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.

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.

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

It's this kind of palette enhancements I'm talking about, can't be that bad, no?

Great gfx ! I want to see the full game

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..

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.

I have no affinity with MSX1 whatsoever (I started with MSX2), therefore all this MSX1 focus is kinda boring to me. I can imagine there's more people that feel the same.

It's quite a pity that all this development energy goes into the most obsolete part of the MSX spec. There's so much more than MSX1.

I don't think we'll ever form a team! ^_^

I want to stretch the possibilities and pimp a game where it can be pimped, and imho the best part is that these features would be present for every developer when the rules allow such enhancements. It seems you want to stick to pure-retro.

Maybe I have a better description for the type o' games I like to do: "Games that can technically compete in MSXdev, but are otherwise games with their own specs/aims."

@Jorito. I and others have exactly the same feeling about MSX2. In my view MSX2 was obsolete already when it was introduced. I looked briefly at MSX2 when I needed something better than MSX1 but I quite easily made decision to go with either Amiga or Atari ST (I chose the latter). So I kept on developing for MSX1 in parallel with developing for Atari ST.

If all focus was entirely on MSX2 I wouldn't have started over with MSX development or emulator development. What drives me is really the MSX1 system. I don't dislike MSX2 and I hope me and Vincent can pull something together for the MRC competition but its really MSX1 that keeps my MSX interest up.

The best solution is probably to make two categories in msxdev, one for more pure MSX1 and one MSX2 (and perhaps a third for wolf_'s pimped MSX1 games ). I definitely see that there is an interest for MSX2 and sure, why not use the leverage of msxdev to inspire more people to develop for MSX2. But imo an MSX1 category is a must.

I actually prefer to have more MSX1 games developed, because I can try them for real on my old homecomputer, and not only on a "cold" emulator

Quote:

but the architecture of the MSX1 will keep them down to earth

This is the problem. Coding a game to run on msx1, limits the richness of gfx and sound to the same msx1 level with some ( almost not relevant ) small improvement.

The only way to have a better game, is to code a different version for msx2 and above. But this requires effort (almost the same to rewrite from scratch). Thus the developers stay to the formula:

MSX1 game plus a little modified palette and sc4 for above . Pretty useless.

IMHO a more modified palette does not make the difference on msx2, neither the more sprites on line. (if a game is designed with 4 sprites/line works the same as 8 sprites on line, only a matter of limit, and flickering is a feature of msx1 and successors)

Quote:

I'm don't like this in msxdev simply because its not MSX1.

I must agree. If msxdev is for msx1 (and i'm not sure will be), the sc4/palette tricks must be avoided.

Too easy to say: 'take advantage of msx2 capabilities ', simply because can switch to screen 4 or modify palette.

Quote:

I have no affinity with MSX1 whatsoever (I started with MSX2), therefore all this MSX1 focus is kinda boring to me. I can imagine there's more people that feel the same. It's quite a pity that all this development energy goes into the most obsolete part of the MSX spec. There's so much more than MSX1.

I must agree, in my point of view i really do not like msx1 systems. (i owned one).

For me a msx1 system is like a pre-generation msx. the msx1 is mainly the reason of the very low success of msx in general in europe, due to :

msx1 vdp- extremely limited

no hw scroll, no rasterline ints, a ridiculus hw sprite support, absence of multicolor support (screen 3, why not a screen mode with blocky pixels made up of 16x16 hires pixels instead of only 4x4 ? bleah!), limited (!) I/O bandwidth, the hires screen mode that is similar to the speccy one.

As nishi said the msx should had a v9938. Even with a similar chip, however was to late. keeping the compatibility also keep bad design and original limitations. (look at the sprite subsystem)

So why keeping this restriction alive, in the past, we msx2 users have already seen this scenario made up of games that are msx1 games.

Quote:

@Jorito.. In my view MSX2 was obsolete already when it was introduced.

I must disagree. It's not true, look at the example of Amstrad CPC. this computer was a 8bit system, comes out after msx2 and got a decent library of sw & games.

The only limiting factor of a msx2 and successors is the compatibilty with the crappy msx1. In this way european coders never realized sw only for msx2 systems. Why doing this? An msx2 can run the ungly msx1 programs...

This happened in the past, (80') and is happening also today.....
As mentioned early it's the same of having a direct port from speccy game to msx1. this results in crappy piece of sw. because hide the advantages of a specific HW and keep the limits.