Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Looks like we need some notes about MSX too.
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=458992#458992
It's easy to miss because of the variety of machines, so every time it should be verified explicitly that the ROM and the machine belong to the same (or compatible) region.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
Looks like we need some notes about MSX too.
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=458992#458992
It's easy to miss because of the variety of machines, so every time it should be verified explicitly that the ROM and the machine belong to the same (or compatible) region.
How is this different from the usual NTSC/PAL console/game scenario on systems like NES/SNES/etc?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
feos wrote:
Looks like we need some notes about MSX too.
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=458992#458992
It's easy to miss because of the variety of machines, so every time it should be verified explicitly that the ROM and the machine belong to the same (or compatible) region.
But this is for BizHawk, not openMSX.
It is also c64. I'm just posting it here because the rule is relevant.
Mothrayas wrote:
How is this different from the usual NTSC/PAL console/game scenario on systems like NES/SNES/etc?
C64 is an exception from these, just because it's hard to know what region the game belongs to. For regular consoles it's easy to know what region you are emulating, just by checking a simple option in the emulator. For MSX it's harder, you have tons of machines, and you have to research the one used in the movie. I don't know how hard it is to obtain verified info on every game release, but I'd presume it's not as easy as for consoles. This all should be sorted out somehow.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
C64 is an exception from these, just because it's hard to know what region the game belongs to. For regular consoles it's easy to know what region you are emulating, just by checking a simple option in the emulator. For MSX it's harder, you have tons of machines, and you have to research the one used in the movie. I don't know how hard it is to obtain verified info on every game release, but I'd presume it's not as easy as for consoles. This all should be sorted out somehow.
I don't see how checking MSX firmware used is any different from checking firmware for any other console, such as BIOSes for more modern systems. It would be useful to document information on MSX firmware and what regions known firmware dumps/hashes are for, but it's not really a special situation. Asking where the MSX firmware nms8250_basic-bios2.rom is from is no different from asking where the PSX BIOS SCPH7502.bin is from.
In any case, the MSX situation here is not really comparable to the C64 situation at all, and even if that were the case, this is a topic about C64 handling in BizHawk, not MSX handling in openMSX. To discuss that further, create a separate topic in the appropriate area.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Please split the posts so we don't lose them, I'll ask Quibus these questions later.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Zupapa made an interesting choice with Blagger. And I fully understand his choice too.
The region of an MSX is usually quite clear. But not always 100%.
The region of an MSX game is not always so clear. First of all, there is no region protection at all, except for one single game (Metal Gear JP contains explicit code to check for a JP MSX model).
The whole point of MSX is that all software runs on all MSX models (with the proper specs like having enough RAM).
That doesn't mean a TAS will sync from one machine to the other, though. The implementation of BIOS routines may have slightly diferent timing, there may be disk drives connected that initialize first and most of all, some MSX'es run at 50Hz interrupt (PAL machines) and some at 60 Hz (NTSC and PAL-M machines).
And for MSX2 games and up, the video chip has a register in which you can set it to output PAL or NTSC (this means switch between 50 and 60Hz interrupt in practice). Some games write it to force a certain interrupt frequency.
As most (practically all?) MSX games run on the interrupt, the game speed will depend on the interrupt frequency.
In the case of Zupapa's Blagger it's even more interesting. The game was written in the UK, where we have PAL machines. So most likely, the game was developed on a PAL machine. However, the game runs fine on machines of other regions, like a Japanese MSX machine.
Originally, Blagger was released on cassette tape. Microcabin made a release in Japan of the game on ROM cartridge. Same game, same game code (they did alter a few texts here and there and so, but there is no technical reason they had to change the game code), different medium. The advantage of this ROM is of course that it loads instantly. A lot nicer to watch than the full cassette getting loaded (which may take quite a while).
Zupapa used the ROM version (I think for the reason I mentioned) but decided to TAS the game on a EU machine. This is a good choice, as will be clear now: the game was actually developed on such machines.
However, that rule says: play region X games on hardware of region X. I understand this is to prevent abuse of glitches due to region differences. On MSX, this abuse is very unlikely. At least I have never seen or heard of bugs that appear due to different regions (other than wrong characters being displayed on screen for instance).
Some games do behave different on different region machines. A couple of Konami games show Japanese texts and title graphics on Japanese machines and English ones on non-Japanese machines. But it doesn't affect the actual game play.
