ABBUC Software Competition 2018

[+therealbountybob]

I've sent Ski-It in but this is a buggy version - I have a "final" version assembling now on the Atari so I hope I can email that to freetz here as it will probably be about 10:15 UK time before it is done.

Hope that is ok with everyone

[pseudografx]

I have submitted our entry as well. Good luck to all contestants!

[+CharlieChaplin]

Game over ! (time out)

[freetz]

So now that the deadline has passed, here are the contributions that have reached us for the 2018 competition:

Games:
- Black Bouncy Blob (Martin Simecek, Jose Pereira)
- Kowalsky's Fury (Kamil Trzaska)
- Rescue on Atarius (1NG)
- Millionaire (Marek Pavlík and Zdeněk Eisenhammer)
- Ski-It (Jason Kendall)

Tools:
- AT-File 1.0 (Holger Bommer)

- Atarikett 1.7 (Holger Bommer und Marc Brings)

As the minimum amount of three submissions has not been reached for the "Tools" segment, there will be no competition according to section 4.2.2 of the rules.

 

After careful considerations with Wolfgang as the club's president, we have decided not to accept Rescue on Atarius (RoA). RoA is basically "Get Up 2" which had been submitted and since revoked by 8bitjunkie. RoA had the title and title screen altered, while keeping the remaining features of "Get Up 2". "Get Up 2" was a visually enhanced version of "Get Up" with new levels, and the latter had already participated in the 2016 competition. We have discussed whether new levels as the main change in the program constitutes the "significant" changes that the rules demand according to section 2.3.1, and have come to the decision that this is not the case in our opinion. Our decision also derives from the consideration that we want to avoid setting a precedence in this way and subsequently have more and more games in future competitions which take existing games and merely add new levels to it.

 

However, we are aware that this decision may not be shared by all (in addition to the programmers). Therefore we will have a discussion and subsequent vote at the JHV in October on the future of section 2.3.1 - whether we remove the restriction completely, whether we state specific conditions that have to be met or whether we do not allow existing programs at all. In the end, the members of ABBUC will then decide how they want "their" competition to be like, and that's the way we'll handle it then from next year onwards.

 

The final list of accepted contributions is therefore:

Games:
- Black Bouncy Blob (Martin Simecek, Jose Pereira)
- Kowalsky's Fury (Kamil Trzaska)
- Millionaire (Marek Pavlík und Zdeněk Eisenhammer)
- Ski-It (Jason Kendall)

 

Voting is open on the online portal from 1 September onwards.

 

 

Cheers,

 

F.

[gorgh]

Thanks for information freetz, good luck to everyone, good to see that Ski-it made it to the contest

Edited August 1, 2018 by gorgh

[+therealbountybob]

Thanks for information freetz, good luck to everyone, good to see that Ski-it made it to the contest

It was close - bear in mind I work on the Atari so assembling is about 50 mins each time - in my mad panic to pull everything together when removing my debug stuff to free up memory for the course I screwed up the keypress to skip a round, the late version has this fixed. There are a few bugs still but I'll let you all find them I had limted time for testing so please give feedback.

 

As usual I have tons of features, adding some more in the last two weeks was a big decision. The default course is a compromise for the 3 game modes. To get things running I didn't use the stack (or IOCB ram) in the end so the course is slighly shorter than was planned.

 

I've played though Slalom is good, Downhill the course needs more work , the challenges on SkiQuest need sorting out and probably making more difficult, they may not all be possible but you can skip over a round if you have a credit left. I played through to round 8, it started to get tricky on round 7 - I will adjust these numbers and post them for people to edit the executable file with a disk editor to reset them if they wish.

 

Will post some more info on the game soon.

 

I will release an updated version of Ski-It after abbuc

 

If anyone's still wondering about Space Fortress Omega from abbuc 2 years ago I'm hoping for the much improved final version to be available via the next Excel Magazine - if not I'll release it soon

 

Good luck everyone

[gorgh]

It was close - bear in mind I work on the Atari so assembling is about 50 mins each time

 

You assembled everything on Atari? That's stunning!

Could you be so kind and reveal some screenshots from the game?

[1NG]

My entry has been disqualified.

Because it is not new enough. There is a background story fo that. As you may have read above, 8bitjunkie redraw his entry before getting disqualified. So I made a similar game and put in a story to think again about that as a game description. As a result it got disqualified. The Abbuc has decided. So now I am watching what happens next. Maybe it was the last entry of SWC of 8Bitjunkie and me. I can give you the story of ROA here. It is just a funny little intro... The (little) game will not be released. It is bad software. Really bad. Too bad for Abbuc. Even so bad, that a last place is not granted. No "Eddy The Eagle" and no "olympic spirit". Not worthy a competition.

 

The only funny thing is the story. You have to know some things about the Atari scene to understand, but give it a try:

Rescue on Atarius

You hear a voice: “Good Morning! Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome on board this flight. My name is I. B. Coda and I'm Your In-flight Service Director. The temperature outside is -270 degree ....”

Female voice “Ehm, we are on a rescue mission...”

Coda: “Ya, right. This is I. B. Coda from the space ship Goddess Of Justice. We got a distress signal from Planet Atarius. They need our help. So github and remove all yellowing from the engines”.

You think: Planet Atarius? Isn’t that where all the coders live? We need to rescue them!

“CLoad the fuel” comes from the speaker (in dual pokey stereo).

Captain Anthony Bug: “This is not a drill, not an old game, so Get Up, do your best”

You now remember all your simulations for this on planet Altirra. Your trained. Your sprite looks good and you want this!

You hear the speaker again: “Condition Orange!”. Female voice whispers “Ehm, wrong color”, “Condition Citron!”. Female voice a bit louder “Ehm, you nearly got it”. “I know now: Condition Banana!” Female strong voice: “Condition Yellow, Man”.

You hope specialist Mads is on board and does the translation when meeting the coders on Atarius. Otherwise it will take a long time to assemble their words and bytes.

As we aproach Atarius the scanners fail. But luckily one member of the Reno had left his place. Everytime he does that, he turns on the speakers on maximum. So we could follow the Krach - Another word you will learn on Atarius.

On the way to the bridge the ship got a hit and Captain Bug got injured. “Fortunately we have Turbo Tape” says Pinky. (Blinky once gave you Turbo Basic when you injured your leg - Same graphics, but different programming. Like FIFA 18 is not FIFA 17 of course.) What? With 18 it is never like 17. Never mind.

Finally you take place on the pilot seat, grab your CX40 flight stick and say: "A good day to have fun!"

Edited August 1, 2018 by 1NG

[Level42]

So now that the deadline has passed, here are the contributions that have reached us for the 2018 competition:

Games:

- Black Bouncy Blob (Martin Simecek, Jose Pereira)

- Kowalsky's Fury (Kamil Trzaska)

- Rescue on Atarius (1NG)

- Millionaire (Marek Pavlík and Zdeněk Eisenhammer)

- Ski-It (Jason Kendall)

 

Tools:

- AT-File 1.0 (Holger Bommer)

- Atarikett 1.7 (Holger Bommer und Marc Brings)

 

As the minimum amount of three submissions has not been reached for the "Tools" segment, there will be no competition according to section 4.2.2 of the rules.

 

After careful considerations with Wolfgang as the club's president, we have decided not to accept Rescue on Atarius (RoA). RoA is basically "Get Up 2" which had been submitted and since revoked by 8bitjunkie. RoA had the title and title screen altered, while keeping the remaining features of "Get Up 2". "Get Up 2" was a visually enhanced version of "Get Up" with new levels, and the latter had already participated in the 2016 competition. We have discussed whether new levels as the main change in the program constitutes the "significant" changes that the rules demand according to section 2.3.1, and have come to the decision that this is not the case in our opinion. Our decision also derives from the consideration that we want to avoid setting a precedence in this way and subsequently have more and more games in future competitions which take existing games and merely add new levels to it.

 

However, we are aware that this decision may not be shared by all (in addition to the programmers). Therefore we will have a discussion and subsequent vote at the JHV in October on the future of section 2.3.1 - whether we remove the restriction completely, whether we state specific conditions that have to be met or whether we do not allow existing programs at all. In the end, the members of ABBUC will then decide how they want "their" competition to be like, and that's the way we'll handle it then from next year onwards.

 

The final list of accepted contributions is therefore:

Games:

- Black Bouncy Blob (Martin Simecek, Jose Pereira)

- Kowalsky's Fury (Kamil Trzaska)

- Millionaire (Marek Pavlík und Zdeněk Eisenhammer)

- Ski-It (Jason Kendall)

 

Voting is open on the online portal from 1 September onwards.

 

 

Cheers,

 

F.

 

Isn't it a bit strange that you rule out a game but at the same time there seem to be doubts about the rule for which it is ruled out ? Shouldn't it be in this case that the submitter should be given the benefit of the doubt, so allow it and THEN discuss the rule in the next meeting ? Not trying to rock the boat but it feels...reversed....

 

I'm Abbuc member but couldn't make it to the yearly meeting yet...will definitely this year...

