Resource centre for ZX Spectrum games
      using Manic Miner and Jet Set Willy game engines

 

 

Previous message		Next message

 

 

Message: 5606

Author: Daniel

Date: 28/02/2006

Subject: Quirky features and "bugs" - Daniel's views

 

Hello Everyone!

I would like to offer some thoughts concerning the discussion that
has been going on about quirky features / bugs in recent days, in
the context of "UMM".


1. Criticism and praise

I felt it was actually very nice to see opinions from people other
than the "regulars" of the Club. I find it actually quite amazing
that there are people outside of the group who are interested enough
in MM/JSW not only to play the games, but also to express written
opinions about the subject. I think it's very good!

It was also sort of "refreshing" to encounter criticism, and a
strong one at that.

Personally, I must say I have a very emotional attitude towards JSW -
I truly love it (and I imagine that many other Club members feel the
same way), and love is usually blind. So whenever I think of the
existing games, while I can still try to judge them "objectively", I
tend to be very positive in my judgements. And while a tiny little
part of it may be courtesy to other authors, on the whole it is a
genuine feeling – I /want/ to see MM/JSW things in a positive way,
and so I see them this way.

In this context, strong criticism is a refreshing experience,
because it's hearing from people who just look at things coolly.
It's a little shocking, I admit, sacrilegious, as it were, but it
may do us all some good. It's like a "bucket of cold water", to use
an expression from my native language.

Moreover, when this criticism comes from someone who is evidently
NOT a devoted JSW lover, it is not painful at all – my love for JSW
is so strong that what "outsiders" think cannot hurt me, because I
know it's them who are blind – not myself :-) . Now, if such
criticism came from one of the people who apparently share my
feelings, this would be a very serious thing…

The only problem is that in the exchange of views things may be said
just for the sake of discussion or even with the intention to hurt
the interlocutor. This, of course, would be very undesirable.


2. Quirky features or bugs - nomenclature problem

a)

There is probably very little new I can bring into this discussion,
but I cannot help presenting what seems to me is a "common sense"
approach.

By definition, a "bug" is an error or at least imperfection. It is a
negative term.

"A quirky feature" is quite a positive term in my perception.

As far as I understand the situation, those features of the game
engine were unintended by Matthew Smith, and they were not
consciously applied by him in the original games; they were not
necessary to complete the games. So back in those days, as Drunken
Master has said, it may have been justified to consider them bugs
(even though they did NOT cause any problems with the game or affect
the gameplay, either).

A number of JSW and MM remakes make conscious use of these features.
In fact, it would be impossible to complete these games if those
features were not present in the game engine.

With such conscious design, I COULD NOT POSSIBLY AGREE that these
features are bugs. They are just features of the game engine, and if
somebody doesn't like the word "quirky", they might be
called "special features" or "non-standard features" or something
else, which would sound more neutral.

This, of course, would be to satisfy the critics, but I think the
expression "quirky features" has become so familiar to and
widespread among the MM/JSW community that it would be difficult
(and probably pointless) to try to substitute it at this point.

In very general terms again, I don't think that something which is
not originally intended must be a bug. There are a number of drugs
which were invented (and first used) for some illnesses, and then it
was discovered that they were effective against other illnesses.
Does the fact that they were not meant for those other illnesses
from the very beginning disqualify them as cures for them? Not at
all. So why should "quirky features", applied consciously and
cleverly, be disqualified, if they allow to obtain interesting
challenges in the game?

Similarly, I believe that there have been a lot of inventions in the
history of the technological development of mankind that were done
for one purpose, and then successfully exploited for quite a
different purpose. Does the fact that the original purpose was
different disqualify them or make them "bugs"? Not at all. You could
actually argue quite to the contrary: that it is a glorious
achievement to take something which was accidental and use it for
constructive purposes.


b)

An interesting point in this discussion would be: what exactly IS a
quirky feature. I guess that in the discussion so far what we have
been referring to as "quirky features" has been only a group of the
more "classic" ones, such as jumping through innocent-looking blocks
(ILBs). However, JSW games exploit a variety of features of which
surely not all are "bugs" even according to 1983/84 standards.

