Page 1 of 1

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:12 pm
by 8BitAG
spider wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:24 pm
Project X - The MicroMan
Image

The O-Zone / Microman II

Image
With regards to emails now working etc... Tim Kemp's still around, and was on Facebook the last time I checked. I've not seen any signs of Jon recently... He pretty much put a full stop on his text adventure career when he stepped away from it back in the day, so I've no idea what his thoughts about ports would be.

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:20 am
by spider
8BitAG wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 11:12 pm With regards to emails now working etc... Tim Kemp's still around, and was on Facebook the last time I checked. I've not seen any signs of Jon recently... He pretty much put a full stop on his text adventure career when he stepped away from it back in the day, so I've no idea what his thoughts about ports would be.
I think if memory serves it was just a few email addresses I tried after some research. This was 2011 so I can't recall exactly now! I've not really had time and enthusiasm to write any more since then. Typically it took 3-4 hours an evening for about 2 weeks to do each one with one exception (Magic Castle) this included sorting a loading screen and much bug/play testing etc.

I do know I did try to contact authors before I did anything as I was slightly concerned. I also went out of my way to ensure that I did not put my own Ⓒ onto anything and kept the original authors (c) where it was displayed too. Best I could manage. I can't tbh really see anyone objecting as none of these are or ever were denied files, the conversions follow faithfully and up till this moment in time no one has objected, its not as though they are hidden away either! :D

The "lack of Ⓒ" was really just for my own sake, probably not worth the pixels it was not plotted on though I suppose.

I do recall fixing a bug in Microman actually where you could not escape the sink even with the correct tools if you ventured in, iirc due to a mis-typed or otherwise location byte.


This is getting off topic sorry to all. :oops:

Yes if we could have the flag for official / non-official it would be great. I thought about it being in two sections aka "Other versions" and "Unofficial versions" but that seems too much work perhaps even though its just one more (yes I know) database field.

Anyway info initially provided on "what I am aware of" regarding the above files. :)

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:59 am
by Einar Saukas
spider wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:20 amYes if we could have the flag for official / non-official it would be great.
I just noticed the flag is now working at SC. Check The Hobbit for instance.

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:24 am
by spider
Einar Saukas wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:59 am
spider wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:20 amYes if we could have the flag for official / non-official it would be great.
I just noticed the flag is now working at SC. Check The Hobbit for instance.
Thank you! :D

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:48 pm
by 8BitAG
There are quite a lot of text adventures to which this applies... John Wilson, for example, "unofficially" converted virtually all the PAWed games in his Zenobi catalogue to Amstrad CPC (CP/M) for examples... Producing the fairly odd situation that there are actually both official ports (made back in the day by the likes of Adventure Workshop) and unofficial ports to Amstrad CPC, for many of those games!

Plenty of text adventures have had later official (and unofficial) conversions to PC too.

What may be confusing to the end-user, is which "other versions" were available back in the day, around the time the Speccy versions were published, and which ones have been done more recently... although in most cases the "official" and "unofficial" tag will mostly reflect that information.

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:11 pm
by Einar Saukas
8BitAG wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:48 pmThere are quite a lot of text adventures to which this applies... John Wilson, for example, "unofficially" converted virtually all the PAWed games in his Zenobi catalogue to Amstrad CPC (CP/M) for examples...
If he converted games that he owned, how are these conversions unofficial?

8BitAG wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:48 pmProducing the fairly odd situation that there are actually both official ports (made back in the day by the likes of Adventure Workshop) and unofficial ports to Amstrad CPC, for many of those games!
The same game can be ported to the same platform more than once. For instance:

https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/index.p ... 96&id=1675

8BitAG wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:48 pmWhat may be confusing to the end-user, is which "other versions" were available back in the day, around the time the Speccy versions were published, and which ones have been done more recently... although in most cases the "official" and "unofficial" tag will mostly reflect that information.
Ideally we should provide an external link for every conversion. This will be enough to clarify everything.

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:20 pm
by spider
Talking of external links quite a fair few appear unlinked, I do note this seems to apply to certain platforms more than others. I can see a bit of reasoning with this as there's a bit of a 'not ideal spread' on some other platforms regarding their software, at least compared to say how it is done here / WOS , Amstrad / CBM etc.

I'm not going to point fingers at anything in particular although two spring to mind I'm actually exceptionally pleased that it is available at all, plus those kind of suggestions I've already made on their "appropriate platform" forums anyways long ago.

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:45 pm
by 8BitAG
Einar Saukas wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:11 pm If he converted games that he owned, how are these conversions unofficial?
If the original authors of the games (and owners of the IP) weren't consulted then I would say that the conversions are technically unofficial.

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:18 pm
by spider
8BitAG wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:45 pm
Einar Saukas wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:11 pm If he converted games that he owned, how are these conversions unofficial?
If the original authors of the games (and owners of the IP) weren't consulted then I would say that the conversions are technically unofficial.
Only issue I can see here is (I do agree though!) what if say "game xyz" the original author was approached and agreed to it, then some time later when they saw the finished conversion thought "omg that's terrible I don't like it" , even if it was a near perfect conversion, differing machine factors effect things.

So it was endorsed but then not endorsed. :oops:

I'm not trying ot make life more complicated just throwing a potential scenario into the mix, please feel free to ignore this (probably best?) and if said situation did happen best dealt with on how to display the results on a case-by-case basis I suppose. :ugeek:

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:35 pm
by Einar Saukas
spider wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:18 pmplease feel free to ignore this
Done! :) :) :)

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:36 pm
by Einar Saukas
... and yes, we better deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

Re: Official vs non-official variants of software

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:19 pm
by spider
Image
As an aside to the above I discovered and was playing (to completion! , rzx to be sent tomorrow) 'Crystal Quest' , this game is in quite a similar vein in that you have to beam down to various planets/area's and collect items/figure things out.

Although the complexity of C.Q compared to Galaxias is very high, its about on par with ProjectX in terms of 'internal logic' and that's without looking. I may attempt to port it over at a future point it is on my 'internal list of stuff to revisit'

As you were ;)