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.

ARTRAG, dunno whether SM2 is a relevant model for the MSX-scene. Norakomi took quite some time as he really had to start from zero, not just regarding the game, but regarding code! Iirc his very first attempt was Basic even, and after that forummembers gave him a crashcourse on assembly. (and why Norakomi decided to take one of the hardest Konami games ever as first project is still one of the current scene-curiosities )

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'.

Yes, but perhaps MSXDev could move on and take over the whole gamedeveloping drive? Including MSX2, 2+, tR ?

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.

Well...

I agree the ones who think that the specs for the next Dev shouldn't be upgraded.

-People can't make games good enough to worth a better specifications.

-Nobody has still beaten some Konami games such as MoG. Nobody. Ok, maybe it depends on what you call a 'good game'. I think 'Bombaman', for example, is a crappy game although it has tons of colors, gfx and "musics". But nowadays, people usually forget what should be a real game: a thing that makes me have a fun time. Spectacular graphics, sounds and effects don't achieve that result by themselves.

-If you raise the specs for the Dev, only one or two entries will be finished since most people will cancel their participation.

-The lower specs, the more democratic competition: more equality between contestants. Furthermore, it takes advantage of best compatibility and others.

Greetings.

Let's move to TurboR!
just kidding

I think that also freestile should have some very clear limits
about which msx version, which rom size, etc etc

Would you admit a game that using an IDE/HD and some
audio module plays full screen videos and PCM audio?

I think it's quite MSXDev'ish to at least stick to a ROM as game medium.

As MSXdev is a yearly event. It is meant as a competition for games with dev time of max one year.
I fully agree with the initial spec of the first MSXdev's. And i has proven to bee a good furmula.

But on the other hand. We (ARTRAG and me) want to make a game that simply doesn't fit the 48kb ROM + 16kb RAM limit (esp ROM space is not enough). So we could decide not to participate and release it anyway.
But I think there still is a need to put our game on a certain "display". MSXdev is such an exellent display and probably the best for now).

This "display" will encourage others to make new games (just like me; who really stoped all MSX activities long ago but accidentally stumbled over the Cure and UU). MSXdev (and the help on MRC and ofcourse ARTRAG) got me hooked again on MSX. Thanks for that.

Even if we will be disqualified due to not being conform the specs. I still want our game to be avaiable on the MSXdev site. I don't care for winnig a Turbo-r or not (it will be difficult to split up the prize as we are living in Italy and the Netherlands ). Eternal fame will do

I don't know if anyone understands what I'm saying but I think it comes to this:

I think we need a general platform for MSX1 ROM game development: MSXdev contest + MSXdev archive + tool Archive + How to archive.
Something like "nesdev.parodius.com" + MSXdev + "www.the-underdogs.info"
This should be valueable for both MSX-scene and other retroscenes.

As an extra note: I agree there should be some limits to the development:

1. it should be MSX1
2. Medium is ROM or tape

Extra extra note:

I do want to share our game code/tools/methods etc. with everyone after completing our game. Providing these will also make it easier (for new developers) to get started on developing. And hopefully result in more entries......

Quote:

-If you raise the specs for the Dev, only one or two entries will be finished since most people will cancel their participation.

Why would that happen? And how could it? That one (MSXdev '07) didn't start yet...

Anyway, I'd go for:
- MSX1, 32kB RAM (just to make it a bit easier), 128kB ROM max
I don't think anyone will be disappointed by this and I don't think the bigger RAM size will decrease the chance of finishing entries. I think that the big increase of ROM size has more influence on that than the small increase of RAM size.

Maybe it's also interesting to do:
- V9938, 64kB RAM, 16kB VRAM, 128KB ROM (e.g.: Spectravideo SVI-738 and any MSX2 and up
or the same with 64 or 128kB VRAM. But that should then be done in parallel. The MSX1 contest rules, but the V9938 is the first "real" MSX VDP (not used on other computers), so that could be interesting as well.

First of all: I think this discussion is premature. Somehow I get the idea that, due to the cancellations, some people already deem the MSXdev'06 competition to be 'failed', which is certainly not the case. As the MSXdev team have stated several times (and previous editions have already shown): there's a lot of development action going on which has not been announced. Also, don't forget that in MSXdev'05 a few (at least one) games were entered that did not make it in time for MSXdev'04. Perhaps some of the projects that have been cancelled in MSXdev'06 will make it in time for MSXdev'07 as well. Considering the MSXdev'06 competition to be a failure now already might result in a self-fulfilling-prophecy. So lets stay positive for now, shall we? I'm sure we will see many surprising games released in the MSXdev'06 competition in the last quarter of the year.


Second, I do have to agree that a certain limitation of specifications (or other boundaries in a challenge, like MRC does with e.g. themes) help in people trying to develop a project that is doable and likely to be finished in time. If increasing the RAM specs from 16kB to 32kB makes the life of developers so much easier that more entries are likely to be expected, then that might be an interesting approach for next year. That said - I think it's good to wait until MSXdev'06 has closed though, to evaluate the amount of entries vs. cancelled entries, the quality of entries compared to previous years and to set the level for the MSXdev'07 competition.


Huey - You have a good point. Competitions and deadlines (like we used to have the fairs in the old days) are very decent boosts to motivation. I'm a bit curious on why you don't feel the MRC (with thousands of visitors and hundreds of downloads per month) to be a good platform for the distribution of these games though, as you didn't seem to consider that option in your post.

Quote:

I'm a bit curious on why you don't feel the MRC (with thousands of visitors and hundreds of downloads per month) to be a good platform for the distribution of these games though, as you didn't seem to consider that option in your post.

MRC is THE MSX portal IMHO. But it is also very general (which is a good thing). But not for this kind of information. If you put everything into the existing structure the articles/tools/games, and so on, they tend to get "lost" in the crowd...... AND I think MSXdev should have a repository for information on how to make a game.

I think MRC is there to discuss development in the forum but not for providing the technical data. Don't you guys already have enough to do?

There's a point, I don't think it's bad to have certain scene activities spread accross various sites. As I mentioned earlier, games never took of @ MRC challenges, MSXDev has built a reputation and could house the game-creating activities of the scene.

Quote:

Quote: I'm a bit curious on why you don't feel the MRC (with thousands of visitors and hundreds of downloads per month) to be a good platform for the distribution of these games though, as you didn't seem to consider that option in your post. MRC is THE MSX portal IMHO. But it is also very general (which is a good thing). But not for this kind of information. If you put everything into the existing structure the articles/tools/games, and so on, they tend to get "lost" in the crowd...... AND I think MSXdev should have a repository for information on how to make a game. I think MRC is there to discuss development in the forum but not for providing the technical data. Don't you guys already have enough to do?

About the repository, it was the original purpose of MSX Workshop: to concentrate docs, tools and apps for MSX1 game development. This has been only partially accomplished: some tech docs, including unpublished ones, some tools (WAVeR, WAV2Bit, PCX2MSX, MSXWAV, etc), some apps (asMSX) and snippets/opensource games (PONG, MINESWEEPER and more to come). Its intention is to be focused on game development, not in general development and/or pure programmation techniques.

MAP, Hans Otten's pages and others are much more complete. I learnt a lot by browsing those pages.