[+Adam+]

 

After careful considerations with Wolfgang as the club's president, we have decided not to accept Rescue on Atarius (RoA). RoA is basically "Get Up 2" which had been submitted and since revoked by 8bitjunkie. RoA had the title and title screen altered, while keeping the remaining features of "Get Up 2". "Get Up 2" was a visually enhanced version of "Get Up" with new levels, and the latter had already participated in the 2016 competition. We have discussed whether new levels as the main change in the program constitutes the "significant" changes that the rules demand according to section 2.3.1, and have come to the decision that this is not the case in our opinion. Our decision also derives from the consideration that we want to avoid setting a precedence in this way and subsequently have more and more games in future competitions which take existing games and merely add new levels to it.

 

 

@Freetz, you say you want to "avoid setting a precedence", but that precedent was already set.

In 2015 ABBUC Software Contest there was an entry created by Winfried Fiedler: "Litle Game" (yeah, there's a single "t") which seemed to be his own "Game Harry" game, but with a different title and title screen.

The official rules from 2015 contest were similar:

"(...) 2.3. Also allowed as entries are:

a) further development of an already released program, if the program is essentially extended or changed"

Compare it to 2018 rules:

"(...) 2.3 The following kind of submissions are allowed:

2.3.1 submission of an already existing program if it has been extended or altered in a significant way."

"Game Harry" was not disallowed. I know that you were not in charge of the contest at that time, but could you describe what was "essentially extended or changed" there? I hope the different title was not the only reason? Were there any new levels? Were there any changes to original "Game Harry" levels?

In my opinion ABBUC members would know how to evaluate "Get Up 2" (or "Rescue on Atarius") properly.

Edited August 1, 2018 by +Adam+

[freetz]

@Level42: There are no doubts about the rule for which RoA has been disqualified. The rule is clear and states that submissions of already existing games are only allowed if the submission has been enhanced significantly ("wesentlich" in German). According to section 4.1, the head of the software ressort checks with the head of the club (Wolfgang) whether the conditions have been met. We have even included two more people usually involved in the contest, but the decision has still been unanimous. Rules like 2.3.1 can never cover all possible aspects and it would be hardly practical to refer to the general assembly in these matters, especially when voting has already started. That's why 4.1 refers the decision to the head of the software ressort and the club president. But as I said before, we realize that members might want to handle this process differently in the future. Which is why we want to have a discussion about it, with our suggestions mentioned above. If the majority wants all games accepted, no matter what, then that is fine with me (and would make my life a lot easier).

 

@+Adam+: I don't know about the games you mentioned in detail, but I've heard about it raising eyebrows. I cannot comment on decisions that others have made, but given the fact that according to Fandal's site, Game Harry was published in 2007 and the competition entry was in 2015, i.e. eight years later, I assume that the first game has slipped under the radar. We're all humans, and I could not possibly know about all possible doublettes either. I (and probably my predecessors, too) would be depending on the assistance of others who bring such a fact to my attention. If this happens, then a disqualification according to 4.1 could still take place until voting day. But if no one has brought this to the attention of the club, then it was just an unfortunate chain of events and/or a possibly wrong decision. But even a potentially wrong decision in the past cannot possibly mean that the respective rule should now no longer applied for at all. Even professional judges make wrong decisions, but that does not mean the laws are no longer applied.

 

Also let me emphasize that the game has not been disqualified because of "lack of quality" or anything like that. I'm a very strong supporter of letting the members decide whether they like a game or not (and have received quite a bashing from some members last year why I accepted so much "crap" into last year's contest). But this decision was not about the quality of the game (and I have explained this to both 1NG and 8bitjunkie before the decision was published), but a decision on what we see as a risk if we start accepting games whose main change are new/enhanced levels, because then we may have more and more submissions which just consist of the same game with new levels (maybe even automatically generated). (And yes, I know that GU2/RoA also has new graphics and splash screens and a new scoring system, but this does not change the gaming experience in a significant way).

 

We interpret 2.3.1 in such a way that if the game is not new, then at least the gaming experience should be new, for example a change from single player to simultaneous two- or multiplayer, or a change of perspective within the game (such as it was the case on the PC with Warcraft 3 and the "Frozen Throne" sequel), or the perspective literally changes because a top-view puzzler becomes a platform puzzler (as it was the case with Dimo's Quest and Dimo's Dungeon).

