|
| |
There are 168 guests and 0 MSX friends online
You are an anonymous user.
|
| | MSX Resource Center MEGA Challenge |
| | Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 02:21 Submitted by: snout Topic: Challenges | | Celebrating the 10th anniversary of msx.org, the release of the new MSX computer and the upcoming 24th anniversary of MSX on June 27th, 2007 the time has come for a big challenge with a big prize. MSX Resource Center proudly presents the MSX Resource Center MEGA-Challenge in which you can win, amongst others, a brand new One Chip MSX computer (Western edition). To make sure every MSX developer gets a fair chance at winning this prize we have created three disciplines in which you can enter: - MSX2 game development challenge
Objective: Create a game for the MSX2 platform. It's as simple as that. All genres are allowed, and only your imagination is the limit. With various MRC challenges as a warmup, the time has come to let a nice batch of new MSX2 games see the light of day. All you have to do is obey the following maximum specifications:
- 64kB RAM
- 128kB VRAM
- Max 512kB ROM or one (1) 720kB disk
For audio support, PSG, SCC(+), MSX-MUSIC, MSX-AUDIO (max 256kB) and Moonsound (max 640kB) sound chips and combinations thereof are all allowed. None of these sound chips are mandatory, so a game only supporting PSG or a game only supporting Moonsound are both valid entries. The game should function on these minimal specifications, but enhanced features for e.g. the MSX2+, GFX9000 and/or turboR are allowed.
- History theme challenge
Objective: Create a game or demo in a historical setting. Take, for example, the Ancient Egypts, Dinosaurs, the Roman Empire, Greek Mythology, Caverns or Chinese Dynasties. In other words: get inspired by major events and eras in world (pre-)history and surprise the MSX community with your creativity! Will you make the next King's Valley or B.C. Quest?
This discipline has no minimum specifications, but - like previous challenges - has the following maximum specifications:
- MSX turboR
- 512kB RAM
- GFX9000
- Any combination of general MSX soundchips (see those mentioned above) allowed
- No storage size and medium limitations
- 64x48 challenge
Objective: Create a game or demo that uses the center 64x48 pixels of the screen. Optionally, you can chose to use SCREEN 3 in full-screen. This smaller screen size allows developers to experiment with graphical effects that are usually impossible on an MSX (full screen). Think of the possibilities when using less than a quarter of the regular MSX screen! Think of the amount of VRAM and sprites available! What kinds of smooth and stunning graphical action can you achieve on this reduced size screen?
Like the History discipline, this discipline has no minimum specifications, but - like previous challenges - has the following maximum specifications:
- MSX turboR
- 512kB RAM
- GFX9000
- Any combination of general MSX soundchips (see those mentioned above) allowed
- No storage size and medium limitations
Any entry, in any discipline will get a fair chance at winning the big prize: the One Chip MSX. We will also reward several other prizes, including a random prize. This means by entering the challenge alone you can already become a winner. Naturally, you are allowed to submit entries that fit in to multiple disciplines.
In the upcoming months we will announce the jury of the challenge and other prizes that can be won. The MEGA-challenge closes on June 27th, 2007 - the day on which we celebrate the 24th anniversary of our beloved MSX computer. Developers? Start your engines!
You can send in your entries to mega@msx.org until June 27th, 2007, 23:59 CET. |
| | |
|
| By wolf_ on December 19 2006, 02:31 | 64x48 is interesting for those who want to do something beyond the block-based VDP operations. Keep in mind that 4 sprites on a row covers the whole width of such a small canvas, and on MSX2 you can have 2 such sprite blocks.. with the OR-color bonus if you wish!
| | |
| By SLotman on December 19 2006, 08:09 | Are remakes ok? No copyright problems? If so I might try something... 
| | |
| By pitpan on December 19 2006, 08:37 | Quotation: "To make sure every MSX developer gets a fair chance at winning this prize we have created three disciplines in which you can enter."
Facts: MSX2, Turbo-R.
