I'm a bit disappointed to see that recently development is mainly focused on msx1 and none on msx2.

By creating only msx1 sw and none specific to msx2 the latter will not have any dedicated sw library ever.

It's the same about speccy and msx1: because the majority of games are simply ported to msx1 the latter does not have a good quality sw library using all the possibility of a msx1.

In the same way msx2 have a lot of sw, because of it's similarity with the predecessor, but almost none msx2 dedicated.

Uhm.. there's a giant load o' commercial MSX2 games made in the early 90's and late 80's, and another load o' MSX2 games by the scene in the mid 90's. These games are usually made using screen 5, making them impossible to run on MSX1. So, exactly where did you get the impression there's no MSX2 library??

i'm referring to the present, about almost no one developing msx2 games, that push msx2 at its limits on the same order of magnitute of msx1. (please do not consider spmanbow2, it's alone....)

Well, you have 3 options:
- inspire people to make an MSX2 game just for random sake
- inspire people to join this.
- MSXdev'08 with MSXdev'07 rules (the rules being out of reach for us humble nobles tho ^^)

Our (infinite) 2nd Megachallenge entry will be an MSX2+ game, dunno if that'd suit your appetite?

Quote:

Well, you have 3 options: - inspire people to make an MSX2 game just for random sake - inspire people to join this. - MSXdev'08 with MSXdev'07 rules (the rules being out of reach for us humble nobles tho ^^) Our (infinite) 2nd Megachallenge entry will be an MSX2+ game, dunno if that'd suit your appetite?

I cannot ispire nothing, only i can express only my point of view: even if it looks strange, the major limit of msx2 is its compatibility with msx1....

MSX2+ it's too easy. At the time of msx2 the standard, the standard reached it's full maturity.

(smooth scroll in all directions, no need to use hw sprites for games, great sound caps, even on some models a more fast z80)

PingPong, which rule stops you to create a runeable MSX1 game, but if it detects a MSX2 hardware, it loads more and more files with more graphics, sounds, enables effects, enables more color, screen5 instead sc2, etc etc etc?

Quote:

PingPong, which rule stops you to create a runeable MSX1 game, but if it detects a MSX2 hardware, it loads more and more files with more graphics, sounds, enables effects, enables more color, screen5 instead sc2, etc etc etc?

screen 5 is NOT screen 2. It's very different in more and more aspects. Coding a game using screen 2 or screen5 depending on the system, is the same to code two different copies of the same game, often. Also sprite handling is different. Twice the effort to do.

The problem is not mine. (no time to code anything, especially now.) The problem is that more people are spending efforts to squeze the max from msx1. they have no more to spend for the msx2.

As you can see, there are no games that works in the way you propose, the majority of those simply switch to screen 4 to gain more sprites / scanline, or do neither this, taking advantage only of the msx2 palette....

For example, a game like GnG is simply undoable on msx1 with decent quality, so why wasting efforts to try to code it? It's not far better to choose the minimum msx configuration that can do this decently? (MSX2)
Of course, IMHO

Don't blame msxdev for being focused on MSX1. If you want an MSX2 competition, either start a new one or try to get the MRC competition to be an annual competition.

I'm not blaming msxdev. Only i think that will be correct that the same level of interest should be applied to msx2,2+/TR.

Considering msxdev & actual scenario looks like msx == msx1. This is not true. msx = {msx1, msx2,msx2+,tr}

Quote:

same level of interest should be applied

I agree. But I'm not sure if all MSX1 developers is that interested in developing for MSX2. Some are for sure and then there are probably others that are only interested in MSX2 and doesn't want to develop MSX1 games.

To be honest reading all different opinions it may make sense to either have two different competitions or create two categories in msxdev e.g.

1. MSX1 32kB ROM 16KB RAM
2. MSX2 (or higher) with some/none limitations (I leave this for people that have more feelings to MSX2)

Must say I agree with that. It's good that we have msxdev, but it also has some problems:

* all active developers participate in msxdev
* msxdev's specs are limited to msx1
* those active developers that participate in msxdev won't do anything else the entire year, because of limited time

So msxdev does boost MSX activity. The problem is that all it does boost is MSX1, which is IMHO a step backwards. It's a kind of deadlock, which is a pity. The last MSX1+ game was Manbow2, and I think the game before that was Bombaman (which is already old).

There's no blame, but msxdev has become some kind of fixture, and therefore it's so influential it's hard to stop with all this MSX1 stuff.

Shall I start an MSX1 screen0 Basic ASCII art game compo?

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..

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.

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?

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.