 

Again, we did not and do not take this decision lightly and we will abide by any decision made by the GA on the future of this rule. But I would ask everyone to at least acknowledge that there is reason behind our decision and that we did it with what we think is necessary for the contest as a whole. I'm personally saddened that it has affected members whom I know have contributed greatly to the software landscape of the Atari as well as to ABBUC, but as the "referees" of this competition, we cannot let ourselves be guided by personal sympathies.

F.

[8Bitjunkie]

At Fujiama meeting, I teamed up with Haribo and Yellowman to expand the game GetUp! significantly and submit it to the ABBUC competition again. Who have played GetUp! knows,that this does not happen out of money considerations:
Because GetUp! reached the 10th (and thus last) place of the competition in 2016 and was awarded with a cup (a nice one, btw).
No, it was about having fun and creating something new, which also makes fun for other people to play.

After i have submitted GetUp!2, I was given the choice to voluntarily withdraw or to be disqualified.

In my point of view, games that are significantly changed or expanded are allowed in the competition.
Now, to be honest, GetUp! did not really have much substance (yes, it was voted right to the last place in 2016), but (except for the sound) litterally everything about it was improved.

 

Thanks to Holgibo, Yellowman and Jan-Soeren Haas for their commitment to the game!

It will not happen to me again that I put time into something to be disqualified for "swamy rules".
Lesson learned...

Edited August 2, 2018 by 8Bitjunkie

[MaPa]

IMHO the "extended or altered in a significant way" is meant to be related to gameplay itself and not to the fancy gfx and msx around. And from your table of differences I see maybe only the "flooting softlty side to side" feature fulfilling this rule (I didn't see your game). Maybe if there were added some ingame features like shooting, collecting powerups etc. it would be accepted. But it's just my opinion.

[freetz]

@8bitjunkie: I don't see a significant discrepancy between your table and my statement above that Get Up 2 was a visually enhanced version of "Get Up" with new levels, and neither have I or would I deny that significant time has been spent on Get Up 2 or that it's a funny game (as Get Up also was). Our argument is about the gaming experience which in our opinion has not changed significantly (let's say the "interaction" between the player, the opponent and the playfield, such as the steering and behaviour of the player or the moving logic of the opponent), even if the underlying underlying code may heve been completely rewritten (which I don't know).

But I don't want to go down that road and be seen as running down your game (as it was not a "quality"-based decision). If you coded it also for the purpose of other people having fun with it, then I'd appreciate it if you (and/or 1NG) release Get Up 2 / Rescue on Atarius to the public. Then everyone can compare and make their own decisions whether we were right or wrong in rejecting RoA and more importantly, how they would like to have the rule in question being phrased/applied in the future.

Edited August 2, 2018 by freetz

[freetz]

@MaPa: Exactly, let's say you were able to shoot the monster and there was more than just one or you could collect power-ups to break through the playfield objects etc., these would have changed the gaming experience from just avoiding the obstacles and the monster towards "actively" engaging with the surroundings which I would have considered a significant change in the gaming experience.

[emkay]

As the problem depends on some misleading rules, I'd propose a vote by the ABBUC members. For the time of one week, the voters should chose whether the titles should be in the contest or not.

Really, If the crew isn't able to see the significant changes, things get weird.

I'd say, they should be in the contest. Otherwise the rules were nonsense.

Edited August 3, 2018 by emkay

[1NG]

What I have done maybe was not a very good idea, but I did. I hope that in the end it leads to more fun. ( I sent in an extended Get Up!2 as Rescue On Atarius. Different Name, basically the same game, Description of the game was used to clarify the problems we encountered)

 

What I definately did wrong is that my words on Atariage looked much to bad for the Abbuc. I think less emotion is better.

 

But I had to stand aside for 8BitJunkie in the first place. And more: For all experienced and upcoming programmers/artists/designers, ...
If a rule does not make fun, leads to frustration, then it should be considered to be eleminated. Thomas may not participate anymore and I had a similar experience at the 10Liner contest this year.
On one side there are people complaining, that the programmers should follow made rules. On the other side ist the love for programming in free time. You can not force love. If you take the love for something then you may will be hated. Since the whole life is about fun and being together and 42.

[1NG]

IMHO the "extended or altered in a significant way" is meant to be related to gameplay itself and not to the fancy gfx and msx around. And from your table of differences I see maybe only the "flooting softlty side to side" feature fulfilling this rule (I didn't see your game). Maybe if there were added some ingame features like shooting, collecting powerups etc. it would be accepted. But it's just my opinion.

The rule is not easy to handle. It could have been added a level 5, where shooting is activated. Then it also is not sure, that the program would be accepted or not. Sure is, that FIFA 18 would be disqualified if FIFA17 or FIFA12 would have been existed. Except if they change the gameplay from football to icehockey. And not only change the graphics, sound, names, ...