For example, being protected from arrows while standing inside Water-
cells. Is this a bug of the engine? I would say: not. But you still
have to know that it happens to be able to pass some rooms. Okay, it
is easy enough to discover, I guess. But you could design a room
where it's not that obvious. For example: you have to avoid two
parallel arrows, and can only do it by jumping into a solitary Water-
cell above you in the middle of the room, with hardly any time to
reach it before the arrows reach you (when you jump, the lower arrow
goes below you, and the upper arrow doesn't hurt you because you are
protected inside the Water-cell). If you don't know you have
to "hide" there, and it may be very difficult to achieve timewise,
you may claim that it is impossible to pass this particular point in
the game. So then someone will tell you: "Yeah, but an arrow cannot
kill you inside the Water-cell, you have to hide there". So then you
say: "Well, I didn't know that. This game is crap!" This kind of
attitude is just unfair.

Another example: Andrew includes "stopping under a wall by holding
jump, while on a conveyor, e.g. to avoid vertical guardians" as one
of the quirky features. Then he gives the example of its use in the
original MM. So is this a quirky feature or not? Andrew also
includes the question of "jumping through ramps: when precisely you
can jump through the ramp, and when it catches you". These are
features that were used – consciously – by Matthew Smith in the
original JSW. Does it mean they are "better" than other "accidental"
features?


3. Criticism of the use of quirky features in MM/JSW games

a) Criticism and expectations

When you think about it, you come to realise that criticism is
closely related to expectations. You criticise something, because
you expected it to be better, but also because you expected it to be
different. That's exactly the case with quirky features in our games.

One may EXPECT the games NOT TO RELY on quirky features at all – I
wouldn't do it myself, but it's one of the possible attitudes. In
this case, you will criticise games which rely on them, and the
more you are convinced those features should not be exploited, the
more severe your criticism will be, like in the case of dunny291073
and Matthew Westcott.

One may also EXPECT the games TO RELY on quirky features – in this
case, you will criticise any game which does not make use of them,
because you will think that it is dull and uninteresting.

Now, I don't see any good reason why anyone should adopt either of
the above attitudes. I think that THE MOST REASONABLE AND FAIR is
the following ambivalent expectation:

"A MM/JSW game MAY EITHER RELY ON QUIRKY FEATURES OR NOT, and if it
does, it may do so to various degrees".

If this is your expectation, you will not criticise any game
strongly, because your expectations have not been let down in any
way. You can just like some games more than others, depending on how
much you like the use of quirky features, but you will never say
that a game is "abysmal" or anything like that.


b) Wanting or not wanting to become a good player

It is evident that knowledge of the quirky features is needed in
order to use them effectively (both as a player and as an author).
Therefore, someone who does not possess this knowledge is at a
disadvantage, to the point where he/she may not be able to complete
the game, not even advance very far in it. It is logical that such
person will not think the game is any good and will not like it.

However, being good/functional at practically everything in life
REQUIRES learning and acquiring skills. If you don't want to learn,
you will not be able to do things. This concerns games as well. I
generally like very easy computer games, because I don't want to
learn too much (JSW is a very special case, of course, it's
different from everything else for me). And I wouldn't be able to
play more advanced games, because I have never taken my time to
learn how to play them. But it is my choice not to learn.

So the reality is that anyone who wants to play an "advanced" JSW/MM
game ("advanced" meaning using the quirky features, as opposed to
a "simple" one where no knowledge or use of them is required) SHOULD
LEARN to do it. If you don't learn, you will not be able to play it,
and especially not to completion.

Does this create an "elitist" club of people who have learnt to play
those games? In a sense it does, I suppose. But there hundreds, if
not thousands, of such "clubs" in life, e.g. people able to play
chess, people able to play chequers, people able to play each of a
thousand of existing card games, etc.

MM/JSW games are ENTITLED to require specific knowledge and skills,
because every activity in life requires specific knowledge and
skills. Denying them this right is like saying that American
football is no good because it requires more knowledge of the rules
than European football. You don't want to learn the rules of
American football? (I don't, for example) That's fine. Go and play
European football – it's your perfect right – but don't criticise
Americans for their game being unlike yours, and accept it that
there is a group of people who want to play it, and want to master
and apply its rules. It's their right.

