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: 5625
Author: Daniel
Date: 01/03/2006
Subject: QF discussion - Daniel's reply to dunny291073
I can see some people are getting fed up with the discussion that
has been going on. If this is the clear preference of the majority,
I will not pursue it from my point of view, either. However, I felt
I should still offer some explanations and replies after
dunny291073's penultimate post.
dunny291073 wrote:
1.
> Rest assured, I read the lot :-)Thank you. I appreciate your devoting your time to read my message :-
) .
2.
dunny291073 wrote:
> And why should you lot with quirky features *punish* us thatNot at all. I never said that everybody must like quirky features.
> choose not to like them?
Quite to the contrary.
The message I was trying to convey and still am, in fact is a
CALL FOR TOLERANCE. A call for recognition that for a part of the
MM/JSW community the so-called "quirky features" of the game engine
(henceforth referred to as QF), who other people consider to be
bugs, constitute an important part of the game, and that this part
of the MM/JSW community find pleasure in designing puzzles and
obstacles making use of these features, and then find pleasure in
solving those puzzles / overcoming obstacles as players.
I am not trying to imply at all that every member of the MM/JSW
community, or every fan, or whatever you want to call us, must like
and appreciate these features. I understand that a part of us simply
don't like them.
However, I am calling for tolerance, because I think that
criticising a game simply because it exploits QF is not fair
criticism. It effectively means that critics deny their pleasure to
a part of the MM/JSW community only because they see the topic of QF
differently.
I would NEVER criticise a game for the lack of QF, saying: "It's so
dull because there are no QF in it", or something like this. It
would be unfair criticism, IMO.
Similarly, I OBJECT to anyone criticising a game only because it has
QF. I believe that such criticism shows a lack of tolerance and
interferes with my right to create and enjoy a certain type of games.
That is why in my previous message I suggested a reasonable and
fair IMO "expectation formula", which I will now rephrase as
follows:
"A MM/JSW GAME MAY EITHER EXPLOIT QUIRKY FEATURES OF THE GAME ENGINE
OR NOT. Conscious use of quirky features or lack thereof shall not
be a reason for criticism of the game."
Can you agree to such formula, dunny291073 and everyone else
interested?
3.
dunny291073 wrote:
> Firstly, I'm about as far "INSIDER" into the speccy as you can get.I NEVER said you were not an insider into the speccy. I implied that
you were NOT an insider into the group of people who like QF. You
admit it yourself, don't you? You think QF are bugs, you don't want
to learn about them, you think they should not be exploited in the
game design (because it's bad design) and you think games designed
with their use are not good. So you are not an insider in this
particular group of people.
My point was and I maintain it that the use of QF should be
criticised, in a constructive way, ONLY by people who like them and
play / design games with them.
If I know nothing about, say, tennis, I cannot criticise it in a
constructive way. I am not an insider, I don't know how it works, I
have no knowledge which would allow me to undertake constructive
criticism. I could just say: "Tennis is crap". But this would be
just useless, destructive criticism.
The same happens with QF. If you are not "into" them, you can only
say: "They are illogical bugs which should not be used in the first
place". But again, it's destructive, harmful criticism.
4.
dunny291073 wrote:
> Secondly, when people *ask* for your opinions then what right hasYou are perfectly right here. Nobody who wants to hear someone
> anyone to complain about them?
else's opinion should protest when this opinion is negative.
But:
5.
dunny291073 wrote:
> I was fair, and I described what I did not like about this game.It's true, but it's not the whole truth. You ATTACKED the whole
concept of QF and games based on them or using them to a certain
extent, and I perceive it as an attack both against myself
personally because I enjoy playing such games and also designing
them and against a good portion of the MM/JSW community who share
my preferences. This is why I responded the way I did, and I still
keep writing. And this is why I am asking for TOLERANCE. I am NOT
telling you, or anybody else: "You must not design games without QF
because they are bad game design". But YOU are practically telling
us at least that's the way I perceive it "You must not design
games /with/ QF, because they are bad game design". That's why I
perceive your comments as unfriendly and your criticism as
destructive please see the next point.
6.
dunny291073 wrote:
> I write software that some of you may well use for your MM/JSWYou are right in this, absolutely. However, the problem is that your
> 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.
criticism of QF is DESTRUCTIVE, not constructive.
Your criticism would be constructive if you learned how they work,
played a game and then said: "Look, in room X if you jump through
the left-side ILB you fall down into the room below, where you get
killed multiple times on entry". Or: "Having 3 Water-cells in room Y
in which you can hide from the arrows makes the game too easy. I
suggest you eliminate the middle one". This would be constructive
criticism, just as the one that comes from Andrew Broad after his
playtesting of various games, and from other people as well.