Technically, the Blagger run of Zuapapa could most likely sync on the cassette version of the game if the events of the replay would be replayed at the right offset.
As such, I find it unfair that his Blagger run is rejected. A disrespect for his work.
That's my 2 cents. I hope the objective information here helps the discussion though :) If you have any questions, please ask and I'll do my best to answer them.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Quibus wrote:
The whole point of MSX is that all software runs on all MSX models (with the proper specs like having enough RAM).
What is the proof for this determination?
Doesn't this other point outright debunk it?
Quibus wrote:
First of all, there is no region protection at all, except for one single game (Metal Gear JP contains explicit code to check for a JP MSX model).
Quibus wrote:
And for MSX2 games and up, the video chip has a register in which you can set it to output PAL or NTSC (this means switch between 50 and 60Hz interrupt in practice). Some games write it to force a certain interrupt frequency.
I've heard that some arcade systems/games are like that as well.
Quibus wrote:
In the case of Zupapa's Blagger it's even more interesting. The game was written in the UK, where we have PAL machines. So most likely, the game was developed on a PAL machine. However, the game runs fine on machines of other regions, like a Japanese MSX machine.
But was it actually intended to be ran on a Japanese MSX machine?
Quibus wrote:
Originally, Blagger was released on cassette tape. Microcabin made a release in Japan of the game on ROM cartridge. Same game, same game code (they did alter a few texts here and there and so, but there is no technical reason they had to change the game code), different medium. The advantage of this ROM is of course that it loads instantly. A lot nicer to watch than the full cassette getting loaded (which may take quite a while).
Perhaps this indicates that the cassette was never intended for Japan?
Quibus wrote:
However, that rule says: play region X games on hardware of region X. I understand this is to prevent abuse of glitches due to region differences. On MSX, this abuse is very unlikely. At least I have never seen or heard of bugs that appear due to different regions (other than wrong characters being displayed on screen for instance).
It's not just about abuse of glitches. It's about possibly running the game in a way it was not necessarily intended to run. We want our TASs ran in the most legitimate way possible. That means excluding running games on platforms they were not intended for.
Quibus wrote:
Some games do behave different on different region machines. A couple of Konami games show Japanese texts and title graphics on Japanese machines and English ones on non-Japanese machines. But it doesn't affect the actual game play.
At least this indicates that those games were intended for those distinct MSX machines.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The whole point of MSX is that all software runs on all MSX models (with the proper specs like having enough RAM).
What is the proof for this determination?
It's the whole idea of the MSX standard. Write software for the standard, and it will run on any other computer that also adheres to the standard, no matter the brand. The standard contains information about regions and such, but there is no standard per region.
Please refer to http://map.grauw.nl/resources/system/msxtech.pdf This is the MSX Technical Databook, (part of) the official spec of the original MSX standard.
Of course it is technically possible to write software that does not run on all models, but that was not the intention of the MSX standard.
Nach wrote:
Doesn't this other point outright debunk it?
Quibus wrote:
First of all, there is no region protection at all, except for one single game (Metal Gear JP contains explicit code to check for a JP MSX model).
It's one single game. A very clear exception. For some reason they didn't want Metal Gear JP to be run on non-JP machines. (Don't ask me why.) But this is not applicable to any other game as far as I know. Even the Metal Gear release with English texts works fine on Japanese machines. It doesn't contain that check at all.
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
In the case of Zupapa's Blagger it's even more interesting. The game was written in the UK, where we have PAL machines. So most likely, the game was developed on a PAL machine. However, the game runs fine on machines of other regions, like a Japanese MSX machine.
But was it actually intended to be ran on a Japanese MSX machine?
Who knows? In practice, I think they expected it to run only on Japanese MSX machines, as they made Japanese packaging and such and probably only sold it in Japan. But the game will run just perfectly on any MSX machine. In fact, if you run it on a 50Hz machine, the game runs exactly as intended (or better put: expected) by the original authors.
Remember, the game wasn't written by Microcabin. They just released it on cartridge in Japan for the Japanese market. Same game, different release.
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
Originally, Blagger was released on cassette tape. Microcabin made a release in Japan of the game on ROM cartridge. Same game, same game code (they did alter a few texts here and there and so, but there is no technical reason they had to change the game code), different medium. The advantage of this ROM is of course that it loads instantly. A lot nicer to watch than the full cassette getting loaded (which may take quite a while).