You either want to play according to certain rules or you don't.
It's your choice, but you shouldn't attack the rules and the people
who play by them.


c) Having an opportunity to become a good player

Now, if some people want to learn and play by the rules (which
include quirky features and other tricks), it is only fair to make
it possible and easy for them to learn those rules. Therefore, I am
VERY MUCH FOR the idea of RZX walkthroughs (in fact, I want to
create such walkthroughs for every gamma-released game in existence,
and put them on my future website, which will probably be
called "Miner Willy Central"), documents describing quirky features
and other tricks in general (such as Andrew's text), detailed
descriptions of what should be done in a specific game (such as
Andrew's text files, or my own step-by-step guide for Sendy's and
mine "JSW: Mind Control", included with the game file) and other
forms of help. I am very much against spoiling someone's pleasure,
but I think that it is only fair to give the player a solution if he
or she has searched for it themselves and haven't been able to find
it.

The same, incidentally, goes for maps, and for being able to open a
game in JSWED (going back to the discussion from a few days ago). I
would never want to spoil someone's pleasure with any spoilers. But
I believe that help should be available if somebody needs it, and
maps and opening a game in JSWED are just this kind of help.

So Andrew Broad's just-announced idea of creating a "trainer game"
is a great and very needed project. It will be a great tool, because
it will allow /everyone/ to become /initiated/ in the world
of "advanced" JSW. And then nobody can complain they couldn't
complete (another) game, because they didn't know how it worked. Go
ahead, Andrew, make it one of your priorities! Perhaps you could
also accompany the game with illustrative screenshots and an RZX
walkthrough, so that no room for doubt is left for anyone. Plus
update and expand your document "Quirky Features in MM/JSW" so that
nobody can say they cannot learn about those things :-) .

Also, if I remember well, Sendy mentioned her intention of adding an
explanation of various types of quirky features, with pictures, to
her website. This would be very helpful, too, as an alternative
source of "quirky wisdom".


d) Evaluating players

So I would say that the rule of an "advanced" JSW game
(again: "advanced" does not mean "better", it just describes those
games which consciously exploit quirky features) is: the author has
made it as challenging as possible. It is up to you, the player, to
solve his/her puzzles and overcome the obstacles that the author has
placed in front of you.

Now, there is a choice. The player can either want to play by this
rule, or not. If you accept the rule, you have to LEARN first – how
to play the game. If you don't accept the rule, you won't learn and
you won't progress in the game – but it doesn't mean the game is
crap, it just means that you have chosen not to learn. It does NOT
mean you are "brainless". It DOES MEAN you are "unwilling to learn".

If you don't want to and don't learn the rules – it is difficult to
judge you as a player. One can judge your readiness to tackle the
challenge – and the mark is "fail" – but not your playing ability.

One can judge your performance as a player ONLY if you decide to
play by the above rules. If you have learned the game engine
mechanics and honestly tried to complete the game, and failed – you
could probably be called not-a-very-good-player (to be polite). So
what? Nothing. You may be still be a great person, you are just not
good enough a player to complete this particular game (or perhaps
you still haven't tried hard enough). You have failed as
an "advanced" player. Everybody fails at something, nobody is
perfect.


e) Evaluating games

Now, does this hypothetical failure of yours mean that the game is
crap? I would say: generally not. However, I would say it's a matter
of statistics. Easily a game could be designed which would be so
difficult – only because of the guardian movement, with no quirky
features whatsoever – that almost no-one would be able to complete
it (of people earnestly trying to achieve it), and if so – only
after hundreds and hundreds of tries.

I would say that statistically this hypothetical game is TOO
difficult. If 95 per cent of experienced players, trying honestly to
finish it, cannot do it, I would say the game is "objectively" too
difficult. Does it make it crap – probably I would have to at least
say that it is not a very good game, if it is suitable only for a
very limited group of people who are willing to spend their time on
those hundreds of tries required to get it right at last.

