This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


Risk

Rating:
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (10 votes)
Category:
Perspective:
Year released:
Author:
Publisher:
Engine:
#1
[www].se [ftp].se [mirror].us
Risk_II.img_.sit (119.19 KB)
For System 6.x - Mac OS 9
#2
[www].se [ftp].se [mirror].us
risk_ii.toast_.sit (243.64 MB)
For System 6.x - Mac OS 9
Emulation
This game works with: SheepShaver, Basilisk II, Mini vMac

Version 2.5.3 which notifies user to reduce monitor color setting, instead of immediately quitting. Complete set of color and black & white icons for armies and player types. Minor cleanups to rules and main map in this version. B&w and color version.
This is the same game as its predecessor, 'Risk' from the same author, just patched to display a colored game field. Risk II (version 2.5.3) still runs on Mini-vMac, too).

The second file archived above is a Toast image of the game Risk II for Macintosh computers. Can be played in Mac OS 7-9, or the Classic environment which is included with OS X.

See Also: Risk Deluxe

Compatibility
Architecture: 68k

Comments

13slam's picture
by 13slam - 2017, May 13 - 11:55pm

I believe this should be split into two new entries since these are two very different games - one for ColorRisk 2.41 (the .img) and one for Risk II (the .toast). Neither of these games call themselves plain "Risk".

mrdav's picture
by mrdav - 2013, January 17 - 10:59am

Replaced torrent with a link to the CD image

IIGS_User's picture
by IIGS_User - 2010, August 4 - 8:42am

I don't think the "real" name of this game was Risk II, actually. There was an original unauthorized free RISK game that later got patched and altered by several people to run in color, etc. and one of those variants had the "II" added to it. I've lost track of which variant was which, and which one exactly is posted here.

This must be the variant who adds the "II" to its name.

MCP's picture
by MCP - 2010, August 3 - 9:35pm

Lots of multimedia crap. But some people like that I guess. To each his own...

bertyboy's picture
by bertyboy - 2010, August 3 - 9:27pm

371MB for Risk ? On CD ok, but what does it have that this one doesn't ?

MCP's picture
by MCP - 2010, August 3 - 9:20pm

I don't think the "real" name of this game was Risk II, actually. There was an original unauthorized free RISK game that later got patched and altered by several people to run in color, etc. and one of those variants had the "II" added to it. I've lost track of which variant was which, and which one exactly is posted here.

ADD: I've changed the name simply to "Risk." Anyone who wants to add the later CD-ROM "RISK II" is welcome to do so. Don't forget there is also MacPlay's "Risk Deluxe" on this site.

Temporary Joe's picture
by Temporary Joe - 2009, December 4 - 10:58pm

There was another game called "Risk II" released in late 2000, basically Risk with better graphics and features. But it would've been too big anyway, right?

IIGS_User's picture
by IIGS_User - 2009, August 18 - 2:52pm

A Risk port for Mac OS X called iConquer:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77430

http://www.kavasoft.com/iConquer/index.php

Calling about the external download link which isn't intended to be this game entry:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/macintosh/risk-ii

IIGS_User's picture
by IIGS_User - 2009, May 12 - 7:52pm

No, I was surprised about the long URL name, and you're right, 'Risk II' is long enough for this title, maybe it could be named as 'Risk II (Shareware)', compared to the other commercial Risk title, 'Risk Deluxe'.

Attila's picture
by Attila - 2009, May 12 - 7:32pm

Speaking just for myself I'd rather see simple titles and just archive the different versions together with info in the description detailing what is there. I've only uploaded separately or with version numbers when the versions are radically different or more than the upload limit when together.

Maedi (Disabled)'s picture
by Maedi (Disabled) - 2009, May 12 - 3:22pm

Is it necessary to have "(b&w and colored version)" in the title? I myself am not sure, I could go either way, what do you guys think? I'm just worried about URL's changing if the title's changed in the future (though there is a fix for this). If you think it's better to have it, then please leave it.