2009/12/18 Karl Kurbjun <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Paul Louden <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Alex Parker wrote: >>> >>> So can we/you/they/someone not just change the brick size to be >>> relatively the same as before? Would that result in the improved aesthetics >>> + the game play remaining as was? >>> >>> Alex >> >> It would, yes. But with the release coming up, and no clue when someone >> with any aptitude at bitmap editing is likely to step up for such a thing, I >> think the gameplay should be restored to what it was before at the moment >> until the full fix is in. > > Now that I am a bit less frustrated with Paul for trying to make a mountain > out of a molehill, let me explain the ways that this argument is flawed and > the reason that his threats to revert the change if I do not are out of > line: > > > 1) First this argument started purely on principal without even trying the > change. The change was not tried before he started to complain about a > minor gameplay difference. > > The complaint about a "considerable" gameplay change was made before he even > tried the game with the modified screen height. This argument is now > continuing with a mis-understanding of what the change did and how the game > works (currently and before) and how development works. > > > 2) This gameplay "rule" is made on an assumption that the game plays the > same on all targets. There is also the complaint about a general gameplay > changes. > > This assumption is simply incorrect. The game does not play the same on all > targets, there are a number of differences that are just as small an > insignificant as this. Till all of those issues are fixed, the point that > the game should play /exactly/ the same on all of the targets is moot. > > This includes a number of differences that alters gameplay. For example on > the Gigabeat F/X/S the images are not scaled properly for the screen width > or height even before this patch was committed. This significantly changes > the gameplay (much more than this patch might) but no one is out there > fixing the problem or even discussing it. Fixing this could be done at the > same time that the brick heights are scaled for this patch: the improvement > is simple. > > On a number of targets the paddle widths are not properly scaled for the > screen size. This takes the same scaling effort that improving on this > patch would require. > > The brick height ratios are not the same on all of the targets either for > reasons beyond this patch. In some cases this is unavoidable if you want > bricks that are distinguishable from each other. > > In cases like the Gigabeat F/X/S the brick heights were not scaled properly > even /before/ this patch was added (according to this "rule" that Paul > speaks of). > > This means that the brick heights and widths were "wrong" (according to this > supposed gameplay "rule") on at least 50% of the targets this effects before > this change was made. > > Not too long ago someone added some new powerups that truly, significantly, > changed the gameplay unlike this patch; where were the complaints then? > > > 3) The fix that Paul wants just requires scaling the bitmaps for a couple of > targets. This is something that I (or anyone else; maybe Paul for example), > could have done in all of about 10 minutes per target that requires it (only > a handful). Instead this discussion is wasting everyone's time on the > mailing list based on a principal of how the game should work on a few > select targets. The collective effort reading this mail is more time spent > than the minor improvement being complained about. > > > 4) I would also like to point out that SVN is an incremental process and is > a working copy. This patch improves the experience on portrait screens and > the minor gameplay difference is a moot point till all the other > discrepancies are fixed. > > Furthering that improvement takes little time that a non-programmer can do > now that this change is in place making it easier for /others/ to contribute > to the project. > > > 5) This patch has been in the tracker for 4 months. In that time there was > never any discussion about the brick heights. > > Paul, or anyone else for that matter, had plenty of time to comment on > this. Not once did I hear a mention of the brick height scaling. The fact > that there is now an attempt to make a big deal out of a small gameplay > change seems inconceivable to me. > > > 6) Development is done on: "Find an itch and scratch it". Clearly this > patch was submitted for an itch from another programmer. I agree with that > and feel that improves the game on portrait screens even if there is a > /minor/ gameplay difference. > > If someone else finds an itch to scratch they are free to do so by improving > on what is already there instead of harassing development about minor > issues. > > > 7) There is no hard and fast rule that the gameplay or user interaction > cannot change for plugins. This is not the core that we are talking about, > and there have been plenty of situations that the plugins have changed > significantly. Not too long ago there was a big deal about the Clock plugin > with the user interaction changes that were made. The general consensus was > that anyone is free to work on them as they see fit. > > > 8) I am not disagreeing that scaling the bitmaps may add a minor > improvement, but I feel that Paul's threats to revert a change on something > that he has not contributed any significant development to is out of line > especially since the crux of Paul's argument is flawed. > > Again, If the patch is reverted the bricks heights and widths will still be > wrong (according to this supposed gameplay "rule") on at least 50% of the > targets that this change effects. If a fix is needed for those targets > anyway according to this supposed gameplay "rule" then we are already at > break-even with the patch in there. > > I still dispute the validity of the idea that the gameplay cannot be changed > from what it currently is. If that is the case maybe we should all just > stop development since that would be a change in the user experience. > > -Karl >
FWIW I agree 100% with Karl, and want to add that brickmania looked stupid with the paddle sitting half way up the display which that change fixed, no question making the game feel better.