This goes back to the "expectation theory" presented above. I think
that it would be fair to say that the general expectation of most
players is that games SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSSIBLY DIFFICULT, because
then they miss their purpose – what's the point of torturing
yourself trying the same next-to-impossible manoeuvre hundreds of
times? And yet, even having said that, I have to recognise that
there may be a small group of people – the "crazy" ones, perhaps –
for whom this kind of "torture" is exactly what they want from a
game.

So it's a matter of statistics, really. If a proper survey were done
to show how many people still interested in the ZX Spectrum want
MM/JSW games WITHOUT any quirky features, and how many WITH quirky
features, we could at least know what the proportions are. If it
were 50-50, it would be very unfair to criticise either group, or
games based on their preference. If it were, say, 70-30 (whichever
way), you could probably talk about majority and minority
preferences. If is were 90-10 or 95-5, we would probably be entitled
to talk about an "elite" or, on the contrary, "a bunch of weirdoes",
or something like that and, of course, about a general preference.

Now, coming back to real life, I think that quirky features are not
THAT difficult to master. So I do not really see a problem with
them, especially in a game like "UMM". Come on, guys, it's not such
a big deal to learn what they are all about!


f) Criticism versus tolerance

Honestly, I think I understand the point dunny291073 is making, even
though I do not agree with his opinion. For example, I personally
don't like tricks in JSW games which are based on invisibility. If I
have to manoeuvre through a room based on invisibility, I load the
game into JSWED, change the colours of the cells, and see my way
around. I do not even try to solve the puzzle, because I don't like
it. But, on the other hand, I love puzzles based on the quirky
features.

So my preference is: invisibility tricks – no!, quirky features –
yes!

dunny291073's preference evidently is: quirky features – no! (I
wouldn't know about invisibility).

If there was a game ALL based on invisibility, I would probably be
very critical of it.

If there is a game based heavily on the quirky features (which "UMM"
isn't, really), dunny291073 will certainly be very critical of it.
He is even critical of "UMM" for that reason.

The point is, however, that I would not be criticising
the "invisibility" game so harshly only because I don't like it. I
might express my lack of preference for this type of game, but I
would not be saying it's crap, because I would admit the possibility
that there are people out there who are actually fond of struggling
with invisible obstacles.

This is the point, you see – that ONLY INSIDERS CAN RIGHTLY
CRITICISE ANY SYSTEM. If I want to learn about quirky features, and
play a game which exploits them, and think it's not very good – I
can say it's not very good, because I am playing by the rules, and
while looking "from the inside" I judge the game not to be very
good. But if somebody doesn't even want to learn how to work with
quirky features, and criticises a game for using these features – it
is VERY UNFAIR CRITICISM, because it does not criticise this
particular game, but EVERY GAME WHICH USES QUIRKY FEATURES. It
attacks the very idea of using quirky features itself – and who are
you, dunny291073 and Matthew Westcott and others like you, to tell
US that WE MAY NOT draw our joy from exploiting quirky features both
as authors and players??? :-)


4. References to specific quotes

Which brings me to addressing some specific points (now that I've
worked myself up :-) ).

a) dunny291073 wrote:

> As it is, it's another elitist snub to those of us that haven't
> read and understood Dr Broad's cryptic clues in detail.

This sounds like a vicious attack on Andrew Broad (and a PhD he is,
too). His documents can hardly be called cryptic (even though the
purely technical side of his various explanations is way beyond me;
but that doesn't concern the subject of quirky features). What's
more, NOBODY has to learn about quirky features by just reading his
document devoted to the subject. A much better way is by playing his
(and other people's) games, and perhaps reading documents
accompanying them if need be. From my personal experience, I can say
that it was his "JSW: Lord of the Rings" which opened my eyes to a
lot of quirky features, and it was by playing it that I was
learning, plus by referring to Andrew's text file. And it was a lot
of fun for me. Incidentally, the easy version of this game was very
useful, because many a time I would look at the easy version and it
would give me a hint as to where the player should go, and then it
would make me think about the hard version and say: "No, there must
be a way here!", and then I would jump through an ILB or something.

