MSXdev'20 kicks off!

Wohoo!! One more year! Looking forward to seeing what type of new games people come up with!!

what about adding precise specs ?

I understand what you mean, but I also understand the MSXDev teams decision. I personally would like to see more MSX2 (and up) releases as well.
It could be a consideration to create a separate contest for such games and to let MSXDev focus on the original MSX standard.

Yes.

Some of my thoughts:

Of course that public voting mechanism was bound to fail. Solution: you've got a community right here (you do use this platform for promotion and announcements anyway..) and setting up a poll is easy, chances for abuse are a lot less. Instead of simply declaring void, you still had the chance to do it here right?

'Yeah, but not everyone has an account here, etc.': doesn't really matter, a lot of (involved) people do and technically speaking I think the result of the vote will be representative, and that's what matters in the end. AFAIC voting could also take place in a forum thread, visible, where only active, known users can vote.

Regarding the scoring: I think it makes sense and would be nifty to add the (important) factor 'originality' and/or 'ingenuity'. ATM I believe you sort of reward this using (the vague) 'extra' categories?

Anyway, cool there's a new edition. I would still reward people doing extra stuff like MSX2 support/features etc.

I do think it's a shame that a production like Shoulder Blade Overdrive wouldn't qualify / couldn't compete anymore.

It's an option to simply throw all restrictions overboard, or say it must at least run on MSX or MSX2, and just score the entries properly, taking into account what platform an entry is targeted at etc. A good, well playing MSX1 game can still win from a good looking MSX2 game. Apart form the platform's graphics capabilities (and score accordingly), you could have 'gameplay' outweigh 'graphics' (and other factors).

Kinda feels like holding on to old restrictions (for the sake of 'tradition' or something). Yeah, those do define some nice/handy boundaries, OTOH you seem to be limiting yourself, and disqualify some developers who might have some cool ideas, but can't or don't want to develop those within those imposed limits.
(2020, a new era right? )

Seeing this is the only alive MSX compo in existence, I think something to consider. I think trying to attract, and be open to as many developers as possible should be the main focus, and the most interesting to the community as a whole? Cheers :-)

It is not P1. Our rom is B3 BD16. 512x424 16bits / pixel.
We will publish it in MRC, immediately.

I understand the MSX2 complaints, but I also understand the competition organizers in their decision. First, there are very few MSX2 games submitted to the competition every year. Second, comparing games that compete with very different specs is very hard, and can be very unfair when using the type of rating system used today. So, the "open category" is complicated. The same problem will happen if doing a single unrestricted category encompassing MSX/MSX2/etc. But in any case, I was also surprised to see that category go! Oh well...

From what I see, the MSXDev competition organizers have tried different formats over the past few years, and whatever format, there is always a small percent of MSX users that are dissatisfied. So, I don't think it's an easy task to design a competition that everyone would be happy with

In other social medial channels people was proposing as a possible solution to also define a "restricted MSX2" category with some predefined basic specs, which would facilitate comparison. Other people were suggesting to have the MSX2 competition happen only every 2 years, as MSX2 games invite the devs to attempt larger projects that take more development time (and maybe that's why we see many less MSX2 entries than MSX1 entries).

In any case, I for one don't really care much about the rules. As long as there is a competition and it spurs new games, that's all that matters to me. We could argue back and forth about the details of the rules. But bottom line: there is a competition, and that's good! Not sure if I'll have the time this year, but I definitively have an idea for a game already, so, who knows

My god!. defining the difference not that much is somewhat restrictive:
TMS: 15 colour clashed colors, slow vram access, very limited hw sprite support in color and number. No scroll support
V9990: > 32 colors, no color clash, high speed vram access, blitter, good sprites.....

Pratically the only thing that V9990 and TMS have in common is the pattern mode and the ability to display sprites.
But is like to compare a Porche 911 with a Trabant saying that there is no much difference because both cars have wheels and tires....!

Yeah yeah, you obviously didn't get the point of my remark. I didn't intend to say that there is barely any difference between TMS and P1, of course there is. My point was like 'make an MSX1 game'. Then convert the tiles and sprites to P1, improve them (and change a few bits of code by much easier G9k code), and you have a game again, for G9k. That's a better upgrade than the MSX2 route, where you only choose between similar fast tiles or better looking yet slower tiles...

On msx2 you do not have to change tiles.
And how you can imagine that one can convert msx1 tiles into p1 if people are so lazy that when doing msx1/2 games the maximum effort they take is to change the palette on msx2? Sprites are most of the times left untouched.
And as usual the devil is in the details: for example have you thought that v9990 has 16 bit name table? And not 1/3, 2/3,3/3 division like on tms? If you do scrolling games this does matter.
And obviously you need to drop any v9990 feature like multilayer.

