Survey posted 2007-12-21 22:36 by Astrid.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

Raycasters will always have a special place in my heart, even if it is just using the FAT engine. Doom89 ftw.

It was a difficult decision to make.
The entries were certainly well matched.

After playing both Mario and Doom, I decided to vote for Mario.
I really enjoyed Doom, however, Mario held my attention longer.
I would give both games a 10 out of 10.

I voted for Mario because the engine was built from scratch.

Sorry Doom89. :o

I say mario 68k, sorry doom:)

I agree that Mario gives the most value. It's a very fun game. :)

I got to play both of them on a real Ti 89 Titanium a few days ago on a friend's calculator (I haven't recieved mine in the mail yet). I played doom89 and I was like "Wow! This grayscale is awesome!". Then I played Super Mario 68k and I was like "Holy CARP (funny typo)! This is Super Mario 3!" I think people like this one better becuase it goes more to their hearts. You can't tell me that almost every single person didn't feel a little nostalgia when playing Super Mario 68k. Not only is Mario 68k a better reproduction of the original game, but the original Doom just doesn't have that nostalgia factor.

I disagree. The main reasons I decided to take on the Doom89 project were nostalgic reasons. :) I still voted for Super Mario 68k though, from a critical point of view, all attatchments aside, it had better production values. It was a little more professional than Doom89.

well actually i kind of agree with the other person that Doom 68k isn't really like the original. To me it was more Wolfeinstein-ish, because the original Doom had variable wall and floor heights, with stairs, elevators and all, and the pc version allowed to aim up and down at enemies, which your doom didn't do. It was still an awesome game though and I think it deserves POTY nomination. :)

That's a limitation of the FAT engine, something I simply could do nothing about unless I were to spend a couple of years or so developing my own engine. And through all that I'd probably have to sacrifice the speed of gameplay that Doom89 currently has. The 68k processor just can't handle a whole lot. It is after all only in double digit MHz. If it were triple digit, we'd probably have Halo by now. :p

"If it were triple digit, we'd probably have Halo by now."
Wish the newer TI calcs good luck on this :)

Yea, i was just goofing though. It'd take a lot of work. I really want to get my hands on an Nspire if they improve the programablility to sufficient levels. But for now I'm going to put my energy full fledged into DOA and see if I can make my 89 explode. :) (figureatively of course. calcs are expensive)

Brandon Wilson could help with making the calc explode from software, were it a z80. But it takes legendary O(Stop! Hammer) time to do so.

I may have broken something there ... a record, or at least a rule. ;-)

:p lol. Yes, I can understand that. Doom took a long time. It is my longest calc project to date, but I'm sure DOA is going to be longer. So far it's been about 3 months, and I'm not even 10% or 15% done. I'm thinking DOA might not be out before either late 2008 or early 2009.

Doom89 took either 5 or 7 months, I don't remember exactly when I started it, but judging from the posts on tifreakware, I posted the first post about it in june of this year and had a bunch of stuff already done. Enough to have a demo out anyways.

Enough rambling for me. :)