Partly because of this, and partly because of other considerations,
I must admit I am not opposed at all to the idea of creating
parallel "easy versions" of "advanced" games for people who still
want to enjoy MM/JSW but not really learn the game mechanics. I am
not keen on doing it for my games (because I prefer to spend my time
and energy on other JSW-related activities), but in principle I am
not opposed to creating "easy versions" at all.


b) dunny291073 wrote:

> The fact that you have to run through four or five screens each
> time you get a game over (said game-over is because you've not
> stumbled upon the right solution) is insane. Any feature of the
> engine should be an extension of the control method, not an
> exploit of it's failure to catch all possible situations that it
> may find itself in.

I'm not sure I understand well what you mean by "control method".
But if you are referring to "right-left-jump" controls, I would say
that the way the game engine works is indirectly a part of the
control method, because while you are using the controls, you have
to think of what will happen, taking into account the peculiarities
of the game engine.

If try to jump over a space longer than possible, you will fall to
your death. You have to know how the game engine works in order to
know that the jump is impossible. But nobody will tell you this is a
special feature you have to learn about. And yet you have to learn
about it, but it's so basic that you are not even paying attention
to the fact that you are learning it. Okay, jumping through an ILB
is a little more "advanced", but is it such a big deal, really, that
people should be moaning about it? One could argue that there is no
difference between knowing how many blocks (how far) Willy can jump,
and knowing what would happen if he jumps through an ILB. Both
things refer to the game engine, only one is simple, and the other
one – "advanced". And knowing how the game engine works is a part of
the controls.


c) dunny291073 wrote:

> What that does is say "I'm smart enough to have designed this, and
> if you can't figure out which bug I've exploited then you're not
> worthy of this game".

(big snip)

> However, you've just insulted pretty much all the people who found
> themselves struggling with the game. "You're brainless because you
> can't play my game". Way to go there.

Why would you make it a value judgement? Saying that someone
is "worthy" or "unworthy" of a game doesn't make much sense to me.

One is either
- willing
or
- unwilling
to learn the rules of the game (including how the game engine works,
and all its features).

If you are unwilling, you play an "advanced" game without learning
and you fail, you are NOT "brainless" – as explained above – you are
just UNWILLING TO LEARN.

If you are willing to learn, you play a game and succeed – well done!

If you are willing to learn, you play a game and fail – that means,
IMO, that you are not an exceptionally brilliant player. However,
before we arrive at this conclusion, you have to LEARN the game
mechanics first. And I feel that all the criticism so far has come
from people who ARE SIMPLY NOT WILLING to learn.


d) dunny291073 wrote:

> So the first thing you lot do when a new MM/JSW game is released is
> reach for the snapshot button? Or the POKEs sheet?

> Crikey, how would you lot have gotten through any of the games
> back in the day? :-)

You could consider this from the point of view of the "expectation
theory" presented above.

Back in the 1980s, playing on a real Spectrum, you could not do with
games what you can do today playing on an emulator (like save and
reload snapshots).

So one might argue that today's games CAN be more difficult than
games designed in the 1980s, because the way players can (which
doesn't mean, of course: have to) tackle them is different.

This said, I think that games were much too difficult in those days,
a lot of them practically impossible to complete without cheating.
But wasn't that a conscious policy to an extent: people had to use
POKEs, and they had to find them somewhere, so they found them in
specialised publications, so they bought those publications, so
business was good for the publishers of those publications...


e) Matthew Westcott wrote in "comp.sys.sinclair":

> Honestly, the reason Manic Miner is such an enduringly brilliant
> game is that you can pick it up instantly - the game mechanics are
> intuitive.
> It may just be a bundle of pixels, but those pixels translate into
> real world metaphors - jumping over deadly spikes, riding on
> conveyor belts, collecting treasure. There is no real world
> metaphor for an Innocent-Looking Block, so if you build puzzles
> based on them, you're breaking a fundamental rule of game design.

It is probably stupid to enter into this kind of argument, but just
for the heck of it: I wouldn't agree with you, Matt. In real life a
lot of things depend on the /angle/ at which you do things, and the
best example is probably skimming stones (when they bounce off the
water). You choose a wrong angle – you don't get any results. And so
it is in JSW – if you jump from a correct position, at a right
angle, you go INSIDE a block instead of landing in front of it or on
top of it.