But you just basically say: "This whole QF thing is just bad game
design. Don't use it!"
This is like saying to you, without really using your
software: "This program is not done the way it should be. You'd
better design another one, but without using the principles you used
when you designed this one", or something like that. This would be
nasty, destructive criticism IMO.
7.
dunny291073 wrote:
> Relying on the quirks does not force you to think, it forces youWhile it is certainly true that relying on QF forces you to
> to gain inside knowledge.
gain "inside" knowledge, it is NOT true that it does not force you
to think. A lot of times you have to really think hard to find a
solution to a puzzle involving QF. The best recent example of this
is, IMO, "Manic Scribbler" a delightful set of puzzles based on QF
and also on what would be considered "normal" features of the game
engine (conveyors, crumpling floors, etc.).
8.
dunny291073 wrote:
> I can complete JSW (with attic bugfixes) and MM, and JSW2 on theDo you mean you can complete JSW, MM and JSW2 WITHOUT any POKEs
> 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?
other than the bugfixes?
This question aside, I do not really feel entitled to judge you as a
player. But since you've asked, I will say this:
- If you can complete the original games without the infinite lives
POKE, I would say you are a very good player. I admit this
honestly :-) .
- In case of MM/JSW remakes which I have called "advanced"
meaning "using QF in a conscious way which makes it necessary to
make use of QF in order to complete the game", I think that we both
agree that these games require:
- prior knowledge (of QF or "bugs", as you would say);
- the ability to apply this knowledge in practice;
- all the other skills necessary in any MM/JSW game.
If it is your choice not to acquire the above-mentioned prior
knowledge, at the moment of playing an "advanced" game (and I
repeat: "advanced" doesn't mean "better" to me, it's just a
descriptor) you lack this knowledge. Therefore you will not be able
to complete the game successfully.
From this perspective, "in the category of the so-called 'advanced'
MM/JSW games" and in this category ONLY you are NOT a good
player. You are not a good player, because you lack the specific
knowledge required for this particular category of games.
To put it bluntly: if we take a JSW game specifically-designed to
exploit QF puzzles and we both play it, and I can complete it
swiftly, but you can't, because you don't know what to do with the
QF, then indeed IN THIS PARTICULAR CATEGORY of games you are not a
good player, or not as good as I am, because you do not know as many
of the engine features (or "bugs", as you would say) as I do. But it
was your choice not to learn them, so why be angry about it?
Now, this does not mean AT ALL that you are not a good player when
it comes to "non-advanced" MM/JSW games (that is, ones which do not
use QF and do not require prior knowledge) or any other games.
Moreover, as I stated in my previous message, it means that you are
not a good player *in this particular category* out of your own
choice.
If I perceived your reaction correctly, you seemed angry as if you
had felt insulted. Why would you be, honestly? You admit yourself
that you don't want to learn the tricks relating to QF. So it's your
choice. If I don't want to learn chess, and somebody says I am not a
good chess player, I cannot hold it against him/her because truly
I am not a good player, but it's not because I am unable to become a
good player, but because I have *chosen* not to become one. Of
course, it would be a different story if I *tried* to become a good
chess player and failed. Then if somebody pointed out I was not a
good chess player, I would feel hurt (even though the person would
still be right in what he/she was saying). But if I don't even want
to learn, I would never get offended by someone just describing the
actual state of things.
9.
dunny291073 wrote:
> (...) if you think that's all I found distasteful about this gameI have read your posts posted in this Group. I have chosen to
> ["UMM"] (regardless of the attribute clashes and poor graphics)
> then you've not really read my posts.
concentrate on just one aspect of your criticism the one I felt
touched my own games as well, and my general vision of MM/JSW games.
10.
dunny291073 wrote:
> Am I not a devoted JSW fan? How do you know? Because I don'tWe have a definition problem here, I guess. Let's try to clarify it:
> follow 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.
I admit it may be understood from my message that I consider you "an
outsider". I admit that this is a lack of precision in my language.
I did this probably because your original comments were published on
a different forum than this Group, weren't they?. But I admit I
should not have called you "an outsider".
At the same time, I never said you were not a "devoted JSW fan". I
suggested that you were not "a devoted JSW lover" and that you were
someone who "apparently did not share my feelings", which I had
earlier described as "love for JSW".
I also mentioned that "love is usually blind". Parting from this
assumption (which you may question, of course), and taking into
account what you have just written about most JSW remakes
being "unutterable junk", I still maintain that you are NOT a
devoted JSW lover. Because if you were, you would never think of
most games as "junk", you would look at them with eyes full of love
and think that it was great that they existed and how much you liked
them. It's just like with babies. Most people have very warm
feelings towards babies not because they are smart, beautiful or
healthy, but simply because they are, because they exist. Similarly,
a "devoted JSW lover", IMO, will never think most games
are "unutterable junk" he/she will like the existing games simply
because they exist.
