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

September 1999 POTM Results
Posted by Eric on 21 October 1999, 07:08 GMT

The POTM vote for September has been completed. Please feel free to view the results. We also remind winners that they can request an animated POTM screenshot to display on their website. Congratulations to all the winners!

 


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: September 1999 POTM Results
Andrew Magness  Account Info
(Web Page)

Way to go YOSHI!

     21 October 1999, 07:18 GMT

Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hasn't Yoshi already won before?

     21 October 1999, 07:26 GMT


Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Andrew Magness  Account Info
(Web Page)

This is Yoshi 89/92+ Yoshi 83 has won before

     21 October 1999, 07:33 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

What's the difference (besides the new platform)?

     21 October 1999, 07:38 GMT

Yoshi 89
ajorians  Account Info

It is in upward view. And the background. It is basically the same as on the 86 and stuff. Although, remember columns on the 86 and 83. That is what the Yoshi is on the 86 and 83. Did you see columns on the 89, It looks really great.

     21 October 1999, 14:34 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
David Phillips  Account Info
(Web Page)

It's 68k versus Z80. So it's a complete rewrite no matter how you look at it. Even if the same author coded it (I didn't look) it's still a different game.

     21 October 1999, 17:31 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Sure, its a complete rewrite, but its the same game. I guess the way I look at the POTM, its supposed to recognize new and innovative games that come out for a particular month. But the way its turned out, it just keeps honoring the same games over and over again. I imagine that when all these TI-83 Plus ports come out, we'll see ZTetris, Galaxian, FallDown, etc. winning the POTM all over again.

     21 October 1999, 17:58 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
DOZIEDO  Account Info
(Web Page)

Blah blah blah, yada yada yada, does it *really* matter, Yoshi kicks ass... err... butt either way...

     21 October 1999, 21:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yes, we already know that - its won the POTM many times before. Do we really need it to win again and again to keep telling us it kicks ass? No. :) Give the other programs a chance...

     22 October 1999, 00:04 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Killer2  Account Info
(Web Page)

Actually, you have no point whatsoever. If I'm not mistaken, it _isn't_ the ticalc.org staff who give out the POTM award, it's the ticalc.org community.

Check again. We're the ones telling ourselves Yoshi kicks ass over and over. =)

-Miles Raymond

     22 October 1999, 03:52 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

That's what I said, "we", not "ticalc.org staff". Read my comment again. :)

     22 October 1999, 04:04 GMT


Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
PrattBratt  Account Info

Yoshi is just a game. Someone was able to emulate a Z80 based computer, give us an entire new library of games to play, and he didn't win! Whats up wit dat???????

     21 October 1999, 17:58 GMT


Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hey, it came in second place. :) But that is a major flaw in the current POTM setup, games almost always win. It doesn't really recognize the best or most innovative program, it recognizes the most popular program/game.

     21 October 1999, 18:11 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Erich Oelschlegel  Account Info
(Web Page)

I think this was because of the animated screenshots for each game. Yoshi had an animated screenshot that allowed for somebody to make an opinion without ever playing the game and making a real choice. If you want equality among selections, either give them all screenshots or take them all away. Another thing: I have never heard about ZX Spectrum before Tezxas came out. I think a lot of other visitors to this site might share the same background. That might be why Tezxas didn't win based on its innovativity.

~ferich

     21 October 1999, 19:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

I think lack of time and resources are reasons why all programs don't have screenshots (yet).

     21 October 1999, 20:11 GMT

Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

I'm just curious, wasn't this supposed to be posted 2 days ago?

     21 October 1999, 07:26 GMT


Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Jonah Cohen  Account Info
(Web Page)

Just like the original voting wasn't posted on September 8 :-)

     21 October 1999, 20:47 GMT


Re: Re: Re: September 1999 POTM Results
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yup. It was posted on October 12th actually, and was to last one week. So the results should have been posted on October 19th. Oh well.

