Jump to content

ledzep's Photo

ledzep

Member Since 15 Feb 2010
OFFLINE Last Active Today, 3:42 AM

#2561949 So how many people here do not drink the Atari koolade?

Posted by ledzep on Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:00 PM

I better explain myself before I get shot!! :lol:

What I mean is how many people here have a very balanced view of ALL past machines from 8-64bit regardless of whether they sport an Atari badge or not?


Not sure I understand the question. I mean, yes, I have a very balanced view of MOST past machines (haven't played with or even laid eyes on a few of them) whether they sport an Atari badge or not but, for me, most of them suck. I own/like the Atari 2600, the Atari 5200 and the Vectrex, the rest don't interest me. My first computer was an Atari 800 (by choice, a couple friends had Apple ][s and I didn't care for them, hated TRS computers and wasn't keen on Commodores) and I love it still. Not until I saw SGI Impact 2s at my first real job did I like another computer again. And a friend of mine had an Atari 400 but I hated it (that keyboard was hell).

Having said that there are some Atari products I don't like, or don't like enough. The Atari 7800, somehow, doesn't do it for me (and how stupid am I about that with recent Scramble, Moon Cresta homebrews?@!). I own a Falcon computer but haven't used it in a while, wasn't impressed after giving it a full (expensive for the time) try. I'm fully Linux now.

My best friend had an Intellivision and a 5200 when we were kids. Loved the Atari 5200 (finally buying one years later), really didn't like the Intellivision (minus a few good games we played a lot). No desire to own one and it's one I grew up with. There is/was just something about Atari that "does it" for me. The 2600 is primitive beyond all others yet I really like it still. The 5200 rocks. It's just a look they both have (graphics, game play). Same goes for Atari arcade games, there was a run of a few years where they practically could do no wrong by me. Cinematronics was also solid there, some Midway and Sega games, but Atari ruled... until the later '80s when all new arcade games sucked for me. Wrong look, wrong game play. Forget it, I'll play Tempest. I remember seeing an Odyssey 2 in a store and trying to play it, hating everything about it (keyboard, game graphics, joysticks). Never liked the Nintendo and it's offspring.

Most fans drink the Kool-Aide for their favorites. I agree that the fanatics are intolerable, their favorites are completely perfect and superior to all others. But fans are rarely fans of everything in the genre, they pick their favorites. I love the Vectrex as much as the 2600 and the 5200 but what I would really really love to see? The Atari vector arcade games ported to the Vectrex.


#2558288 Anyone remember Solar Fox

Posted by ledzep on Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:14 PM

Man, my brother and I played that in the arcades a lot. He even bought one (though it refuses to display correctly now), it was always a fun game to play. I never liked the Tron joystick, though, it always felt like I was going to break that thing off its base because of how hard I was pushing it to try to avoid dying, haahaa.


#2557032 Questions...possibilites, opinions on development of retrogames

Posted by ledzep on Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:48 PM

I can't answer the questions because I have no real experience in the homebrew world, though I would say that the Vectrex seems to have as good as or even a more robust homebrew scene than the 2600.

As much as I hate the way it played out I'd say that the 2600 Star Castle Kickstarter example is a way to do this that you might not have considered. You can set a money goal that can, if you feel like it, include development costs. You don't reach the goal, you don't move on it but it would seem that people would expect something soon so you'd almost have to have been working on the game before getting the money. But you could set up pricing and availability that way that would for sure cover your costs. What I didn't like about the Star Castle example was that the guy got waaay more money than he was asking for but didn't allow for extra carts to be made for purchase. So someone like say, me, who didn't hear about it until a week later, was S.O.L. in terms of getting one even though the guy got plenty of money to produce a few extras and I would have put down for the boxed (most expensive) version. I wouldn't do it that way if you went that route, I'd allow for some of the extra money to either have more examples made or get folded into the next game down the line.

I would like to see a Vectrex Kickstarter with tiered pricing for cart only, cart + manual and cart + manual + box + overlay. Since boxes and overlays are the biggest pains they'd make that 3rd level the most expensive. It would be obvious how many of each were being asked for and the pricing would cover that + maybe some extra for the effort. If it exceeded the total then some extras could be made for after-the-fact sales. Maybe after 2 or 3 of those you make a name for yourself and don't need Kickstarter anymore.

Also, pricing depends on what you're making. If it's a popular "Why wasn't this game ever made for the [fill in the blank]?" port then you could probably charge more than for your own unique idea that might not resonate with potential customers. I'm thinking of a Halo or Boulder Dash for the 2600 or a Warrior for the Vectrex or a Moon Cresta for the 7800 as opposed to a game that might be really cool but nobody can wrap his head around your description, you'd have to already have them made so people could see a YouTube video of gameplay or something. Along with that, if you go the full monty with boxes and screen overlays (Vectrex) or controller overlays (5200, Intellivision) then you could charge more for that "completeness" as well.