I'm glad MSXdev is back, and I'm very thankful to its team for all their effort.

At the same time, I must admit I'm a bit sad that the other MSX generations (*1) won't be represented. But I also fully agree with santiontanon that it doesn't make any sense to get aggressive and call people this or that. Only someone who get their work done know how much effort and sacrifice is necessary to finish any project like this context.

Yes, I still think that the fun-factor way more important than the machine capabilities. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here on MSX.org after ~30 years. We would just be playing any generic/lifeless FPS on a modern console.

So, IMHO it doesn't matter if it's MSX1/MSX2/MSX2+/TR. Comparing any of them to today's computers is like to compare any car from the 1920's/1930's to current cars. Yes, cars from 1930's were better than those from 1920's, but they're all very similar when compared to modern cars, right? ;)

*1: V9990/OPL4 not included in the discussion to simplify things, but only the official generations

I do not think it is a best decision. Best decision would be to "listen" to those comments about MSX2 / 2+ /TurboR and act in consideration of those comments, instead of crystallize on the same and always the only way: 'only MSX1' by taking measures to disallow even some kind of improvements when using more powerful hw.
It is not the only year that i see comments asking to open the competition on MSX2 and better computers.

Honestly if i am a Car manufacturer and sell, say my favorite model with a 3 doors body then i heard a lot of interest and people asking me to make a 5 doors version i would answer by making this model a reality.

Opening the contest to newer msx generations would not damage anyone:
if i am a msx1 fan i do not care about msx turboR or MSX2 .
However if i plan to make a kind of game that can be done only on MSX2+ the restriction is more than enough to convince me to drop all.

So, opening the competition would only increase the number of titles published.

Or the organizers are so terrified that a more open competions would lead to a dramatic decrease on MSX1 only titles?

In this case i think it should be renamed to MSX1OnlyDEV OK?

Everybody can release an MSX2 game any time. Given that there aren't many titles, you'll have a lot of attention. Don't let the MSXDev stop you

Also: if you don't like the contest, you can always organise your own. An MSX2 only competition? Ask around to see how many people would be likely to submit an entry and go for it.

Or you can keep moaning because the people that are doing things don't do them they way you'd like.

My two cents

the problem in creating a new contest is the absence of people that judge for it. that's because no one had already created a parallel contest. Otherwise things, i can bet , will be a lot different.

About that every body can release titles for msx2 it's true, but a single release lack the competition.
And fortunately there are still some people that despite the efforts made to contrast them release msx titles for newer msx generations.

It's incredible that a lot of people complain about the fact that the V9990 is underused when there are some restrictions on a MSXDEV (that IS MSX, (meaning MSX1, MSX2, MSX2+, TurboR) not MSX1!).

I kind of like seeing what people can do with low specs. To be honest, I feel that V9990, OPL4 and such don't suit a humble 8 bitter.

It doesn’t have to, but it easily leads to. Though I think really the ROM size restriction is what drives the productions to be small in scope. But if you’re only permitted 32K ROM, a single uncompressed MSX2 screen 5 image already takes up 27K of that.

Btw I kinda liked the previous suggestion of having the freestyle category every other year.

Actually, what are the exact requirements? I’m assuming 32K ROM for MSX with 16K RAM, but I couldn’t find the specifics…

*accepted .. Yes, thank you

Hmm.. yes, that's an interesting one

NB @Grauw: I didn't really have storage size/requirements in mind there, but more the scope of the project But yeah, that does easily pose a problem when you're limited to a 48 KB ROM I suppose.

The 2018 rules.

however, with a simple msx1 the situation is only a bit better, a full screen 2 image takes 12K of the 32K mentioned. Better but anyway not so light.
IMHO the ROM size restriction is even more 'stupid' that the MSX1 only restriction. Even in the '80 there where ROM bigger than that, and were more justified by the costs.

(I have only a semibroken SVI738 and I've never had a joystick/gamepad that MSX would recognize to have two buttons, but then again, I agree I'm not a serious MSX fan.)

Some thoughts... 1) MSXdev may be the sole MSX-only contest, but what indeed about ones that accept different 8-bit platforms? (Of course, this could be seen as "pushing away" MSX2 devs.) There was at least 8bitannualdev this year.
2) Maybe I'm just too impatient, but I wouldn't be very interested in sitting on a finished game for the next contest to come around next year.
3) I don't know how much more easier it is to write effectively the same game on MSX2 as it is on MSX1, but would there be more effort needed to make a better MSX2 version? (Graphics, music, code?) (Especially if the ROM size had similar space limits.)

