 |
|
|
|
|
Latest News - Explanation for its discontinuation - A bit of Q & A |
It wouldn't be fair of me to reveal too much at present time. Just let the following cryptic statement roll around in your heads for a while: the FAQ may rise again for a final wham of an issue. The issue to end all issues. The end of all issues to end the end of all issues issues. The end of....................<transmission interrupted>
Explanation for the discontinuation
Alongside the opening of Wilco's Domain, I began writing a Frequently Asked Questions list about Space Quest. It quickly grew into more than that--now, around version 2.0, it's become more of a "all-the-info-I-could-possibly-squeeze-into-one-text-document" sort of FAQ.
Starting from its anniversary version, which was 2.0, the FAQ has also died out. At one point, version 2.1 was in the works, but it will no longer happen. The FAQ, as we know it, has also died.
The reason for this is that, with SQ7 no longer happening, I began receiving contributions like, "Hey, did you know that StarCon is a spoof on the Federation in Star Trek?" and "Hey, did you know that Circuit Sydney is a spoof on Data from Star Trek?". Things that are so mind-bogglingly obvious (and, mostly, already in the FAQ) that one has to wonder if we haven't milked these games dry.
There is simply no more information to be squeezed out of the old Space Quest games!
The 2.0 version of the FAQ has now existed for almost two years, and is therefore horribly incorrect in many aspects. For this reason, I would like to ask all distributors and websites carrying the FAQ to please remove it from your page and instead post this notice. You are still allowed to carry version 2.0, but only if you inform your surfers that the version is no longer correct and that it is to be considered a "back issue". This is a painful thing for me to do, and I'm sorry it has come to this. But it was inevidable.
Thank you for reading the FAQ these past years. I hope you enjoyed it.
I am posting this section because, apparently, there has been some confusion around some webmasters about how to handle this situation. I will be quoting some actual mails I have received, though in the interest of something noble and good (can't remember what), I'll conceal the sender's name. This section intends no malice towards the webmasters being quoted.
Q: Would you mind if I post a new version of the FAQ which I upated. I've
removed all the dated infromation.
A: Yes, I would mind. Please do not edit the FAQ without my permission. And you will, most likely, not get my permission. Even though it's dead, I still personally feel for this document, and I don't like direct third-party intervention. Sorry.Q: I thought as much. I'll just start my own.
A: I'm sorry, but I won't allow that, either. "Starting a new FAQ" would basically mean rewriting my FAQ. There is no reason behind doing that. Objectively, there is no real difference behind this question and the other one; only its formulation.Q: Is there hope for a resurrection of the FAQ?
A: It would be bold of me to reveal too much, but there is a possible collaboration between two veterans of the community in progress... it is possible we may not have seen the last of the FAQ.