Conclusion: not for me. MSX1 does not have a fair chance against higher spec computers.
| | |
| By ro on December 19 2006, 08:44 | you couldn't be more wrong Pitpan. I could name a few of my fave games which are MSX1. So don't worry, it's the game play and originality that does a lot.
| | |
| By chaos on December 19 2006, 08:57 | I think there's not a special msx1 challenge, because msxdev06 is taking care of that.
| | |
| By Huey on December 19 2006, 10:05 | Is a game based on the development/evolution of the MSX considered as 'historical'?
@pitpan: If we/I enter the comp it will probably be MSX1. MSX1 can easily beat MSX2 or tR.
| | |
| By dioniso on December 19 2006, 10:25 | Good initiative. I hope you keep doing this from now on (maybe with less expensive prices). It would be a perfect "partner" for the MSXDev (MSX1). Congratulations!
| | |
| By Grauw on December 19 2006, 10:55 | MSX2, finally! Now I feel challenged  .
~Grauw
| | |
| By viejo_archivero on December 19 2006, 11:57 | As developer, great news!!. And as MSXDEV Team member, it is nice to see the MSX2 development is now covered with a contest!. Great initiative, I'm considering joining it.
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 19 2006, 12:01 | Viejo: I guess this means the end of a seperate MSX2 compo @ dev'07? 
| | |
| By snout on December 19 2006, 12:35 | Remakes (although, preferably with an original twist) and MSX1 games are allowed. I think both Konami (professional) and MSXdev (homebr... err... amateur [hi Grauw!]) have already proved MSX1 games can reach such exceptional quality that they could become winners over here. Only requirement is that they run on the minimum configuration.
(btw, you can also make an MSX1 'history only' or '64x48 only' entry, of course)
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 19 2006, 13:03 | Huey, for this time you may regard "MSX-history" as valid entry.. don't you dare to take C64 history tho! ^_^ But basically I think that a common history book is the most descriptive for this challenge.
| | |
| By Huey on December 19 2006, 13:39 | @Wolf: Great! So my MSX1 'MSX-history' game can compete in two disciplines \o/
Just imagine Nishi & Bill battling togheter in a game for the sake of MSX!!!!!
(Or not. I think I first have to convince ARTRAG to make a small sidestep)
B.t.w. Ever noticed that Wit and Cles from USAS could resemble Nishi (short, karate) en Bill (Long, shooting cowboy style). Anybody for a ROM hack?
| | |
| By Grauw on December 19 2006, 13:47 | snout:
| | |
| By Ivan on December 19 2006, 14:32 | Quote:
| Viejo: I guess this means the end of a seperate MSX2 compo @ dev'07?
Quote:
| not necessarily
|
|
Then, could the same game participate in these two contests at the same time?
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 19 2006, 14:34 | tsk, and win both a tR and OCM .. ? ^_^
| | |
| By Ivan on December 19 2006, 14:55 | Quote:
| tsk, and win both a tR and OCM .. ? ^_^
|
The number of contestants would increase, definitely
| | |
| By Randam on December 19 2006, 16:43 | Great news!!
| | |
| By spl on December 19 2006, 17:13 | Quote:
| As developer, great news!!. And as MSXDEV Team member, it is nice to see the MSX2 development is now covered with a contest!. Great initiative, I'm considering joining it.
|
I want to see a Karoshi on MSX 2. Totally fear!! 
| | |
| By dvik on December 19 2006, 20:45 | Great initiative  I like the categories.
Just some minor questions:
1. Is the VDP in MSX2 category V9938?
2. Is any storage allowed in the latter two categories? E.g. can I use my experimental 2GB rom mapper that I wrote in blueMSX?
3. Is it ok if an entry runs in just one MSX configuration, e.g. MSX2+Moonsound+V9990 (and nothing else) or do you give bonus points if a game is more compatible?
4. If the game runs fine in MSX2 but not on TR due to timing differences, is that ok?
I guess all these question is about how specific the MSX config can be and if there are penalties for being too narrow.
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 19 2006, 21:09 | point 3:
If it's a game for the msx2 game challenge then it should at least run on a bare msx2 (with the given RAM specs). So, G9k, OPL etc. is all nice, but it should be a bonus.
This isn't much different than MSXDev rules btw.
