ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: July 1999 POTM Vote

July 1999 POTM Vote
Posted by Andy on 8 August 1999, 21:14 GMT

The nominations for the July Program of the Month have been tabulated. Please take the time to vote. As with last month, the programs from each category receiving the top three number of nominations were selected except in the case of a tie.

Update: There was a major bug in the nomination tabulation script. The nominations from last month were considered when creating the voting list. This made the voting list for this month inaccurate. I have regenerated the voting list based on the correct nomination tabulation. Unfortunately, all the votes cast on this poll had to be removed. Please resubmit your chocies based on the new list. I apologize for this blatant error.

 


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.


Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Cullen Sauls
(Web Page)

I do not think that ported games should be eligeble for POTM. Ported games show no real skill, especially when the porter is not the original programmer. The original programmer should be eligible for winning with the original program, but not for a port, because porting does not require much work. I know it doesn't because I port my TI-86 games to my TI-82, and it takes almost no time at all.
Just my opinion...

     9 August 1999, 03:07 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
NickD
(Web Page)

Good point, but think about the fact that one author might release the same game for three different calculators at the same time. No real "porting" was involved as it was the original game. What to do then?

--b00clax

     9 August 1999, 04:30 GMT


Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
brandon sterner
(Web Page)

I'd have to disagree with that. It is interesting to see how ports stand up to all games on other calcs as well as the one the calc the original was written for. I do think that ticalc should not allow games to receive a potm award then the programmer updates the game and it receives another potm award the following month.

     9 August 1999, 05:39 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
NickD
(Web Page)

But what if the ORIGINAL was initially written for several calcs? That's what I'm trying to get at here.

     9 August 1999, 05:50 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Cullen Sauls
(Web Page)

OK, so if a game is released for several calcs at one time, it should be eligible. But I don't think that games that have been released for a long time for one calc (ie: Dying Eyes) and then ported, should not be eligible. However, I do doubt someone owns ALL TI calcs (82 - 89, 92) and then his game should only be eligible for calcs that he/she personally owns...

     9 August 1999, 07:10 GMT


Assembly Shells and Voting
Dwedit

I've seen that whenever an assembly shell is updated, it often wins. If an assembly shell is updated once a month, it will simply always win...

That's bad.
But you get your choice of topping.

     9 August 1999, 09:05 GMT


Re: Assembly Shells and Voting
NickD
(Web Page)

That's good!
The toppings contain potassium sorbate.
*pause*
that's bad.
Can I go now?

     10 August 1999, 07:29 GMT


Re: Frogurt
Homer Simpson

It's actually potassium benzoate.

     11 August 1999, 08:57 GMT


Re: Re: Frogurt
akromix

How about some pottassium nitrate or pottassium permaganate and some aluminum shavings? Flash powder anyone?

     11 August 1999, 18:41 GMT

Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
John David Ratliff
(Web Page)

I think it should depend on the game.

If a game which was ported evolves into a whole new level of the game, then it should be eligible. If the game is just the same as it was on the other calc, then unless the original author wrote it, then it shouldn't be eligible.

     9 August 1999, 09:12 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Andy Selle

We don't want to step in and make all these restrictions on the POTM. The reason we introduced the nomination system is because many people didn't want us deciding what programs got voted on. In response, we decided to put it completely the users' hands. That is, you can choose any program to get nominated. If you want these limitations, your nominations should reflect it.

     9 August 1999, 15:41 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Kirk Meyer
(Web Page)

WHAT?!?!? "Ported programs show no skill." Uh huh. Maybe some ports are easy. Some are not. Games such as The Quest III for TI-86, which I ported, required quite a long time to port and in fact the 86 version is much different than the 85 version. And even if it hadn't been hard to port, it still would have taken quite a while and definitely some skill.

     9 August 1999, 20:48 GMT


Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Bryan Rabeler
(Web Page)

I think you are missing the whole point of the Program of the Month (POTM) Award. And please don't say that I don't know what I'm talking about, I was the one that thought up the idea and brought it to reality.

The award was created so new (or substantially updated) programs & games could be recognized by the TI community. It also gives programmers something to work for (modivation if you will) and to display proudly on their web sites.

Now I'm not saying that porting programs doesn't take any skill, it might depending on the program. But just because porting may take skill, that doesn't mean those programs have to be eligible for POTM. 99% of the time, ported programs are basically identical to the original program. Sure, maybe some of the code or graphics got tweaked, or the keys changed, but its basically the same program. Does that deserve an award? Did that person introduce a significant new idea into the TI community? No.

POTM is supposed to recognize original programming work and creative ideas, not merely just programming skill and work.

Why should someone who ports a popular game, such as ZTetris, Dying Eyes, or Yoshi, get such a prestigious award (well, thats up for debate), for merely just changing a few lines of code? The award should go to the original author for the original game, and ports should be excluded from the POTM nominations.