The fact that going through some innocent-looking blocks dumps you
through to the platform below is probably more difficult to compare
with something from "real life". But you say yourself:

> "And before anyone points out that there's no such thing as an
> amoebatron in the real world either - the difference is that you
> don't need to know what an amoebatron is to understand that it's
> something nasty to be avoided"

Similarly, you don't need to know why jumping through a specifically-
placed ILB dumps you down, you just need to know that it's a
phenomenon which happens, constantly, regularly and unfailingly.
In "real life", I don't know how gravity works, but I know I am
subject to it and have to live accordingly. Also, I don't know how
it works exactly, but I know that if I jump onto the water surface
from a considerable height, and do it flat on my back or belly, I
will get hurt, but if I jump legs first (or head first, but I'm not
very good at it), I will be okay. Jumping into the water IS my real-
life ILB experience.


f) Sendy wrote:

> I will say this though, and I may have said it before, the MM/JSW
> scene needs a few more layman-accessible games which involve no
> expert shenanigans at all. Needs it.

Matthew Westcott wrote in "comp.sys.sinclair":

> This sort of thing [using an ILB as a trick in the game]
> makes me want to grab everyone in the MM/JSW community by the neck
> and bang their heads together screaming "IT'S NOT A FEATURE, IT'S
> A FUCKING BUG!!!"

You see, Sendy, I would not want to waste my precious time
preparing "layman-accessible" games for people who have this kind of
attitude. My time is simply TOO FUCKING PRECIOUS!

Sorry, Matt, if you read this, I do not mean to offend you, but I
just think you are very intolerant – denying US the right to enjoy
the quirky features, which, as explained above, can in no way be
considered bugs these days – and intolerance breeds intolerance. You
seem to think we are a bunch of idiots who do not understand
reality. Well, are you really so sure you do?

Apart from this, I am not entirely convinced about this "need",
Sendy. Of the games released last year, "Jet Set Willy in Paris" is
a beautiful, atmospheric game based on a solid theme. It is simple,
easy and does not require any knowledge of the quirky features
whatsoever (perhaps just one at a very early stage of the game, but
I've never heard anyone complain about it, simple to figure out as
it is). Did this wonderful game receive any attention from
the "laymen"? Did it provoke any positive reactions? Did any of
the "laymen" and "outsiders" really care? Similarly "Bizarre". It's
simple, straightforward, atmospheric and easy, too. And what kind of
reaction did it get apart from the circle of "insiders"?

Mind you, "JSW: The 2005 Megamix" is a game with some quirky
features (introduced in some of the rooms of my design – not in the
rooms designed by other authors), but on the whole it is very
traditional in the sense of NOT relying on quirky features, which
are scarce, and most difficult moments could probably be solved by
non-experts by trial-and-error (such as jumping from every possible
position). And yet the game got very few comments or responses,
because I think that to JSW "regulars" it seemed uninteresting,
because there was little novelty in it, and the "outsiders" probably
didn't even know of its existence. So if new "simple" games are
released, they may share its fate. The "involved" JSW/MM community
will not care much, because it's "nothing new", and the "laymen"
will not really care because they generally don't care, do they?

[this bit may sound a little bitter, but it's not really the point;
the point is to give "The Megamix" a little publicity in view of the
intended SE :-) ]


g) Sendy wrote:

> But people will have their opinions. Igor, you should really just
> make what /you/ want to make and not worry what other people think
> too much.

I hope I will have the time and desire to master the JSW64 game
engine some day. However, before I do, I would like to design a game
which would make perfect use of the original game engine, pushed to
the limit. So one day (not any time soon) I may release
an "ultimate" JSW48 game, and then perhaps I will get criticism for
not making it as advanced as it could be made with the JSW64 game
engine. And then I will respond with the above quote from Sendy :-) .


h) DrUnKeN mAsTeR!!! wrote:

> (...) this is pretty much useless info but I had to get it off my
> chest hahahaha!

Well, I have written a MASSIVE post, but I had to get things off my
chest as well. I hope you will all forgive me, and if you have got
this far reading it, you are the real "ZX Heroes" :-)


Daniel

 

 

	Back to the Yahoo! Archive
Previous message	home page	Next message