Regarding the 9938: Space Manbow would be a valid entry, as it uses 9938, and 9958 for bonus (scroll mask)..
| | |
| By dvik on December 19 2006, 21:36 | Quote:
| This isn't much different than MSXDev rules btw.
|
msxdev is a little bit fuzzy on the bonus points so thats why I'm asking. These rules are quite clear but just in case.
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 19 2006, 21:40 | fuzzy? Ma dog Billy is fuzzy!
 SHUT UP
The Dev rules were easy: should *work* on msx1, 16k ram, 16k vram, psg. The rest is up to you.
Identical with these Megachallenge rules: msx2 game should *work* on MSX2, 64k ram, 128k vram. Rest is up to you..
| | |
| By dvik on December 19 2006, 21:46 | The rules are easy but what's being judged is not so clear. Well, nevermind, in the end its all up to the jurors anyways  (me was freezing my butt off this morning. Only 3 degrees Celcius in southern California)
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 19 2006, 22:13 | I guess judging is not so difficult.. the bare config is judged, but if a game team managed to include support for more advanced configs then this is commendable ofcourse and will gain bonuspoints.
So,
bare config score
bonus points
---------------------------- +
final score
| | |
| By dvik on December 19 2006, 23:22 | Quote:
|
So,
bare config score
bonus points
---------------------------- +
final score
|
Do you think I'm stupid ? If you don't understand what I'm asking, it is what these two scores are made up of and how they are weightened. Did I make myself clear?
As I said, its not such a big deal but good to know when making design decisions.
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 00:12 | I guess no one knows, except the jury..
| | |
| By snout on December 20 2006, 00:44 | Indeed. The jury will have the liberty to rate the entries to their own liking. It will not be a mathematical formula. In other words. If you use the OPLL chip (or if you don't use it) won't affect your score in a way with bonus/penalty points that will make it more likely (or impossible) to win.
That sounded pretty diplomatic, didn't it?
| | |
| By dvik on December 20 2006, 01:25 | Quote:
| That sounded pretty diplomatic, didn't it?
|
Sound good Great categories btw  It will be very interesting to see what the 64x48 challenge will give
Oh I forgot another question:
5. Are sprites allowed in a screen 3 entry in the 64x48 challenge? Could be quite useful but it's not really 64x48 anymore then.
| | |
| By NYYRIKKI on December 20 2006, 02:26 | Quote:
| 5. Are sprites allowed in a screen 3 entry in the 64x48 challenge? Could be quite useful but it's not really 64x48 anymore then.
|
I think they are as far as you use only %1111 or %0000 nibbles and move them 4 pixels at the time... or then you can use maximized sprites with %11 or %00 values. 
| | |
| By NYYRIKKI on December 20 2006, 02:32 | Oh BTW, is SCREEN 2 allowed with pattern that makes the screen 64*48 with 4 colors? (I actually already have some routines for this "screen mode", that's why I'm asking...)
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 02:43 | I think the best summary of this challenge is to have 64x48 identifiable unique "pixels". This would thus mean: screen 3 fullscreen, and no typical "hi-res" sprites, unless they integrate in the 64x48 res, for instance using
11001100
11001100
00110011
00110011
11001100
11001100
00110011
00110011
in double mode
or
11110000
11110000
11110000
11110000
00001111
00001111
00001111
00001111
in normal mode
In addition, such sprites may only be placed on the respective x/2 y/2 or x/4 y/4 locations, if you get my point.
So, no matter what, 64x48 "pixels" in sc3. In other screens you just do as you like. Note that in narrow-pixel screens such as screen 6 and 7 it's still 64x48, not 128x48! (but who would use 6 & 7 anyway )
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 02:50 | nyyrikki @ sc2 thing .. I don't see your point, can you make a screenshot with your concept?
| | |
| By dvik on December 20 2006, 03:39 | tnx wolf_ and nyyrikki, it makes sense. About sc2 it would be similar to the sprite tile patterns in wolf_'s post earlier, e.g. the patterns are:
11110000
11110000
11110000
11110000
00001111
00001111
00001111
00001111
and then the tiles are colored on a 4x4 pixel block as well. It looks like screen3 but you get 256 tiles with 4 colors per pixel. At least that's how I use it. It would be nice if any screen mode is allowed as long as there are only 64x48 pixels (of the same size) on the screen.