Porters don't create a new game, they just change the game ever so slightly so it runs on a different calculator. It doesn't make any sense to give them an award for that.

     9 August 1999, 22:24 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Matt
(Web Page)

Brian,
That was very nice. But I do have to agree with Andy that it is up to the ti community to vote on these games/progs. But if so many people are complaining about ported or new versions of games being given multiple POTM awards, then why do they (progs) keep getting these awards? Obviously, the majority of the people have no problem with voting for ports of different versions of a prog that has already one.
Now, as far as porters "just changing a few lines of code." What about a game that is ported from a z80 calc to a 68k calc. Im willing to say that this type of proting is basically writing the same game, but from scratch. So, what about that?
- Matt

     10 August 1999, 01:29 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Bryan Rabeler
(Web Page)

Yup, I know. ticalc.org has laid everything in the hands of the public, and they have to decide which programs get the award (I'm not saying this is good or bad. There are arguments for both sides).

The problem, for some, is that the popular games that get ported always seem to win.

Well, would "porting" a game from Z80 to 68k really be considered porting? Depends on how the porter actually went about doing it. They could either have tried to make an exact copy from scratch, or they could have coded the game in their own way, except they used some routines and/or graphics from the original game. I'm sure you can agree, this is a gray area.

However the reality is that the general public, most of the time, is probably not aware if a program on the nomination list is an original or a port (or whatever..). Its hard to remember because there are a good number of games for each calculator and most have been ported around to the other calcs. Frankly, its hard to keep them straight unless you go back and read the docs for each program.

     10 August 1999, 01:52 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Matt
(Web Page)

Brian,
Now, you bring up an interesting point. I think that it would be a good idea that the ticalc staff put a (port) or an (update) by the respective progs. That would solve the problem of people having to remember.
But I still think that sometimes ports win, because there is no other prog that deserves to win in that catagory. (Now dont bring me examples to prove me wrong. I only said sometimes.)
- Matt

     10 August 1999, 21:46 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Bryan Rabeler
(Web Page)

The solution to that would be to not put ports on the nomination list (especially that program has already won the award before).

     11 August 1999, 02:31 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Matt
(Web Page)

So what happens when the same prog that is on a z80 calc is ported or made for a 68k calc?

     11 August 1999, 04:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Bryan Rabeler
(Web Page)

You can't port programs from the Z80 to the 68K (or vice-versa). Those programs were basically written from scratch, and thus are not considered ports. However the original author still gets credit, since the person who re-wrote the code for a different CPU basically copied the original authors' ideas and such.

     11 August 1999, 05:01 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Matt
(Web Page)

But are those games allowed to win a POTM award if the z80 equivalent has already one?

     12 August 1999, 01:07 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Bryan Rabeler
(Web Page)

Just replying to Matt's comment above. I didn't want to directly reply to it, because it would break the page because the comment would be too skinny.

Anyway, if a game was "ported" (not really, but for the lack of a better term) from the Z80 to the 68K, then the game could still win the POTM award if the original game has not yet won (or any other ports of the original game).

However, if someone were to make a Tetris game totally from scratch on the 68K, and it was their own work, then they could still win the POTM, even if multiple Tetris games had already won awards on the Z80.

     12 August 1999, 15:46 GMT


Re:June 1999 POTM Vote
Matt Landry  Account Info
(Web Page)

Brian,
So how do they tell if the program was written from scratch, or "ported." Because, you yourself even said that going from z80 to 68k was basically re-writing the game.
Also, one of the big things that you are pushing for in the POTM is originality. But how can someone making another tetris be original?
- Matt

     12 August 1999, 23:50 GMT


Re: Re:June 1999 POTM Vote
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

All programs that have been "ported" from the Z80 to the 68K (and vice-versa) have to be written over from scratch, since the two languages use different CPUs. The only question is whether the "port" is actually a duplicate of another program. For example, ZTetris has been ported to the 89/92(+) and is called Tetris on the 68K. However, it had to be written from scratch. The "porter" just had to go line by line and convert Z80 to 68K. Much different than porting from the 85 to the 82 or whatever.

     13 August 1999, 02:56 GMT


Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Adam Berlinsky-Schine
(Web Page)

I have to agree here. When people vote for a port, they are usually thinking about the gameplay. For example, take Ztetris by Jimmy Mardell. If someone ported it to the TI-82 (I forget who did), people are going to vote for it because they like Jimmy's game. Not the porter. People aren't thinking "wow, that porter really did a great job porting it," they are thinking "wow, this game is cool." And the porter didn't make that game, the original programmer did.

     11 August 1999, 01:32 GMT

1  2  3  4  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2011, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer