Disappointed about msxdev

Ambassador_ (10109)

09-02-2008, 21:48

The specs have never been limited to MSX1/psg, it just had to work on it. But it was never forbidden to:
- have an enhanced msx2 palette
- switch to sc4
- use fm/scc

Heck, I'm sure it's even allowed to split up a megarom into 2 parts: 32kb for the msx1 version, 96kb for the msx2 version on screen 5. As long as the game runs on MSX1. The MSX1 version will be judged, and everything else is worth a bonus. It would be a bit odd to forbid anything beyond the minimum specs.. would it really be forbidden to add an MSX2 palette and the few lines of code that does '38 detection? Wouldn't make much sense to me..

Van dvik

Prophet (2200)

09-02-2008, 21:51

I think some active developers (not sure about the ratio) actually don't care as much about MSX2 and it would be unfortunate to them if msxdev became an MSX2 competition. I don't say that we don't need an MSX2 competition as well but it almost seems like the complaints are more about jealousy that MSX1 has been flourishing the last couple of years and MSX2 has been quite stagnant. I don't think the solution to get more MSX2 development is to change msxdev rules to include MSX2 specs. Lets hope MSX2 developers participate in the upcoming MRC competition instead.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (10109)

09-02-2008, 21:59

dvik: but Dev'07 was MSX1 spec. I don't know where you get this impression that Dev turns into an MSX2 compo, but it's still an MSX1 compo, and I expect it will remain to be an MSX1 compo. My first MSX was a Toshiba HX10 and even that ugly brick had 64k RAM. Conclusion? MSX1 models had various amounts of RAM, but 64k was surely not futuristic nor a pimp-car. So, 64k ram in the specs is fully legal if you ask me. Then, ROM size. Konami made 2M ROMs for MSX1, so a 1M spec for MSXdev is very reasonable, keep in mind that some of Konami's best MSX1 games are MegaROMs as well. I'm not saying we're all doing Konami games, but at least the game format is legally MSX1. Bonuses? Nem3 has an MSX2 palette (minor, but still there), many of their MSX1 games had SCC sound. Still it all worked on MSX1, and in their architecture they actually *were* MSX1 games.

So, again: where do you get the assumption that Dev is turning into an MSX2 compo?

Van dvik

Prophet (2200)

09-02-2008, 22:04

By allowing more extensions and giving more focus to them the minimum specs get less importance. One good example is the Lotus game. I didn't see anything that indicated that the sound got penalized because the songs more or less requires SCC to sound ok. The MSX2 palette of BeTiled is another good example. Imo the palette totally changes the appearance and I think that not only gave bonus points but it also increased the overall score. I'm happy that a clean MSX1 game won though.

And each year the rules are made more and more flexible so if that development continues msxdev will be an MSX2 competition in a couple of years.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (10109)

09-02-2008, 22:16

I'm sure it won't become MSX2, I know Viejo too well for that. It may be that bonus enhancements remain to be legal, but the architecture of the MSX1 will keep them down to earth. It's not like some shooter like Nemesis is simply a Nemesis on MSX1, a Space Manbow on MSX2 and an X-Tazy on G9k.. , one just can't do that, fundamental design differences. Reasonable (concerning the development!) enhancements are MSX2 palette (perhaps some alternative tiles), sc4 sprites, and sound enhancements. All these won't require much of a rewrite of the MSX1 code, so the fundamentals remain intact.

Van dvik

Prophet (2200)

09-02-2008, 22:27

Yeah you said that quite a few times now. Just because its easy to add sc4 tiles or sprites or sound enhancements doesn't necessarily make it a reasonable addition or a good argument to be part of the competition. I simply don't think your ideas are that good on this point and I prefer msxdev to be more authentic with the MSX1 era.

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (10109)

09-02-2008, 22:42

Ok, between my last post and this one I've been Polka'ing this example here from scratch (tho the ideas are basically based on Montana John)

Above the MSX2 palette, below the MSX1 palette
pub.unreal64.net/boor/msx1vsmsx2.png
It's this kind of palette enhancements I'm talking about, can't be that bad, no?

Van dvik

Prophet (2200)

09-02-2008, 22:45

Great gfx ! I want to see the full game

Van wolf_

Ambassador_ (10109)

09-02-2008, 22:49

So, why are you so opposed to this? It's not like it's a totally different game, it's just some extra shades using colors that are otherwise ugly as hell or otherwise never used. In total there are 3 extra shades: darker yellow, darker blue and dark green. And those darker shades are truly welcome here, it's not my fault Texas Instruments picked their colors from the local candy store..

Van dvik

Prophet (2200)

09-02-2008, 22:56

I'm don't like this in msxdev simply because its not MSX1. The beauty of the graphics has nothing to do with it. Of course its nice if developers include these type of extensions but I don't think it should be part of the judging. Its kindof the same argument as you made earlier that it should be MSX with certain enhancements allowed. You also put some restrictions on the entries. Its just that we prefer different restrictions.