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 13:01 | ah.. so you mean like Sphere and Wings, minus the centre-dithering in our tiles..! Rite?
| | |
| By viejo_archivero on December 20 2006, 15:17 | Just a little question. A valid entry to the 64x48 contest is valid as long as the action zone is 64x48?... I mean, it will be legal to make a big graphic "frame" with the rest of the screen (always static) while the whole action game inside that 64x48? (like Gameboy games when running under SuperBoy into a SuperNes or something)... or I must fit that 64x48 and leave the rest of the screen blank?. Thanx.
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 16:02 | Keep it blank. Just compare sc2 @ 64x48 with sc3.. all we want to see is 64x48. Optionally, ofcoz, you could release a 2nd version *with* some border, but the competition-version should be blank. The point is that a border, even if it doesn't really 'do' anything, still adds to a bigger picture. If you want an official border, then include it in the 64x48 frame. Will it fit? Will it not? Those are the questions of this challenge. So, once again: 64x48 pixels, and that's it.. no more!
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 16:04 | Of course, for the msx2/+/tR people using scroll-registers: you could render your map as 80x48 and use 2 columns of sprites to mask the moving borders.. as long as the visual result is 64x48.
| | |
| By Grauw on December 20 2006, 16:31 | Quote:
| Keep it blank. Just compare sc2 @ 64x48 with sc3.. all we want to see is 64x48. Optionally, ofcoz, you could release a 2nd version *with* some border, but the competition-version should be blank. The point is that a border, even if it doesn't really 'do' anything, still adds to a bigger picture. If you want an official border, then include it in the 64x48 frame. Will it fit? Will it not? Those are the questions of this challenge. So, once again: 64x48 pixels, and that's it.. no more!
|
IMHO a border should be allowed, as long as it is not interactive and purely decorational to fill up the void. Like that Super Game Boy thing for the SNES.
Just from the perspective of aesthetics it would be much nicer for the person who plays the game (thus improving the game experience), and it won’t hurt the basic idea of the category (doing something with cool fx).
By the way, who’s making the rules…? Should we take wolf_’s words for the ‘official rules’ or just for his opinion?
~Grauw
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 16:46 | Grauw: In this particular case I submitted the 64x48 concept months ago already (internally), and the main body of this challenge was defined by snout and me, heck, even the 'history' theme was a brainwave of me ..
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 16:56 | On the big pixel stuff for other screens than screen 3: no! :-)
The initial idea was to have a game or demo run in a small canvas, the only reason we added sc3 as a bonus option was because the screen *is* 64x48, and because no-one ever uses sc3 anyway (if there's a first time for you, do it now!).
So:
sc3: whole screen
any other screen: 64x48 pixels canvas
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 17:11 | There was a small community-challenge on the Blitzbasic forum some while ago: "draw a zoo in 48x32 pixels with at least 4 animal species" (or something, don't remember the res). It was actually quite fun and challenging to do something like that in such a low res, it actually requires a bit of planning and creativity. That's the whole idea of this 64x48 challenge, 'how much possible art can you squeeze into 64x48' or/and what new effects will you introduce?
Of course, your program may have a commandline parameter to switch an extra border on/off, or you may release 2 versions even.. the challenge version will have to be 64x48 tho.
| | |
| By Grauw on December 20 2006, 17:41 | wolf_: aha. But you didn’t answer either of my two questions .
About the border/canvas, quote:Quote:
| The initial idea was to have a game or demo run in a small canvas.
|
So, you don’t care if the canvas is contained in one single colour or has a frame of some sorts? (what about a SymbOS window?) That sounds great to me .
And the other unanswered question: So, is what you’re saying here like, official rules, or just your opinion on the matter.
I think it would be a good idea to just discuss the questions asked, and when you’ve got a good grasp of what people want to know and would or would not like, make the rules a little more clear by putting the details which people asked about in a FAQ, summarising what the rules are exactly? Personally, I am in favour of just clarifying the original rules, and not making any further restrictions, ahem . Because it’s good to have a few to-the-point restrictions which define the challenge, but let people make their own interpretation of it, and you can get surprising and innovative results.