Perhaps this indicates that the cassette was never intended for Japan?
The cassette runs fine in Japan. And even on Japanese MSX computers. It just runs a bit faster, the machines having the 60Hz interrupt frequency. The same goes for the ROM. It's just the same program and runs the same as the cassette. Just loads a bit quicker.
In Europe, almost all MSX software was released on cassette. In Japan, most MSX software was released on ROM cartridge. I don't know why, but I'm pretty sure that this was the reason they put it on ROM cartridge for the Japanese market. It was just what they were used to.
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
However, that rule says: play region X games on hardware of region X. I understand this is to prevent abuse of glitches due to region differences. On MSX, this abuse is very unlikely. At least I have never seen or heard of bugs that appear due to different regions (other than wrong characters being displayed on screen for instance).
It's not just about abuse of glitches. It's about possibly running the game in a way it was not necessarily intended to run. We want our TASs ran in the most legitimate way possible. That means excluding running games on platforms they were not intended for.
"Intended" is hard to determine with this game. All I can say is that the original developers (being from the UK) probably developed it on a PAL machine. And as such it makes it the most obvious to run it on a PAL machine, as was done by Zupapa.
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
Some games do behave different on different region machines. A couple of Konami games show Japanese texts and title graphics on Japanese machines and English ones on non-Japanese machines. But it doesn't affect the actual game play.
At least this indicates that those games were intended for those distinct MSX machines.
Following this reasoning, it indicates that these games were intended for "Japanese machines" and "non-Japanese machines".... right? :)
I think it's more that they thought it was cheaper to have a single ROM for all markets.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Quibus wrote:
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
The whole point of MSX is that all software runs on all MSX models (with the proper specs like having enough RAM).
What is the proof for this determination?
It's the whole idea of the MSX standard. Write software for the standard, and it will run on any other computer that also adheres to the standard, no matter the brand. The standard contains information about regions and such, but there is no standard per region.
Please refer to http://map.grauw.nl/resources/system/msxtech.pdf This is the MSX Technical Databook, (part of) the official spec of the original MSX standard.
Thanks for this.
It is important to note though, that even if there is broad compatibility, it doesn't mean something intended for one area and created for what was popular in one area was intended in anyway for another area, especially if crucial differences are then involved.
For example, we should expect games made for MS-DOS 3.3 to also work for MS-DOS 5, as future compatibility was intended. But a game a made for MS-DOS was certainly not intended for DR-DOS.
Quibus wrote:
Nach wrote:
Doesn't this other point outright debunk it?
Quibus wrote:
First of all, there is no region protection at all, except for one single game (Metal Gear JP contains explicit code to check for a JP MSX model).
It's one single game. A very clear exception. For some reason they didn't want Metal Gear JP to be run on non-JP machines. (Don't ask me why.) But this is not applicable to any other game as far as I know. Even the Metal Gear release with English texts works fine on Japanese machines. It doesn't contain that check at all.
Yes, but it does indicate that not necessarily every game was intended for everywhere. It could be they added the check because previous games they made lacked it, and they didn't like seeing Japanese designed edition being sold elsewhere by third parties. And if such a concern existed with one company, it could apply to others as well, even if they didn't do anything about it.
Quibus wrote:
Remember, the game wasn't written by Microcabin. They just released it on cartridge in Japan for the Japanese market. Same game, different release.
The fact that they created a different release for Japan shows that they didn't intend their original release to be used in Japan.
Quibus wrote:
"Intended" is hard to determine with this game. All I can say is that the original developers (being from the UK) probably developed it on a PAL machine. And as such it makes it the most obvious to run it on a PAL machine, as was done by Zupapa.
This I think we can agree on. It's further bolstered by the fact that they made something specific for Japan, which may mean that the version in question was not primarily intended for NTSC (even though it does not preclude it).
Quibus wrote:
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
Some games do behave different on different region machines. A couple of Konami games show Japanese texts and title graphics on Japanese machines and English ones on non-Japanese machines. But it doesn't affect the actual game play.
At least this indicates that those games were intended for those distinct MSX machines.
Following this reasoning, it indicates that these games were intended for "Japanese machines" and "non-Japanese machines".... right? :)
Correct.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
It is important to note though, that even if there is broad compatibility, it doesn't mean something intended for one area and created for what was popular in one area was intended in anyway for another area, especially if crucial differences are then involved.
I don't know any examples of such crucial differences. Do you?