 

I would like to have FIFA18, others not. And Version 2 with updates or new stories, new levels, ... Apple changes the color and billions are excited or not. You decide. Not a rule. Except you don't want to decide, then ask for rules - or censorship. Prefiltering "bad" games because money should not be spent on them. Even if all members would like FIFA18. (Of course this is not the case for ROA. It is a problem of only a few people that want to make others think about it)

Think for yourself. Have fun!

[freetz]

@emkay: The members have (at some point, before I was even an ABBUC member) decided on these rules, probably for a reason. They are not misleading, they rather do not cover every possible situation. You have the same thing with laws in real life, and that's why you have judges or jurys to make decisions. Just because you don't like a decision of a judge or a jury, would you seriously suggest to have a vote by all citizens on that matter (apart from the fact that we don't have current e-mail addresses from more than half of the 400+ ABBUC members)? Maybe every time someone doesn't like a decision? Good luck with that.

We'll have a vote on the future of these rules at the GA (and if you want, also on the next head of the software ressort, I don't mind). Then you can do away with every rule you think is nonsense or with the whole rule-set completely, provided the majority of the fee-paying members concurs.

 

@1NG: Thanks, I also think less emotions in this respect are better. And maybe some constructive criticism, such as how people who want the rules to be changed would suggest how the rules should be phrased in the future. Then we'd already have some concrete options to be discussed at the GA. But again, neither GU2 nor RoA was "prefiltered" because anyone thought the game was bad or that no money should be spent on it. I have said this several times now, but apparently it doesn't get heard.

[popmilo]

Only rule I object is deadline date.

But don't worry about changing it, it's just that no matter when I start coding a game it's never finished on time

[freetz]

Haha !

[1NG]

Only rule I object is deadline date.

But don't worry about changing it, it's just that no matter when I start coding a game it's never finished on time

This year Frederik manged to change that! New date was set after Fujiama (4 extra days for finishing entry at least).

[8Bitjunkie]

As I have nothing more to say about GU2 (apart from standing on the same side as emkay is definitely wrong as it would proof that freetz is right) I would ask the other creators to show their games in pictures and/or videos.

 

What can we look forward to play this fall?

[MaPa]

I would like to have FIFA18, others not. And Version 2 with updates or new stories, new levels, ... Apple changes the color and billions are excited or not. You decide. Not a rule. Except you don't want to decide, then ask for rules - or censorship. Prefiltering "bad" games because money should not be spent on them. Even if all members would like FIFA18. (Of course this is not the case for ROA. It is a problem of only a few people that want to make others think about it)

 

You can create Get Up! 2,3,4,5...250 etc. (like FIFA17, 18 etc.) and change only title screen or whatever (or even nothing) and release it (entering this contest is not necessity for releasing your stuff or is it?). Only that then you can't participate in this ABBUC contest with its rules. That's all. There are tens of new games for 8bit Atari every year and only small fraction participate in this contest.

Edited August 3, 2018 by MaPa

[1NG]

So why was it filtered? (Technically only ROA was filtered, because GU2 has been revoked)

Because there is a rule. In my opinion you are hiding to much behind that rule. Why does it exist, if not money nor quality is important? Everybody I spoke to thought that money was the reason. I thought that too.

In a letter you wrote "We don't think, that GU2 and ROA are the programs, that push the software scene". And then they got ruled out. That is something totally different then filtering bad programs or not giving money to unwanted software?

 

If rules are not good, then change them. If better programs are wanted then we have to come up with other ideas. If we are creative people we can do this.

 

ROA is ment for that only. (Revolutiion of Asc 2. Rescue Of Asc 3, Revival of Asc 4. That are new games I would like to see. Maybe the Abbuc should not do ASC any more and support a different competition like "Fujiama Mega Contest" instead. FMC supported by Abbuc. Money could be spent for nice FMC Boxes / Boxes with signatures etc with a kind of Crowdfunding. That could give 10.000 as prize money and a real magnet (, if money does that at all). Spread the word. 1 million would be nice. Winner gets 1 million Fujiama coins, wich can be changed to 1 Million Euro Cents. Who would like that?

@1NG: Thanks, I also think less emotions in this respect are better. And maybe some constructive criticism, such as how people who want the rules to be changed would suggest how the rules should be phrased in the future. Then we'd already have some concrete options to be discussed at the GA. But again, neither GU2 nor RoA was "prefiltered" because anyone thought the game was bad or that no money should be spent on it. I have said this several times now, but apparently it doesn't get heard.