Please note that I do not intend to express either criticism or
praise with these statements. I do not imply that a "JSW lover" is
better than a "JSW fan" or vice versa. I merely try to be consistent
with terminology and I imagine that most people reading this will
think I'm nuts anyway :-) .
In fact, I am VERY PLEASED to hear that you consider yourself to be
a "JSW fan" or even "a devoted JSW fan". Honestly! I think it's
great that JSW has many fans, even if they do not see various issues
related to this topic the way I see them.
(The only problem is, on second thoughts, that you may be a fan of
the original MM/JSW/JSW2 you have mentioned these three games
but NOT of the remakes. If this were the case, I could not honestly
say I am pleased with such situation.)
11.
dunny291073 wrote:
> No, it's not an attack on Mr Broad.If it was not, then I needn't have reacted the way I did.
However, I thought I perceived irony in your language which I felt
was directed against Andrew, who after all has done so much for the
development of MM/JSW games. You talked about his "cryptic
clues". "Cryptic" is something "mysterious and difficult to
understand", and I thought - perhaps erroneously - that you were
implying that Andrew consciously makes his information difficult to
understand which I believe is not true.
I may have been wrong in this perception. However, you have just
said "(...) it certainly should not stop you from playing just
because you haven't read Andrew's document on some obscure site on
the internet". The word "obscure" means "not known to many people".
So you are saying that Andrew's site because you are evidently
referring to it is not well-known at all. That's strange, taking
into account that you define yourself as a "JSW fan" or perhaps
even "a devoted JSW fan". I would say that everyone SERIOUSLY
interested in the subject of MM/JSW REMAKES MUST have come across
Andrew's website after a short search in Google or wherever (so
perhaps after all you are a fan of JSW but NOT of the remakes). So
your calling Andrew's website "obscure" is another little attack
against him and his work IMHO.
12.
Responding to your arguments about quantum physics, TV and so on, I
have to say they have nothing to do with what I had written about.
My point was that the mere fact that something was discovered (or:
came into existence) accidentally does NOT disqualify it. The QF of
the JSW game engine are something that may not have been planned in
any way. They appeared by accident (or by a programmer's mistake,
but it's still an accident) 20 years ago, but today they are used
consciously to achieve specific purposes. That's all.
13.
A number of times you use the expression "bad game design". You also
say that something is "generally" considered bad game design and
elsewhere advise me to invest some of my time in "some good solid
gameplay research".
Well, I don't know what "general" rules you are thinking of, but no
matter what they are, I will say: they DO NOT MATTER, because MM/JSW
games have THEIR OWN rules.
For you it is "bad game design" if an arrow doesn't kill you when
you are hiding inside a Water-cell. For me it's not, it's just the
way the game engine works.
You say it is "illogical" that the player is able to jump through
some blocks. I just accept it as a part of the game mechanics. A
part of a system, which evidently you don't want to accept.
And so on.
14.
dunny291073 wrote:
> And for those of us that like to load the games into the originalYes and no, depending on which meaning of "penalised" you are really
> hardware... Oh dear, we're penalised are we?
using. Certainly you are not being punished for breaking any rules.
It's just that a game written especially FOR emulators may not be
SUITABLE for a real Spectrum with its limited possibilities of
controlling the game simply because it's too difficult.
I do not really advocate conscious creation of such games, but I see
nothing particularly wrong with it.
And as for your argument it's like a Spectrum 48K owner saying to
John Elliott: "Why did you design those new 128K JSW game engines? I
cannot load the new games into my hardware any more. Am I being
penalised or what?"
15.
dunny291073 wrote:
> Can you, with all your "expert" and "advanced" knowledge, perform[that is, complete JSW (with attic bugfixes), MM and JSW2 on the
> a similar task?
original hardware]
Just to satisfy you and to avoid accusations of avoiding giving
answers, I will say this:
In my younger days, I probably completed MM on the real Spectrum (a
Timex, in fact) without the infinite lives POKE. I honestly can't
remember very well, but I think I completed it.
I completed JSW with the POKEs which are necessary to fix the bugs
and with the infinite lives POKE. I don't recall if I tried to
complete it without the infinite lives POKE, but I probably didn't.
I completed JSW2 with infinite lives POKE. Before that I had played
it for a very long time without any POKEs (which I didn't know) and
probably completed about 80% of it in this way.
Personally I am satisfied both with my "historic" and current MM/JSW
skills. This said, there are probably a lot of people out there
possibly including you, dunny291073 who may have better reflexes
and co-ordination when it comes to avoiding guardians, timing jumps,
etc. than myself. In this sense you are better players than I am. So
what?
Daniel
|
|
|