Nach wrote:
Yes, but it does indicate that not necessarily every game was intended for everywhere. It could be they added the check because previous games they made lacked it, and they didn't like seeing Japanese designed edition being sold elsewhere by third parties. And if such a concern existed with one company, it could apply to others as well, even if they didn't do anything about it.
All their following games didn't have this check either... but OK, we're speculating about concerns of companies here. Getting off-topic, right?
Quibus wrote:
The fact that they created a different release for Japan shows that they didn't intend their original release to be used in Japan.
No, I don't agree. As I said in my previous post, the motivation to create a ROM release for Japan was that most MSX software in Japan was released on ROM. It has nothing to do with the intension of the original release.
Except for the format, they also put Japanese texts on the box. Pretty good idea for the Japanese market, right? But the game itself is just the same.
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
"Intended" is hard to determine with this game. All I can say is that the original developers (being from the UK) probably developed it on a PAL machine. And as such it makes it the most obvious to run it on a PAL machine, as was done by Zupapa.
This I think we can agree on. It's further bolstered by the fact that they made something specific for Japan, which may mean that the version in question was not primarily intended for NTSC (even though it does not preclude it).
The reason they made a version for Japan has nothing to do with NTSC vs PAL. That should be clear by now. It only has to do with packaging and the preferred format (ROM) for that market. This is proven by the fact that the game is just the same and the original release also runs fine on Japanese MSX computers. In exactly the same way as the ROM does.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Quibus wrote:
Nach wrote:
It is important to note though, that even if there is broad compatibility, it doesn't mean something intended for one area and created for what was popular in one area was intended in anyway for another area, especially if crucial differences are then involved.
I don't know any examples of such crucial differences. Do you?
The point isn't whether the crucial differences exist, the point is whether we can say with certainty there are no crucial differences with how the TASer is TASing the game compared to using an original console.
Quibus wrote:
All their following games didn't have this check either... but OK, we're speculating about concerns of companies here. Getting off-topic, right?
It's not off-topic, it goes directly to the point as to whether there may be crucial differences because companies did not do enough testing on enough hardware variation. But yes, my various point are speculation. The speculation is also what we want to avoid with our publications. We want to ensure they are as legitimate as they can be.
Quibus wrote:
The reason they made a version for Japan has nothing to do with NTSC vs PAL. That should be clear by now. It only has to do with packaging and the preferred format (ROM) for that market. This is proven by the fact that the game is just the same and the original release also runs fine on Japanese MSX computers. In exactly the same way as the ROM does.
That I agree. I'm not worried about television standards as much as I am worried about subtle platform differences that may delegitimize a submission which uses a configuration where there's a degree of chance was not anticipated by the creators of the software in question.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The point isn't whether the crucial differences exist, the point is whether we can say with certainty there are no crucial differences with how the TASer is TASing the game compared to using an original console.
In openMSX you emulate a specific MSX machine. The goal of the emulator is to be as closely as possible to that original specific MSX machine. So, I don't see your point here...
Quibus wrote:
The speculation is also what we want to avoid with our publications. We want to ensure they are as legitimate as they can be.
So, my point for MSX is: a run on any officially released MSX computer is always as legitimate as it can get.
Quibus wrote:
I am worried about subtle platform differences that may delegitimize a submission which uses a configuration where there's a degree of chance was not anticipated by the creators of the software in question.
This is always possible. Not related to region, but related to BIOS or other differences between the different MSX models (e.g. memory layout). But I don't know examples of this, other than games outright crashing. You never really know which exact model the game was developed on.
The question is, since the moment openMSX was approved: what do you want to do with all these different models? It is theoretically possible to make a faster TAS on a different MSX model.
That's why I then proposed to use a single standard machine, so runs can be compared (the Panasonic FS-A1WSX was then the proposal).
I think we need a rule something like this: if you want to obsolete/improve a run that already exists you MUST use the same MSX model with the same BIOS. Exception could be that the gameplay is obviously better (clearly no model differences are exploited).
HOWEVER, I am just told on IRC that such a rule isn't necessary and that the existing rules are perfectly capable of handling MSX, without having to talk about different MSX models that exist. So, that's fine then! :)
All in all, I still think that Zupapa's submission should not have been rejected. I see no argument whatsoever that would justify that. The above discussion only makes it clearer to me, as the rule that was referred to when it was rejected was not intended for this case, I think.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Quibus wrote:
Nach wrote:
The point isn't whether the crucial differences exist, the point is whether we can say with certainty there are no crucial differences with how the TASer is TASing the game compared to using an original console.
