Yup! I forgot an smiley in my previous post, D-Tail ;-)

Those who say that the MSX1 restriction is good state that "a good game do not depend on good graphics". I also agree with that.

Those who want to separate the games on MSX1/2/etc categories might not be seeing that there are too few entries and separate will just impose more restrictions.

I vote for freedom: Why do we really need to impose restrictions? If a game is good, it will gain by far advantage from a lower-quality MSX2 or even MSX2+ game. Don't believe me? Just compare Comic Bakery (simple and adictive 32KB MSX1 game) with OutRun (horrible 128KB MSX2 Game) to see what I mean. And there are a lot other examples like that.

On the other side, BallQuest was a great game of that year that just could not participate because of the restrictions. Didn't their developers deserved an award?

So, please think about it: Do we really need to impose (more) restrictions on MSX developers?
If categories are to be placed, I believe the best choice would be only "Original concept" and "Ported Games". The first one fits any of the games already released on MSXdev and the second could fit classic games ported from other systems, like BomberMan and Altered Beast.

The problem is not "Just compare Comic Bakery (simple and adictive 32KB MSX1 game) with OutRun (horrible 128KB MSX2 Game)"

The problem is: "Just compare a small and horrible msx1 entry with SD-Snatcher (lovely MSX2 Game)"

Then things are put right into perspective, aren't they, wolf_? I mean, good games deserve applause, bad games deserve the gutter. That's the bottom line anyway.

My point was that the MSXdev crew try to equalize their entries by stating 'msx1' as spec. It could very well be that the outcome wouldn't be much different tho..

Quote:

The problem is not "Just compare Comic Bakery (simple and adictive 32KB MSX1 game) with OutRun (horrible 128KB MSX2 Game)" The problem is: "Just compare a small and horrible msx1 entry with SD-Snatcher (lovely MSX2 Game)"

Unfortunately, I got struck with a Snatcher cartridge ... Ok, The MSX1 Game Collection was very nice!

The MSX1 games were nicer to play listening to the SCC sound tracks! Sure their were cooler to play, even if the ending song of Snatcher is outstanding for a old (classic) 8-bit system!

I still believe that the main problem for newer entries is the DISK-DRIVE! Apart from the colours, there is not much things that the MSX2 could do better than the original MSX1 standard. Sure that for the MSX2+ (plus) the history could be another ...

D-Tail: Exactly! It is exciting just to have new software for MSX, no matter what generation. And it's great for programmers to have freedom of choice, freedom to express their ideas and their abilities as they will. As so, it doesn't matter if it is MSX1, 2, 2+ or TR. It doesn't matter if it requires MSX-Audio or V9990. We want programmers to put their best effort.

We want the judges to look after playability, creativity when comparing the games. And I'm sure the current judging team do have maturity for that. It's not like we were sending the entries to some superficial "PC-Lamer Magazine" to compare.

It even doesn't matter if it is a new game, a ported game, a demo or even a game-improvement (aka patch). This would be a wise way to use categories: To allow more of the developed software on that year to participate. This way the msxdev would turn to be the greatest MSX game event of the year. Even greatest than it already is.

MSX2 has the big advantage that game graphics can be more polished and to be honest, I would like to see more MSX2 games - I do like to see some nice graphics every now and again. Admittedly, there are MSX1 games with excellent graphics, of which I think they're almost MSX2 games. A good example of this is Malaika.

Quote:

I still believe that the main problem for newer entries is the DISK-DRIVE! Apart from the colours, there is not much things that the MSX2 could do better than the original MSX1 standard. Sure that for the MSX2+ (plus) the history could be another ...

I do not agree. You miss a lot of things that the v9938 have and the TMS not.

more sprites
more colors
more pages
support for hw vertical scroll
support for screen splits.

Really the MSX2+ is only a small steps in gfx when compared from msx2; pratically only the horizontal scroll register.

I would like 'no restrictions'. It may be a bit harder to compare entries, but it is still possible: graphics could be great for MSX1 and poor for GFX9000. You just have to look at the specs of the game and judge graphics/sound to that. The playability, creativity, etc, could still be judged independently.
No need to equalize by restrictions. Equalize by thinking and looking at the specs of the game.

Why keeps everyone mentioning "great gfx on msx1 and poor gfx on g9k" all the time? Couldn't you imagine it's the other way around, giving the G9k an exponential advantage?

Quote:

I do not agree. You miss a lot of things that the v9938 have and the TMS not. more sprites more colors more pages support for hw vertical scroll support for screen splits. Really the MSX2+ is only a small steps in gfx when compared from msx2; pratically only the horizontal scroll register.

Except that the Yamaha MSX and probably some later home computers used the Yamaha V9938 processors too ... The extra memory was not used, sure it would be possible to upgrade the 80 columns (optional) cartridge to work with extra pages! The blink is MSX1 standard ... as the optional 80 columns off the secondary Video Processor!

In fact, on Brazil the hardware was later "upgraded" to the MSX2 and even MSX2+ 'standards' ...

Quote:

Why keeps everyone mentioning "great gfx on msx1 and poor gfx on g9k" all the time? Couldn't you imagine it's the other way around, giving the G9k an exponential advantage?

Because I make great MSX1 gfx and crappy GFX9000 gfx

Currently it seems that developers are focusing on MSX1 and players on MSX2.
If you make an MSX game these days it's more a personal thing then targeting on potential group of people. In other words developers make what they personaly like to do/see.

I personaly prefer MSX1 atm because it is easier to make good gfx (in relation to the MSX1 specs) then for MSX2 where the gfx are in a total different league (which is much harder to compete with).

Anyway. Perhaps the main message is; You want MSX2 games? Then make one!

Quote:

Quote: I do not agree. You miss a lot of things that the v9938 have and the TMS not. more sprites more colors more pages support for hw vertical scroll support for screen splits. Really the MSX2+ is only a small steps in gfx when compared from msx2; pratically only the horizontal scroll register. Except that the Yamaha MSX and probably some later home computers used the Yamaha V9938 processors too ... The extra memory was not used, sure it would be possible to upgrade the 80 columns (optional) cartridge to work with extra pages! The blink is MSX1 standard ... as the optional 80 columns off the secondary Video Processor! In fact, on Brazil the hardware was later "upgraded" to the MSX2 and even MSX2+ 'standards' ...

My consideration are only based on tech comparisons between the v9938 and tms. v9938 is far away from tms. Look at aleste series, for example and try to imagine for msx1

The music on Aleste is the same on both computers, even the FM music! I suppose that with some BIOS mode and extra memory (like in the 80 columns hardware) ... It should work just fine!

Aleste is just a mix of Zanac and Xevious, sure that Power Strike is nice, but even the weapons resemble those of the MSX1 Zanac game ...

The Blink table was implemented on MSX1, the MSX-AUDIO and MSX-MUSIC too ... sure that all of them are 'only' optionally implemented, maybe because of it their were most of the time sold on external cartridges !!!

By the way, the Yamaha VDP that is the "Real MSX Video" chip ... The TMS was used on early models, also were present on some 8-bit home computers and consoled of that time.