FWIW, I am very glad that Shoulder Blade was made and released, I am very glad there will be a new MSXdev. I would still limit myself just to MSX1 and 32KB though, because I am more interested in the challenge than winning anything.

Reidrac, are you going to participate with Uchüsen Gamma?

I think I've mentioned this before in previous MSXdev editions, just like everyone's repeating the same drill every year anyway.

ROM size limits the number of game concepts, and how nice they look/sound. and how vast the game is (map size etc.).

RAM size limits the number of game concepts, and less RAM makes code/design actually harder. Which is odd, as the contest wishes to focus on small system in order to get games finished.

I think those who want to produce a game for MSX2/2+/tR will do it anyway, so let there be limitations.
After all two separate roms can be made, one inside the competition and the other outside.

Not to be nagging or pedantic or something, but isn't there a kind of double standard here? :

Quote: "RAM: 16 KB (non memory-mapped)"

Also quote: "About the ROM size, any size will be accepted as long as it does not require a ROM mapper. In other words, the acceptable ROM file sizes are 8 KB, 16 KB, 24 KB, 32 KB, 40 KB and 48 KB. The reason for this size limit is that we would like to load the games in regular MSX systems without additional hardware."

To load a > 8 KB ROM into a 16 KB MSX implies the use of extra hardware (RAM expansion/Mega RAM/flash cart) right? I.e. the organization is implicitly saying that a regular MSX system is a 64K MSX system (which doesn't add up to the 16K RAM restriction)?

Some small remarks regarding the MSXdev website: a link color other than black might help (it's e.g. easy to look over the link to the rules..) Regarding the text: the line-height is huge, and makes it (for me) hard/unpleasant to read/follow, makes the paragraphs hard to discern as well. Cheers

Btw @mod: perhaps a good thing to open a MSXdev'20 discussion thread? These news discussions become unwieldy pretty quickly..

I can't compete... I'm coding a MSX1 game, it can run on a 16K MSX1, but is a megarom (16kb ascii mapper).
In a 32K ROM It can have only 1 level

In my opinion smalls games are those in which you invest a reasonable period of time and consequently game size tend to be reduced as well, it is not related to the game size only. Okay, this is not an exact science, it depens on your dedication, goals and motivation among other things but obviously this implies that your game will usually be reduced and limited in some areas graphics, music, etc. I personally prefer to avoid any kind of limitation btw, if you are in time perfect, if not next year.

Thanks for the update!!! I will still stick to 32kb (and maybe 48kb if necessary, but I'll try to avoid it). But I hope others find this ROM restriction lifting helpful!!!

@santi I was talking about loading/launching a binary rom file into/from a 16K MSX

This is an update for Fusion-C users, I presume.

The rules have actually been more strict, and loose throughout the years..

At least the rules of MSXdev'11 (and around that year) were quite free: 64K RAM & ROM mappers (up to 128K) allowed (konami without SCC, konami with SCC, ASCII 8KB and ASCII 16KB).

Also on Twitter some people were asking for 64K rom size, so probably a good thing that limit is gone

I do have somewhat mixed feelings: the art/challenge for developers of squeezing as much stuff as possible into small storage space vs. a more relaxed setting, allowing bigger productions, but also more friendly to non (100%) ASM stuff etc, but potentially inviting to be more 'sloppy'?

Perhaps somehow 'optimization' can be rewarded? ('ingenuity'? )

I think bonus points should be given for having both decent PSG music & an enhanced SCC (or OPLL) version.

If the contest would accept MSX2 I was thinking for MSX2 entries 64K RAM would apply, max 128K or 256K ROM, and for MSX1 entries max 64K Rom? But perhaps that doesn't make sense, dunno

No problem, mister ARTRAG.

I'll stick to 32kB, but I'm excited to see some of these games that use a konami size cart. Seems overkill for anything short of Knightmare III. Why so hueg???

@shram86
I'm "working" on something of a greatly stripped-down version of the MacVentures' NES port engine. Having a 14x14-character drawing for each location is going to take a fair bit of memory (especially if I want to do it in colour). Maybe not 128K worth, though.

But if I submit something to MSXdev, I'll do my best to keep it under 32K.

Interesting development!

That should appeal to some people and makes an interesting diversion from previous editions.

Mh, but what benefit is size optimisation to us, the players, to have a few kB smaller ROMs, when developers could invest that time into gameplay features? I mean other than street cred .

Yesss! Chiptunes and beautiful Pixel Art screens are always welcome!

haha, street cred and also "fun". I find it an interesting challenge to try to figure out wways to pack as much as possible into small ROMs