In openMSX you emulate a specific MSX machine. The goal of the emulator is to be as closely as possible to that original specific MSX machine. So, I don't see your point here...
The same MSX machine the player back in 1984 would have used to play a game in question?
Quibus wrote:
So, my point for MSX is: a run on any officially released MSX computer is always as legitimate as it can get.
That is your opinion. How do we know this is the opinion of the audience at large?
Quibus wrote:
Not related to region, but related to BIOS or other differences between the different MSX models (e.g. memory layout). But I don't know examples of this, other than games outright crashing. You never really know which exact model the game was developed on.
The fact that such cases exist show that concern for potential audience claiming illegitimacy of a particular combination is warranted.
Quibus wrote:
The question is, since the moment openMSX was approved: what do you want to do with all these different models? It is theoretically possible to make a faster TAS on a different MSX model.
That's why I then proposed to use a single standard machine, so runs can be compared (the Panasonic FS-A1WSX was then the proposal).
If there can be a definitive machine to be considered for games made to be sold in particular areas, I'm not against enforcing those.
Quibus wrote:
I think we need a rule something like this: if you want to obsolete/improve a run that already exists you MUST use the same MSX model with the same BIOS. Exception could be that the gameplay is obviously better (clearly no model differences are exploited).
Those are already the rules. Movies intended to obsolete something must always do more than just changing things which the players in-game have no control over.
Quibus wrote:
All in all, I still think that Zupapa's submission should not have been rejected. I see no argument whatsoever that would justify that. The above discussion only makes it clearer to me, as the rule that was referred to when it was rejected was not intended for this case, I think.
I don't know enough about that sub at the moment, but based on our discussion, if your depiction of the situation is accurate, then I agree.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
As I mentioned, my biggest issue is, do we have some authoritative source of info about every MSX game release where we could check what we're looking at? The lack of such resource caused c64 to become an exception from the PAL/NTSC rules.
If we can know what region a game is designed for, it's fine, we just check. What if we can't know that?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
In openMSX you emulate a specific MSX machine. The goal of the emulator is to be as closely as possible to that original specific MSX machine. So, I don't see your point here...
The same MSX machine the player back in 1984 would have used to play a game in question?
Who can tell? As the game could have been played on any MSX in 1984...
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
Not related to region, but related to BIOS or other differences between the different MSX models (e.g. memory layout). But I don't know examples of this, other than games outright crashing. You never really know which exact model the game was developed on.
The fact that such cases exist show that concern for potential audience claiming illegitimacy of a particular combination is warranted.
I am still very interested to see a first example of this. So far: none.
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
The question is, since the moment openMSX was approved: what do you want to do with all these different models? It is theoretically possible to make a faster TAS on a different MSX model.
That's why I then proposed to use a single standard machine, so runs can be compared (the Panasonic FS-A1WSX was then the proposal).
If there can be a definitive machine to be considered for games made to be sold in particular areas, I'm not against enforcing those.
It's quite an arbitrary choice but yes, it's pretty easy to link machines to areas, as the area is in the machine itself. It's harder to tell which machine should be used for which game though... See further on.
Nach wrote:
Quibus wrote:
All in all, I still think that Zupapa's submission should not have been rejected. I see no argument whatsoever that would justify that. The above discussion only makes it clearer to me, as the rule that was referred to when it was rejected was not intended for this case, I think.
I don't know enough about that sub at the moment, but based on our discussion, if your depiction of the situation is accurate, then I agree.
I see it like this. UK folks created a game in 1984 on their UK 50Hz hardware. A company in Japan released the game also in Japan, on cartridge format. Playing the game on a 50Hz machine is like playing it how the developers would have played it. It's just that the format chosen was the ROM and not the cassette tape. But that is a good choice, because it's a quick load.
The ROM game on a 50Hz machine is the best combination to play this game. The fact that the ROM was only released in Japan is irrelevant: the game itsel was released everywhere and originally developed on a 50Hz machine. Playing it on a JP machine would be less logical than 50Hz if you ask me.
feos wrote:
As I mentioned, my biggest issue is, do we have some authoritative source of info about every MSX game release where we could check what we're looking at? The lack of such resource caused c64 to become an exception from the PAL/NTSC rules.
