I hate to be a killjoy, but this feature seems out of place. The author did not invent the idea for this game, and the graphics aren't going to blow you away or anything. The 2627 level packs included are a poor way to implement puzzle-generation, as well as a monumental waste of memory. A random puzzle generator wouldn't be that hard and would be *significantly* better. There are hundreds of other unique BASIC games out here that were implemented just as well or better and were not recognized with a feature. I don't expect the staff to remove the feature, since it seems like they usually stick by their decisions, but I gotta say - it seems like they've been a little feature-happy lately. Props to the author for uploading this program at the optimum time.

Hi Alex,

Allow me to respond to your criticisms in turn as I walk you through my logic for featuring this program. This will be two posts, as I cannot fit everything into one on the ticalc.org system.

"The author did not invent the idea for this game, and the graphics aren't going to blow you away or anything."

These are both true. Firstly, a huge percentage of the featured programs from this site have historically been recreations of classic games rather than fresh inventions. Pac-Man was not invented by ~AssemblyBandit~, and Bomberman games were not invented on calcs. Secondly, and I have said this before, graphics are the only qualifying factor for making a good program.

"The 2627 level packs included are a poor way to implement puzzle-generation, as well as a monumental waste of memory. A random puzzle generator wouldn't be that hard and would be *significantly* better."

You are approaching the issue from that of an efficient programmer, which I can certainly appreciate. However, what Sorunome has done instead is a good job of recreating the feel of a puzzle book. I myself, along with several other people, not only enjoy the solving of a good puzzle, but often like to go back later and master the same puzzles again, or think more deeply about them later with a fresh eye. If I am struggling to solve a puzzle today, I might want to get some sleep and then take a second crack at it tomorrow, or even solve it, then show it to a friend later if I think tha they will find it to be a particularly good arrangement.
"A random puzzle generator wouldn't be that hard and would be *significantly* better."

I presume that you mean "better" in the sense that it would occupy less space. While this is certainly a valid approach, I think that I have made my case for why I appreciate the approach taken by this program's author.

Erratum: "Graphics are *not* the only qualifying factor..."

Plus lots of other less important grammatical errors due to haste.

"There are hundreds of other unique BASIC games out here that were implemented just as well or better and were not recognized with a feature."

And thus, Nomination November arose. I agree, there are quite literally hundreds of programs in the archives that have yet to be noticed for features. I must ask, however, what steps have you, personally, taken to help these games get noticed?

"I don't expect the staff to remove the feature, since it seems like they usually stick by their decisions..."

This is true. I stand by my feature decisions. While not every single feature is going to be something that everyone agrees with, I do indeed choose my features with specific qualities in mind. "Recreation of an enjoyable experience" is one of this qualities. I wholly appreciate that this might not strike some people as outstanding. Some people also don't think that BASIC games deserve features at all. I, personally, think that programs worthy of feature are not simply those programs that are well-coded, move quickly, or have great graphics. Please visit the link for this comment to see a good example of where I have elsewhere discussed such concepts.

"...but I gotta say - it seems like they've been a little feature-happy lately."

You better believe it. Nomination November. POTY. 'Nuff said.

With all of that said, I would like to reaffirm my decision on this feature. I think that the author has done a nice job of solidly capturing the feel of a puzzle book and created something that many people could enjoy on their calcs.

Meh, I feel like all my points still stand, despite your comments...

It would be really nice if there was some objective standard by which a program gets featured. Currently, it's 100% subjective, which takes away the significance of features in general. "This program was featured on ticalc.org" sounds really cool, but actually, it boils down to "Ryan likes this program". Despite this, I've respected features in the past, since ticalc.org usually does a good job of sticking to a high standard of feature-worthiness...until now. I don't see myself giving features much credibility in the future.

The problem, however, is that in the past, every BASIC game that didn't use ASM libraries for better graphics were singled out, even Contra 83 or some others that were technically impressive or very fun. I'm not saying that this game in particular deserved a feature, since it's nothing new, but in the past, many programs were missed, resulting in many retro features in recent years.

I forgot to add to my other comment that since this was Nomination November, more stuff was submitted and the archives were probably not properly screened prior making a news.

I guess in the future, ticalc could try to switch to a "like" system with like icons besides files and if it gets enough likes, the staff gets notified and the program eventually gets featured, giving more democratic powers to members, but seeing many of your past comments on ticalc.org towards programs, it looks like you would never "like" anything. :P

The closest thing we have is the 1–10 scale rating system, which hardly gets used, anyway. Though putting the rating/like button on the directory listings may encourage more participation. And, perhaps a full 1–10 scale is a bit overkill, and a simpler system would be better and easier to use.

Based on the other things I've tried to launch or revive over the last couple of years, though, I wouldn't expect that to change things a whole lot.

"Seeing many of your past comments on ticalc.org towards programs, it looks like you would never 'like' anything."

Huh? Yes, I've made this point about the feature system before in the article about Nymless - I'd forgotten about that. But, I don't see how you would jump to a conclusion like that.

There was Doors CS 7 too, where it seemed like to you it was totally worthless (even if it had 10+ years of work put into it and that it can almost run everything including xLIB/Omnicalc games). Now that I think about it, though, I often mix you up with another user here, but there was another Basic coder here for whom it didn't matter how much quality was a game, if it was larger than 1 file and over 10 KB it was completely worthless (unless it was Sam Heald's Mario).

I didn't know people were following my actions so closely. O.o

My only gripe with Doors (and it's a significant one) is from a UI perspective. I feel like a mouse based interface is only good when you have a mouse. With only buttons to work with, something like what MIRBUTN.8xp provides is superior. The fact that it has 10+ years work into it is great, but it doesn't mean nearly enough to me overcome the mouse issue. The compatibility is also great, but I feel safe in assuming that most decent games in the future will still be compatible with Mirage. For an author to release a game without Mirage support would be like releasing a PC game without Windows support - it might not be the best thing in your opinion, but you have to at least support it since that's what most people out there are actually using.

I don't think I'm that guy you're thinking of, but I do see a lot of value in keeping your program to a single file, if possible. It keeps your program list clean and makes it easier to transfer the game to a friend's calculator. There are good usages for multiple files, however, like for individual levels, save files, etc. This feature is a perfect example of a bad usage of multiple files, in my opinion.

Lol the sidebar shows the amount of comments on news that are bumped out of the front page and I saw there were more, and I happen to check ticalc.org more often everyday since the last few years since file archives get updated more often. :P

IIRC the mouse was because DCS7 was originally designed to be useable with an actual mouse+adapter. I don't know why it wasn't removed, however, but it might have been to make the shell stand out from the others in a certain way, I guess. I myself never use the mouse except to install the shell in an emulator, since it's impossible to get past the Getting Started box without the mouse.

As for the other guy, it seems he's also Omnimaga member because he uses the same handle (although his author profile shows his real name), but yeah in his case, it didn't matter if your game was an entire xLIB Pokémon or Final Fantasy clone in grayscale. If it had more than 1 file and was larger than the average ASM classic, then it was worthless. If he ever gets active again I wish him good luck trying to fit Pokémon in one BASIC file lol. I guess it's kinda my pet peeve, though, since in the past decade, I saw many programmers leave the TI community as direct result to seeing their work singled out only based on file size or programming language, even if their use of many files was justified.