Resource centre for ZX Spectrum games
using Manic Miner and Jet Set Willy game engines
Archive of the
Manic Miner & Jet Set Willy Yahoo! Group
messages
|
|
|
|
|
Message: 5612
Author: dunny291073
Date: 28/02/2006
Subject: Re: Quirky features and "bugs" - Daniel's views
--- In manicminerandjetsetwilly@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel"
>
Am I not a devoted JSW fan? How do you know? Because I don't follow
> 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
> 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
your "scene"? I've been a member of this group for some time now, and
have pretty much all the games released. Most are unutterable junk,
but there's some sterling work done here. If I weren't a fan, I'd not
have gotten upset.
> 2. Quirky features or bugs - nomenclature problem
Your argument is flawed. Although the Television Set was made possible
> 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.
by the existence of Quantum Physics, I do not need an intimate
knowledge of that branch of physics to be able to turn it on and watch
my favourite TV programs. Similarly for any antibiotics, painkillers
etc. I do not need an in-depth knowledge of pharmacology to be able to
take them, nor to know what they do.
> For example, being protected from arrows while standing inside Water-
No, this would be crap because you'd expect an arrow only to be
> 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.
stopped by something before it hits you. If it passes into your cell,
but you happen to be standing in a particular cell, and it fails to
kill you then that is a BUG. An arrow passing through you without
hurting is generally considered bad form in game design.
> Another example: Andrew includes "stopping under a wall by holding
Matthew Smith probably took the behaviour of his engine (and probably
> 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?
designed those features in - how else could you get past a set of
stairs?) and saw that they had "real world metaphor". I'm sorry but
being able to pass through a normally impassable wall simply because I
happen to jump at it just right is in the same category as your water
example - purely BAD GAME DESIGN.
> 3. Criticism of the use of quirky features in MM/JSW games
One may EXPECT that a game will not punish you through lack of
> 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.
knowledge. One may EXPECT that the game might reward you for aplying
higher knowledge, such as revealing a secret room (with maybe an extra
life in it) but it certainly should not stop you from playing just
because you haven't read Andrew's document on some obscure site on the
internet. I would EXPECT That the game would punish me for a lack of
intelligence - it should force me to think. Relying on the quirks does
not force you to think, it forces you to gain inside knowledge.
Again, RELYING ON QUIRKS TO MAKE THE GAME HARDER IS BAD GAME DESIGN,
AND IS PURE LAZINESS ON THE PART OF THE AUTHOR.
> b) Wanting or not wanting to become a good player
I can complete JSW (with attic bugfixes) and MM, and JSW2 on the
original hardware. I have done so. And now, I'm not a good player
because I don't know as many of the engine bugs as you do?
Is that exactly what you wanted to say there? Can you, with all your
"expert" and "advanced" knowledge, perform a similar task?
> So I would say that the rule of an "advanced" JSW game
They are not puzzles. Puzzles have a logical, if obscured, solution.
> (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.
Many of the quirks (arrows through water, impervious blocks that you
can jump through) are illogical, and the refuge of the incompetent
game designer. It screams out that the person making this game doesn't
understand how to construct puzzles effectively, and relies entirely
on "expert" knowledge to get through them.
One of the rooms in UMM requires precise timing to get through. This
is an excellent example of good design - you don't need knowledge to
do it, you need intelligence to work it out, and dexterity to execute it.
> If you don't want to and don't learn the rules it is difficult to
No, you're judging their "expert" or "advanced" knowledge. No matter
> judge you as a player. One can judge your readiness to tackle the
> challenge and the mark is "fail" but not your playing ability.
that they can complete the nightmare room blindfold - if they don't
know about your illogical puzzle solutions, they're incompetent
gameplayers.
> If there is a game based heavily on the quirky features (which "UMM"
Yes, I am - but if you think that's all I found distasteful about this
> isn't, really), dunny291073 will certainly be very critical of it.
> He is even critical of "UMM" for that reason.
game (regardless of the attribute clashes and poor graphics) then
you've not really read my posts.
The game structure itself is poor, and there's no real game in there.
> This is the point, you see that ONLY INSIDERS CAN RIGHTLY
Firstly, I'm about as far "INSIDER" into the speccy as you can get.
> 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??? :-)
Secondly, when people *ask* for our opinions then what right has
anyone to complain about them? I was fair, and I described what I did
not like about this game.
I write software that some of you may well use for your MM/JSW gaming.
I rely on people telling me what THEY DON'T LIKE. It's all very well
getting "yes, it's lovely, well done" back in shitloads of emails, but
that tells me nothing other than they've not really tried using it. If
someone comes back and tells me that "there's an access violation at
such and such an address, when I do this or that", then that means
that they have tried it and reported what didn't work for them.
It's called constructive criticism.
> 4. References to specific quotes
No, it's not an attack on Mr Broad. And a PhD gives someone the
>
> 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).
magical ability to better at text files than someone else? Better
presentation skills? Crikey, you have a really warped sense of what
education is about. Unless he has a doctorate in JSW or MM, then his
abilities at the games are likely no greater or lesser than anyone
else you're likely to meet around here.
Let's leave professional, but totally unrelated qualifications out of
this, or I'll bring my Nursing qualifications in as proof that I'm
good at JSW too.
> c) dunny291073 wrote:
I'm sorry, you must have failed to read his post. He said that playing
>
> > 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.
his game required brains, not me. therefore, if you cannot play his
games, you must not have enough brains. You following me so far?
Someone who is called "brainless" is generally...
I'm sure you understand now.
> If you are willing to learn, you play a game and fail that means,
Thanks for that - I'm obviously not willing to learn anything here.
> 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.
Not least of which I *Have* learnt that UMM is a poorly designed game
which utilises quirks and bugs in place of actual gameplay mechanics.
How stupid of me not to have gone off here, wondering if there's a
document which details how to jump through solid walls, eh? I must
just be unwilling to learn.
> Back in the 1980s, playing on a real Spectrum, you could not do with
And for those of us that like to load the games into the original
> 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.
hardware... Oh dear, we're penalised are we?
> it is in JSW if you jump from a correct position, at a right
ROTFL - a previously solid block, you mean?
> angle, you go INSIDE a block instead of landing in front of it or on
> top of it.
> Matthew Westcott wrote in "comp.sys.sinclair":
No, why not actually sit down and think about the game mechanics
>
> > 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!
instead of "how many quirks can I get into this room?" If your time is
that precious, why not invest a little of that time in some good solid
gameplay research? Matthew Smith had it in spades. Some of the newer
"remakes" of the games also show this. Many do not.
> Sorry, Matt, if you read this, I do not mean to offend you, but I
At the risk of talking for Matt,
> 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?
Not at all - I've enjoyed reading this group and playing what people
offer. UMM was billed as the greatest thing ever. It's not even close.
And why should you lot with your quirky features *punish* us that
choose not to like them?
> I hope I will have the time and desire to master the JSW64 game
I would like to see more done with the JSW64 engine. I would love to
> 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 :-)
see a worthy successor to JSW and MM. If anyone can do it, then they
inhabit this group.
And I would enjoy playing a well-designed game that makes me think.
> Well, I have written a MASSIVE post, but I had to get things off my
Rest assured, I read the lot :-)
> 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" :-)
Thanks,
D.
|
|
|