MSXDev'07 specs - discussion

viejo_archivero : what you are proposing for 2007 edition is actually a come-back to the 2005 edition. You can have indeed the same good results than in 2005 but on the other side, more ambitious projects or specific MSX2 (and higher) projects will never participate.

There's one thing that should be more clear for everybody : we start the contest in mars or april and the developers have about 9 months to create a finished product. For very ambitious projects (or for personal reasons in some cases), it's not enough but the developers can perfectly begin their work in 2006 and participate only in 2007 or 2008 (so, they have really more time !!!).

But to give a positive sign for these very ambitious projects, the rules must be very different (1st option) or allow to divide the contest in 2 sections, one for the 'classic' contest, one for the 'extended' contest (2d option).

I should prefer the 2d option and as more ambitious projects are generally MSX2 (and higher) projects, the 'extended' contest should be a MSX2 (and higher) contest. It has also the advantage that the 'classic' contest should be the continuation of the successfull option, initiated by pitpan, what's very important if we want to keep the initial spirit alive. But let's open the doors for exclusive MSX2 (and higher) games with higher specifications by creating the 'extended' contest.

The problem is indeed not to create a battle between MSX1 and MSX2 (and higher), but to promote the creation of new games on both platforms. The 'classic' option is a good one, but it is also source of frustation for some developers. If we continue only with the 'extended' option, than we can fear bad results what concerns the number of new games. So, the only solution to get simultaneously many new games and absence of frustation is to combine both options.

JJ: I picked the 3 largest posts as they were the most informative and summarizing about the actual subject. And yes, I ignored you because you are ignoring whatever I write, twisting it into your own perception and in the end became slightly insulting even. Now, I've a thick skin, but these were enough reasons not to quote you for this forumthread. No-one blames you for quality of written language, but some ppl did notice that language seems to be a barrier in this thread. In order not to get the wrong idea from one's post, try to read it over a little more often before you assume to have understood its content. Tnx.

So, on with the the double contest idea. It could be a solution, it could be a failure. I don't think MSX2 as base competition is much required, many 'high-end' ppl are participating because they find it funny to see how good their GFX would be with the fixed MSX1 palette. That's a challenge on its own. If these ppl would have to join the high-end contest, only because the low-end contest has reduced specs again, then some of the charm is lost I think.
Sofar the solution I see is simply to allow 2M roms and 32/64kb RAM, and leave it up to the developer how much would be used. No-on forces anyone to fully use 2M/64k. Why 2M? Nemesis and Shalom are 2M.. afaik the biggest games on MSX1 from Konami. So from that pov: having a 2M game is perfectly legal, it's perfectly MSX1. The proposed RAM is here only to make life of development teams easier. Don't forget that the difference between 16kb and 32kb (or 64kb) is that the developers must take a lot more efforts in systemcode and general design. This all takes precious time for a game which is large enough already to finish in time. I'd refer to GhostwriterP's comment somewhere in the end of the newspost-discussion.
Quibus already calculated the chance a user has not more than 16kb RAM is quite low, and that was only based on produced msx types, not on quantities, and certainly not on active use.

So, what if the contest *is* split into 32/48+16 MSX1 and freestyle MSX2? MSXDev could enhance its position from 'MSX1-pushers' to 'game-pushers'. This is something MRC hasn't been able to do in all their challenges (results were mostly demos)! MSXDev has built-up a reputation already so it's not unthinkable that MSXDev would be the central game-pushing organisation within the MSX-scene. Ofcourse two questions will arrise:
- is this what the MSXDev team wants?
- does this give the MSX scene a bump to actually create MSX2 games? Little game entries in former MRC challenges could also mean that MSX2-gaming is less popular than we think.

In its origin, as I explained above, MSXdev main objective was to boost the MSX1 scene. It was dead: many years passed without a single game published for the first generation computers. Therefore, in the present moment I should consider MSXdev as a success. A good amount of quality games are nowadays published each year, both inside and outside MSXdev. The first generation MSX scene is alive and kickin'.

It's no longer my business.
Now I'm just a contestant and supporter of the contest, but it's up to the new MSXdev Team to decide the future of MSXdev. Of course, as a first generation freak, I'd like to keep the MSX1 door open.

But I want to highlight again that it's just my opinion, as sensefull and/or senseless as anyone else's.