Sad news, for those that remember.

[Jamski]

This means the rights for MoM2 are floating around in an Atari office somewhere. Let's break in steal the rights and code it ourselves! Yeah!

-Jam

[Alexander's Horse]

they should give up the code - its probably in a dumpster in hunt valley

[Tuberski]

Another good name destroyed by Infogreed.

Atari and now Microprose.

ACK!

[Alexander's Horse]

life goes on

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by vovan
I was reading this comic strip by Rantz Hosely, who worked on MoO3, and I think it pretty much sums it up:

Does this mean that Rantz is no longer with QS....or does he do this comic beside his work at QS??

Asmodean

[vovan]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Does this mean that Rantz is no longer with QS....or does he do this comic beside his work at QS??

This comic is a hobby of his, from what I understand. He still does work for pay, and I understand some of it comes from QS.

[Jamski]

He's an ART DIRECTOR, that means he wouldn't know what "work" is if you hit him repeatedly over the head with it. He's probably just happy that money appears in his bank account every month and people like his pictures

[/lazy artist rant]

-Jam

[Carolus Rex]

Carolus

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
First of all Atari didn't close them down. Infogrames "wearing the Atari name" closed them down. Infrogrames only revived the Atari name because their own name has become synonomous with bug ridden software burned onto cheap cds.

Microprose the name will be revived after Infogrames has finished destroying the Atari name and needs another shell to hide under.

Never forget that "Atari" is just a costume that Infogrames is hiding under.

now that's well spoken!!

and no, i'll never forget this lame trick.

[vovan]

Originally posted by Jamski
He's an ART DIRECTOR, that means he wouldn't know what "work" is if you hit him repeatedly over the head with it. He's probably just happy that money appears in his bank account every month and people like his pictures

Well, I guess the pics are pretty nice after all. Otherwise he wouldn't have become an art director, now would he have?

[Urban Ranger]

Why not? Not like ability has anything to do with it, just look at InfogreedAtari.

Sometimes it just happens by a happy coincidence.

[Jamski]

Well, I guess the pics are pretty nice after all. Otherwise he wouldn't have become an art director, now would he have?

Right idea, wrong logic. If he's the art director, he's by definition a WORSE artist than the people he's directing. Who knows more about computers, the IT technician, or the company's IT director? Who's the better salesman, the one that goes and sells stuff, or the director of sales? I'd say this is the "Dilbert Principle" at work. Those that can, do. Those that can't... get promoted to a place where they can't do any harm.

-Jam

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski


Right idea, wrong logic. If he's the art director, he's by definition a WORSE artist than the people he's directing. Who knows more about computers, the IT technician, or the company's IT director? Who's the better salesman, the one that goes and sells stuff, or the director of sales? I'd say this is the "Dilbert Principle" at work. Those that can, do. Those that can't... get promoted to a place where they can't do any harm.

-Jam

More formally, its called the Peter Principle - in a hierarchical organization, people tend to get promoted to their level of incompetence (since they cease to be promoted from that point)

This is to some degree a relic of an older time when corporations didnt routinely fire middle managers - these days that happens all the time, at least in the US.

Ideally a corporation should promote to, say art director, a good artist (NOT the best) but one who has skills at management (IE art direction). Per the Peter Principle, they promote the best artist, who may be a lousy manager, but who stays at that job anyway. Per the dilbert principle, they promote the worst artist.

[Tuberski]

I was playing MOO2 today, and one of the planets was "Atari".

Made me think of this thread.

ACK!

[The Mad Monk]

More formally, its called the Peter Principle - in a hierarchical organization, people tend to get promoted to their level of incompetence (since they cease to be promoted from that point)

I think that the Dilbert principle -- the Peter principle uses competence instead of incompetence. It's less offensive to executive types that way.