If we can know what region a game is designed for, it's fine, we just check. What if we can't know that?
You can definitely not very obvious.
Some cases:
- a game is in Japanese language only. Easy: use JP region
- a game in English and Japanese (the Konami games). Obviously meant to run on both JP and non-JP regions. So what do you do? Look at the country of the manufacturer? Konami JP created it, so prefer a JP machine (giving JP texts)?
- a European game that switches the MSX2 to 60Hz. Run on a European MSX2? Or a Japanese MSX2? Does it even matter?
- like Blagger: a UK game released on cartridge for the Japanese market... I'd say: run the ROM (for convenience) on a EU MSX (for most authenticity)
- the reverse also exists in many ways: a Japanese ROM game released in Europe on cassette... I'd say: prefer the original JP ROM.
More examples?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Doesn't sound like a clear cut to me, dunno if that is even possible here.
What I don't have doubts on is that we should use emulator settings and dependencies that match the emulated game. But the case of this platform is now even closer to the C64 situation IMO: we just have to check the game and how it runs, as well as look for the relevant info on the web. But if some release only works on EU machines, we should allow it if it uses a PAL machine and looks like a PAL release. And those should be obsoleted by NTSC runs when such are done.
Figuring out originality is hard and is based on assumptions, so the only way to make it safe is to just prefer NTSC unless there's a compelling reason not to.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Doesn't sound like a clear cut to me, dunno if that is even possible here.
Indeed, it's not always 100% clear.
What I don't have doubts on is that we should use emulator settings and dependencies that match the emulated game.
But the point is that you can't always easily match it.
But if some release only works on EU machines, we should allow it if it uses a PAL machine and looks like a PAL release. And those should be obsoleted by NTSC runs when such are done.
There will be hardly anything that only works on EU machines and there's only one title I know that works on only JP machines. There are no such things as "PAL releases" or "NTSC releases" (although technically, as the PAL with 50Hz gives more computing time per interrupt, it is possible to make something that only works on 50Hz. But the only thing I remember that does that is some cutting edge demos.)
Why should 50Hz runs be obsoleted by 60Hz runs?
Figuring out originality is hard and is based on assumptions, so the only way to make it safe is to just prefer NTSC unless there's a compelling reason not to.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
To both questions: because C64 is resolved that way. NTSC is just our tradition. There are exceptions, but those have compelling reasons to exist. So yeah, if MSX games will always work on NTSC, I don't even see reasons for PAL MSX TASes.
Don't ask me why NTSC is traditional, we've had so many arguments about that tradition recently and it hasn't changed.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
And a good reason is not the general rule that we're discussing the whole time? So if a game is obviously created in Europe (and not even released in Japan - even though the game would run fine on a Japanese system, just with different speed), it should be run on a 50Hz machine?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
The main reason is the fact that we can't always know the release info for sure. And yeah, site staff just prefers NTSC. That's all I know.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Hmm, that would be a bad reason if you ask me... "Just liking it". It leaves nothing to discuss.
Anyway, my point is, if you do know the release info for sure, why would you prefer NTSC?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Ask Moth.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
The site has historically preferred NTSC over PAL for a few reasons:
• In most cases, it is the original release, and PAL releases or conversions came later.
• It's also the most popular release in most cases. Most games sell better overall in NTSC regions than PAL regions. The site's audience, though diverse worldwide, is also largely from NTSC regions. In general the audience will be more familiar with NTSC releases and their pace etc., than they will for PAL releases.
• The framerate difference between NTSC and PAL means that, generally, NTSC games are faster and smoother than their PAL counterparts, and therefore are better and more entertaining to watch.
• For older consoles like the NES, PAL conversions are notoriously poorly converted, with issues like messed up sound pitch, or physics differences resulting in additional glitches.
Not all of these reasons will apply in every case, but it's common enough to set a general standard for the site as a whole.
There is some dispute on this, but that's another topic.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
For some MSX games, these reasons apply. But for some they obviously do not apply. One by one:
1. For MSX there are no separate PAL/NTSC releases/conversions. It only depends on the machine you run the game on what you get. Still, I would be fine with running games developed in Japan on NTSC/60Hz machines. But on the other hand, games developed in Europe would thus be more logical to run on a 50Hz machine.
2. See previous point.
3. That could be true. But people familiar with the games will find a typical European game run on an NTSC machine 'run oddly too fast'.
4. N.A. for MSX games.