Finally:Quote:
| On the big pixel stuff for other screens than screen 3: no! :-)
|
But the set rules say: "Create a game or demo that uses the center 64x48 pixels of the screen". What screenmode that is in is undefined, and I think making this further restriction is unneeded and kind of arbitrary. If someone wants to use 2x2 patterns on screen 2 to get a 64x48 pixel resolution for some reason (or 2x1 pixels in screen 7), why not? It could only cause more or more creative submissions, while still in the spirit of the challenge. As NYYRIKKY mentioned, he has something laying about which does use screen 2, so it would mean less work for him to create an entry for this challenge (and thus more likely for it to be, surely).
Quote:
| I am in favour of just clarifying the original rules, and not making any further restrictions, ahem . Because it’s good to have a few to-the-point restrictions which define the challenge, but let people make their own interpretation of it, and you can get surprising and innovative results.
|
~Grauw
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 18:09 | Quote:
| So, you don’t care if the canvas is contained in one single colour or has a frame of some sorts? (what about a SymbOS window?) That sounds great to me .
|
A color? like the big black border in the upper image, below? Ofcourse, such a border could be any (single) color.. I can't predict if you have any black left in your palette.. naturally, black is recommended for the same reason why plasma TV's have a black border: to increase the contrast.. but that's a mere suggestion of course.. A frame (like the frame of a painting) is different, it does add to the result, so a frame in the challenge edition won't be allowed.
A SymbOS window would be nice indeed. But would that be realistic in this expected timespan? Personally I'd rather see a dedicated SymbOS challenge some day..
it's either this for non-sc3:
or this for sc3:
I'd say that makes the rules quite clear.
Quote:
| And the other unanswered question: So, is what you’re saying here like, official rules, or just your opinion on the matter.
|
When I wrote those things just an hour ago I talked about it on IRC with snout, so the rules are made together. We actually almost allowed sc2/4 fullscreen using artificially large pixels, but then we canceled it for we'd prefer all these small canvases.. for cuteness reasons. it's really SC3 that's the exception here, not the other screens.
Quote:
| I think it would be a good idea to just discuss the questions asked, and when you’ve got a good grasp of what people want to know and would or would not like, make the rules a little more clear by putting the details which people asked about in a FAQ, summarising what the rules are exactly? Personally, I am in favour of just clarifying the original rules, and not making any further restrictions, ahem . Because it’s good to have a few to-the-point restrictions which define the challenge, but let people make their own interpretation of it, and you can get surprising and innovative results.
|
I guess that in a few days worth o' reactions we can prolly make an overview of the things that can and can't. But the two images above should summarize it already, really..
Quote:
| But the set rules say: "Create a game or demo that uses the center 64x48 pixels of the screen". What screenmode that is in is undefined, and I think making this further restriction is unneeded and kind of arbitrary. If someone wants to use 2x2 patterns on screen 2 to get a 64x48 pixel resolution for some reason (or 2x1 pixels in screen 7), why not? It could only cause more or more creative submissions, while still in the spirit of the challenge. As NYYRIKKY mentioned, he has something laying about which does use screen 2, so it would mean less work for him to create an entry for this challenge (and thus more likely for it to be, surely).
|
For the moment I'd say: 64x48 = 64x48, if you do 64x48 in sc7 then you get a 2:3 canvas. We (snout+me) had exactly this sc7 discussion actually (you see, it's not like we didn't think of it), but we figured that if one would want to use 64x48 that it's his own risk getting a narrow canvas then, additionally we simply wondered why one would use sc6/7 in the first place. :-)
But let's cool these rules for a few hours so snout can join in again (he's currently teh plato-roxx0r again), perhaps he'd like to add something to the whole... who knows..
| | |
| By snout on December 20 2006, 22:22 | Grauw: rest assured: Wolf_ is not just voicing his opinion, it's them challenge rules. He's in the who we are now, you know ^_^.
