a creator of new ideas DAOC is not.

    Dark Age uses the most widespread, obvious and well-known cultural and mythological references for its game world.

    We must remember that Mythic's case against Microsoft constitutes a claim of ownership over these themes.

    For once Microsoft is right.

    Mythic: you should have been more original if you wanted something protectable.

    Verdict goes to the defendant.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Dark Age of Camelot is STUNNINGLY UNORIGINAL by ACupOfCoffee · · Score: 2, Informative
      We must remember that Mythic's case against Microsoft constitutes a claim of ownership over these themes.


      Try again. It represents a trademark of a particular word within a particular context.
      For a trademark to hold any validity it must be defended against dilution. Mythic's claim is that the use of Mythica in the context that Microsoft is using it is confusingly similar to the Mythic trademark.

      Originality of content and the theme / basis of the content is not what's being questioned in the lawsuit. What's being questioned is the name.
    2. Re:Dark Age of Camelot is STUNNINGLY UNORIGINAL by Chester+K · · Score: 2, Informative

      We must remember that Mythic's case against Microsoft constitutes a claim of ownership over these themes.

      No it doesn't. It constitues a claim of ownership over their company's name.

      They're not suing because Microsoft is making a medieval fantasy MMOG. They're suing because Microsoft is naming it confusingly similar to their company's name -- and since their company also makes a medieval fantasy MMOG, it could be confusing to the market.

      --

      NO CARRIER
  24. Re:It's about time Microsoft gets a little of it's by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, rather it would be like Ford Motor Company releasing a car range called the SteeringWheel (tm). Perfectly fine, another company could not release a car range called the same, but it could still use steering wheel technology within it.

  25. Get your facts straight by nniillss · · Score: 3, Funny
    How can you judge on these terms without reading them? The company's name ist not Mystic. Look again.

    By the way, I just happen to have mod points. Found a comment more constructive, though.

  26. Evercrack - - Plumbers Crack? by msimm · · Score: 2, Funny

    An exciting new genre indeed!

    --
    Quack, quack.
  27. Can't they just... by Jeff_at_RAD · · Score: 2, Funny

    roll a 20 sided die to decide this?

    ->Jeff

  28. Hrm., Sounds like by EnigmaticSource · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Rocky Horror Picture Show?

    --
    The Geek in Black
    I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
  29. Re:tribal confusion by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um. Not an expert in this stuff but awhile back I read an interesting book on the history of dark age England and they mentioned that the Venerable Bede (8th century) and the earlier Gildas (6th century) who lived shortly after the events described how Vortigern allowed the Germanic Englisci into Britain as mercenaries and how a war then ensued between them and the Britons. The writers state that the Britons (really the Romanised inhabitants left high and dry after Rome fell) were pushed back but that a leader arose called Arturus who fought successfully but was finally defeated by internal intrigue. Bede went on and on about how the plotters screwed Britain. Sounds like a model for Camelot. I don't know how accurate this all was, the book was pretty scholarly describing in detail the spread of things like buckle designs of Germanic origin at the time etc. Pretty interesting though showing a very different view of the "Dark Ages".

    Google around for vortigern bede gildas arthur and you'll see plenty of stuff. For example.

    One little quote on that page (which is later but Bede mentions Arthur too):

    "The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors."

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  30. expect a call from my lawyers if you do by boarder · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Oh, and we could have a new acronym: IANALBIPOO (..But I Play One Online)"

    I'm sorry, but I've been using a similar .sig for a long time here and would consider any use of IANALBIPOO an infringement of my IP rights.

    --
    IANAL, but I play one on /.
  31. Scandinavia by StarTux · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scandinavian countries should combine and sue Mythic and Microsoft over use of their Mythology!

    This is obviously getting out of hand...

  32. Re:tribal confusion by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Informative

    'King' Arthur was a Romanized, Christian Celt and a damned traitor to his people and his culture.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  33. Re:tribal confusion by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Informative

    Geoffrey's dates for Arthur have him dying in AD 542. More likely, the events Geoffrey is adapting took place in the AD 470s, though. Badon Hill might be 542, though; I seem to remember that some authorities think it was, others that it wasn't, related to "Arthur." Really complex problem. See the Penguin edition of Geoffrey of Monmouth, *The History of the Kings of Britain*

  34. total BS by nuintari · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh no, they are using norse and Arthurian legend in a game? heaven forbid their be more than one game of that out there, next you'll be telling me that some company that puts out a world war 2 fps is gonna sue all the other companies that put out a ww2 fps.

    jesus christ people, you didn't invent the legends, you based a game on them. Microsoft decided to do the same, for once in my life I am siding with microsoft.

    That is it, from this day forth, let it be known that I created egyption history. My first order of business will be to sue the Toledo Museam of Art because they have an Egyption section featuring a MUMMY, and we all know that I thought of mummification first damnit!

    Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits, I f'ing swear. Companies don't make money by producing anything anymore, they just sue each other all day long. First we kill all the lawyers, then all the lawsuit happy morons in this god forsakken country, then we kill ALL CEO's and anyone who still works at SCO.

    I would like to mention, my fever is at 103....

    --

    --Nuintari

    slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.