     22 October 1999, 00:05 GMT

Sweet Irony
Andrew Magness  Account Info
(Web Page)

Ahh.... how ironic that one of Sams games should win POTM for a calculator he boycotted... ;)


     21 October 1999, 07:27 GMT

Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Even more ironic that Sam didn't initally make SubHunt for the TI-83 Plus (Ion), Ahmed ported it from the TI-83. Then later Sam made more revisions on it. :)

     21 October 1999, 07:37 GMT


Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Sam Heald  Account Info
(Web Page)

:(

As you yourself have stated, ION "porting" is merely conversion and recompilation (there are a few 83+ qwerks not worth mentioning). So by programming SubHunt, I "made" it. Actually, I did initially make an ION version. However, at that time, there was no 83+ emulator. So when Ahmed sent me his port, I decided it was best to use his for safety (In hindsight, I should have let the 83+ users take their chances).

     21 October 1999, 17:38 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Right. I found it odd at first when I read the readme, that you made the TI-83 Ion version and Ahmed ported it to the TI-83 Plus.

And since ticalc.org has combined the 89/92+ into one section, they should also combine the 83/83+ into one section, just for consistancy. Justification: just as you can compile a program for both the 89/92+ at the same time, with somewhat little modification, the same is true for the 83/83+.

     21 October 1999, 18:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Erich Oelschlegel  Account Info
(Web Page)

The 83 and the 83+ are different calculators entirely. They may share almost the same name, as well as the same interface, however, internal coding and memory addresses makes for an entirely different calculator. It's possible to make a game that runs on both platforms, but that sacrifices memory in that it must carry both platforms (along with the conditionals that recognize what platform it's on). That's why coders make 2 or 3 different versions of the same program, so that they can run on the different platforms.

So, in essence, they are different. 'Nuff said.

~ferich

     21 October 1999, 20:07 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Well the TI-83 and TI-83 Plus have the same screensize, the TI-89 and TI-92 Plus don't. Have you ever noticed that a lot of programs released for the TI-89 are never recompiled or modified for the TI-92 Plus? It makes no sense to group the 89/92+ together and not the 83/83+. I'd say either group them both together or seperate them both.

In addition, with the Ion shell now released, I doubt programmers are going to write programs for the TI-83 Plus using TI's SDK, at least not yet. They are going to make them for Ion. Almost every game released for Ion is for both the TI-83 and TI-83 Plus. Why seperate them? But if they should be seperate, the 89/92+ section should also be broken up into 2 sections.

     21 October 1999, 20:27 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Erich Oelschlegel  Account Info
(Web Page)

If I'm not mistaken, the 89 and 92+ have identical memory addresses, stacks, and registers, whereas the 83 and the 83+ don't. True, a lot of 89 programs are written solely for the 89 and not cross-platformed, but a lot of programs *are*. The only real difference with the 89/92+ grouping is the screensize, which can be easily converted, *during execution*, if I might add (SF2T makes good use of this).

If you look at the actual code for many 89/92+ games, you'll see an x_def for both the 89 and the 92+ up at the top. That means that they run on both platforms, and only need to be separately compiled to work with GraphLink software, as it won't send a .9xz file to the 89 and vice versa. Looking at 83 and 83+ source, however, you will only see the x_def for the platform it runs on, as .83z files will not work on an 83+ and .8xz files will not run on an 83. You will see both versions of the game in the zip file if you download it.

The 83 has multiple shells available for it, but the 83+ only has Ion. If you categorized the 83 and 83+ together, there would be multiple copies of a game inside the category. Although they have the same name, the coding is different, and therefore are a different game.

~ferich
"Open to critique..."

     21 October 1999, 21:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

The author may release different versions of a game for lets say AShell83, SOS, and Ion - but they are the SAME GAME. They are identical to the user, they do the exact same thing.

But the fact remains, when programmers make games for Ion, they are released for both the TI-83 and TI-83 Plus at the same time. This is not true for the TI-89 and TI-92 Plus (at least not all the time, only about half the time). So why group the 89/92+ together and not 83/83+? I'm thinking that the 89/92+ should be split up. Authors make games for one or the other, but not both sometimes.

     22 October 1999, 00:08 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Killer2  Account Info
(Web Page)

I agree. I only make my programs for the 89. I will always do so. I do not own a 92+, and do not plan on purchasing one in the future. Therefore, I will never develop games for the 92+.