As for borders on the 64x48 challenge: these are not allowed. The entire challenge is meant to let you think creatively about using that small part of the screen as optimal (and original) as possible. The background color can be anything you like, but that is as far as it goes. Just think of how the borders in e.g. Fray influence the game experience. If they'd only show the game screen itself and the rest just pitch black, it would be something completely different. The 64x48 challenge is not about who can craft the most beautiful borders, it's about who can squeeze the most (original thing) from 64x48 pixels.
As for screens other than screen3: stick to the center 64x48 pixels. The only reason to allow full-screen in SCREEN3 is because it -is- a 64x48 screen mode -- and to promote this rarely used screen mode a bit. With that, we have already stretched the challenge a bit. Now it is up to you developers to work within these boundaries.
So, there you have it. This is the starting point. Now try and think of what you CAN do with it, instead of what you CAN'T do with it ^_^.
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 20 2006, 22:38 | While I think everyone should cook their own ideas 'n concepts, just think about typical effects on other systems. I'd be most happy to see some of those as entries, smooth and full-FPS plasmas, advanced vector gfx (filled?), what about those winamp/mediaplayer audio-visualisers? Heck, I think even an Outrun (with proper "3d" and the large objects you see in the original arcade) would be very appreciated. Take it from me: those entries truly don't need any borders to make a chance to win! Additionally, one can impress the hell out of me by porting Second Reality to MSX @ 64x48! It's has already been ported to C64 btw
Do you have a plan already?
| | |
| By Grauw on December 21 2006, 10:59 | Quote:
| (you see, it's not like we didn't think of it)
|
I’m not saying or accusing you shouldn’t, or you didn’t think things through carefully enough. I’m just asking what the status of your remarks is. Nowhere in the post does it say that you and snout together made the challenge, so you might just as well have been voicing your opinion. That’s why I was asking. And as for the rest, just giving my opinion on the details of the rules that you provided.
plan? no, but if I’m going to participate, I’m not going to do any weird trickery like that, just traditional bitmap with maybe some traditional tricks . By the way, I didn’t know you were a member of the MRC staff, since when?
~Grauw
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 21 2006, 12:57 | It was just to point out that the challenge was prepared well, but nevermind.
MRC helmet since Bussum'06 !
| | |
| By viejo_archivero on December 21 2006, 13:17 | ok, when the MSXdev'06 fever ends I will make a 64x48 try...
| | |
| By Yukio on December 21 2006, 15:02 | Nice ...
Now, what is all about?
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 21 2006, 15:09 |
| | |
| By realpeterjack on December 22 2006, 17:16 | One question: is there any fee to be paid to submit an entry? If this is the case, how much is it / how to pay?
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 22 2006, 17:35 | of course not!
 You may submit oodles o' entries!
For free?
YES, FOOL, FOR FREE, now get out of my VAN before I bust your head!
B.A. .. you really need to some time..
grrrrrrrrr..
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 22 2006, 17:39 | but.. since we had a few repairs on B.A.'s van recently, and we had to get new bullets, .. oh, and my own car could use a little polishing, there's always the Donate to the A-Team button.
Cut it out Face!
And my dog Billy hasn't eaten for a while..
There ain't no dog Billy, you crazy fool!
| | |
| By realpeterjack on December 22 2006, 18:14 | Unfortunately, I think you will need to ask General Hunt Stockwell for funding by now
| | |
| By LeandroCorreia on December 23 2006, 03:31 | Suggestions:
- A Tunnels of Armageddon like game in Screen 2. If borders are allowed, great!
- A game like Wolf 3D in screen 3 (just like the Avaakkus demo).
| | |
| By wolf_ on December 23 2006, 12:01 | If borders are allowed, great!
sure, as long as you put these borders inside the 64x48 frame ..
| | |
| By LeandroCorreia on December 23 2006, 14:39 | Nah. Release a version without borders for the compo and another one with them in the same package.
| | |
| By snout on December 23 2006, 17:22 | Now that is, of course, allowed ^_^
| | |
| By AuroraMSX on January 02 2007, 19:28 | Quote:
| Additionally, one can impress the hell out of me by porting Second Reality to MSX @ 64x48!
|
Since when did you start reading my mind? 
| | |
|
|
| | |