-Miles Raymond

     22 October 1999, 04:08 GMT


Re: Sweet Irony
Sam Heald  Account Info
(Web Page)

*shaking head*

Actually, it isn't. It would have been ironic had I released SubHunt with the intention of getting a POTM, felt that the 83+ community would not vote for it(and boycott for that reason), and then actually win. Wow, I "beat" Pegs (pause, while I do cartwheels). I'm going to put my new POTM symbol on my webpage with my others, so I can feel important! (sarcasm) Considering that I received 4-5 times as much hatemail as SubHunt received votes, who cares? Comments like yours make me want to reinstate my protest. I fear that dissolving the boycott has made the 83+ community feel like they "won." To anyone who feels that way, I say that your arrogance and ignorance represent you poorly.

If anything was ironic, it was SubHunt losing marginally in the 82 ASM race. Not only was the 82 the calculator of origin for SubHunt, but I was the one who made the conversion of Lotus! (I essentially beat myself) Not to mention that the 82 and 83 had equal vote tallies for both 2 games(26->22)...

     21 October 1999, 17:33 GMT

Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Sam Heald  Account Info
(Web Page)

Small clarification to be made after re-reading my last post:

What I meant by the last statement was not to imply some sinister intention on the part of ticalc.org (fixed votes), but I was implying that people who voted don't neccessarily own the calculator. A SubHunt 83 fan might vote for it on the 82,83+, and 86 (which explains the similarities). The same can be said for Lotus. The average 82 voting turnout has been about 25. This month it was 50. True, this can partially be explained by the fact that it is September. With any poll, there is some degree of inaccuracy.

     21 October 1999, 17:49 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

Right, thats why ticalc.org needs to limit the voting to only those that own the calculator. This can be easily done since when you signup for an account, you have to check which calculators you own.

     21 October 1999, 18:07 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
ticalc_chris Account Info
(Web Page)

That's hard to do, since people are able to try out programs for other calculators using shells that do emulation. If I've got a TI-86 shell that runs TI-83 programs, I'm certainly qualified to vote on TI-83 as well as TI-86 programs.

Chris

     21 October 1999, 18:47 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

But do shells that do TI-82/83/85 emulation do it perfectly? No. AFAIK, you can't run any TI-83 program on your TI-86. Therefore, one is not necessarily qualified.

It's not really fair to let all the TI-86 users vote for the TI-83 games because they all tried one game that actually works, but none of the others. Meanwhile, the TI-83 users have actually tried all the games.

Sure, its a gray issue. One thats not black and white. Hrmm.. a perfect one for the coordinators to decide.

     21 October 1999, 19:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Erich Oelschlegel  Account Info
(Web Page)

Don't forget emulators on the computer...Rusty Wagner made 2 great emulators that I use on a constant basis. I think people who use emulators should be qualified to vote on a certain game, just not be able to review it.

~ferich

     21 October 1999, 21:21 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

I beg to differ on that. Playing a game on an emulator and a game on the calculator are two very different things. Instead of clicking on multiple keys on the screen or using the computer keyboard, on the calculator you are pressed the actual keys intended by the author. You don't get that same experience on the computer. You may think the keys are just irksome on VTI, but they really make sense on the calculator...

Plus, VTI doesn't handle grayscale perfectly and I know it has trouble with Super Mario 86.

     22 October 1999, 00:10 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Erich Oelschlegel  Account Info
(Web Page)

I said they would be able to comment on it, given that they run it on an emulator. For control purposes, I noted that only people who have the calculator should be able to write reviews for certain games. It's true that it's not the same experience playing on an emulator, but it still enables the player to get a feel for what the game is like.

The keys on the emulator are often irksome, but Rusty enables you to reprogram them. I don't like using the emulator instead of my calculator, because it's just as much trouble (if not more) to get them in the emulator's virtual memory. It's easier just to use my GraphLink to send it to my calculator.

~ferich

     22 October 1999, 18:49 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Bryan Rabeler  Account Info
(Web Page)

No, you said they would be able to vote on them. :) I don't think they should, its just not the same experience. The way the controls work ARE part of the game.

     22 October 1999, 20:36 GMT


Re: Re: Sweet Irony
Andrew Magness  Account Info
(Web Page)

Woah! easy! I was just sayin it was kinda funny.... Nothin personal Sam!

     21 October 1999, 18:17 GMT

1  2  3  

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