There's also the possibility of teaming with others who already exist. Marc on this forum offers boxes for some games (which I've bought and really like), maybe he could be convinced to make them separately for your games and whoever bought your carts would be told to contact him for any box needs. And omeganu makes overlays for Vectrex games that are pretty good compared to the originals and he also makes overlays for homebrew games that never had them, you could supply him with the image and be done with it from your end. Actually I hope more homebrew programmers do that, I think it's best when you can have the option of compiling a complete homebrew game as opposed to just having a downloaded file to run on an emulator.


#2524248 Appeal of new 8-bit software.

Posted by ledzep on Thu May 17, 2012 6:40 PM


I think the OP would get a truer, unbiased answer if he were to ask the question only to 8-bit software fans who didn't grow up with 8-bit games and only got into them later in life so nostalgia and familiarity couldn't play into the answer.


Surely there are more people using this stuff/emulation who owned them (any retro 8bit/16bit machine) in the 80s than new comers?


Oh, no doubt. But those previous owners would have a nostalgia/familiarity bias like I do and I am guessing most others do. "I remember it as a kid," "It was my favorite," "My parents never bought me one but always wished I had one," "Those games got me into video games," etc. It would be hard to get a true reason for the appeal for new 8-bit software from people who were driven by nostalgia.

On the other hand, people who grew up after 8-bit computers and consoles were long gone and only knew 32 and 64-bit gaming wouldn't have that bias to contend with. If some of those people, who grew up with Sega Saturns, Playstations and Nintendo 64s, finally laid their eyes on old 8-bit software and fell in love, thought those were the best and so much better than 32 and 64-bit games, and decided they had to have them even though they grew up with much more powerful systems and games, then you would have a fan source that would be viewing 8-bit stuff from "the outside". They would see the appeal of 8-bit software as 8-bit software, not as part of their childhoods or some memory trigger of favorite times of their lives.

As I said, part of what I like about 8-bit games is that they were so primitive in looks and in processor power that they had to have great gameplay. Without that it was a disaster. But I also know that much of the appeal, for me, is due to nostalgia and growing up with those systems.


#2523328 Appeal of new 8-bit software.

Posted by ledzep on Wed May 16, 2012 3:15 PM

For me the appeal of new 8-bit games is the same it always was, 30 years ago or today. Why, just becuase technology has made games much more sophisticated on new technology (and I enjoy the latest games on new tech too), should it make new games on old, less sophisticated systems of years passed any less enjoyable?

Why, just because they are new games on old tech should they be any less fun to play than new games were years ago when the the old tech was new? I still enjoy playing chess, and it's an ancient game. Is chess only fun to play now with 3D graphics on the latest PC? People still like board games, even though they rely on no technology at all. Baseball and Football have been around for 100-200 years, but they are even more popular today than ever! Old does not equal bad or boring!!!

We have tons of interactive media, but billions of people world-wide still enjoy non-interactive movies, new or classic, or even classic books (whether in books or on a Nook or other electronic tablet). are new books only good if read on technolgoy instead in a bound book? So why should it be any different than playing new games on old systems?

Personally I think it's all in people's heads. They have been brain-washed by the industry and media into thinking it's only good if it is on the latest technology. If more people would give old tech a chance, they too would realize it's still good too.


I see this mostly the same way. If it was good then, why shouldn't it still be good now? Now, that's a bit subjective, some things (disco) were abominations and thank Odin they're gone. But other things stand the test of time so why not still like them?

Much of my liking of 8-bit software is, honestly, because I grew up with it, it's what I got used to. Atari and Vectrex games meant the world to me back then and hold a special place with me to this day. I very much doubt that if were born today and never laid eyes on 8-bit software until I became an adult 20 years from now that I would be compelled to like any of it or seek it out or try to re-invent it or even understand why anyone would give a damn about it. It's how I feel about '50s-era pop music, it is horrible and I can't believe anyone could like that stuff and I wouldn't care if I never heard any of it again. But people who grew up with that music love it. Same goes for the 8-bit games.

Part of what I like about 8-bit games (not including 8-bit word processors and art programs and such because those are miserable failures compared to what's currently available) is the fact that since the graphics were, for the most part, laughably primitive and incapable of representing reality, the programmers had to concentrate on making the action playable and fun and interesting. Simple rules, simple goals. Asteroids and Star Castle can go on forever doing the same thing. Xevious takes a while to go through the entire land but it's just super Galaxian. But I'm a big twitch/shooter game fan so I'm biased. Sure, if you made Dig Dug today you could render everything practically photoreal and it might look like real dirt with real beings being blown up by real guys in vacc suits. So what, I never cared that Pole Position didn't look like a live-action race or that Tempest didn't represent anything real, I loved the gameplay and the difficulty levels. Defender supplies more than enough blocky 8-bit shapes to convince you that you're seeing a spaceship flying over ground rescuing humans and killing aliens, nothing would be gained by adding 64-bit graphics but everything would be lost if the action changed. Vector graphics are even worse, wire-frame shapes moving around other wire-frame shapes? But the gameplay of Battlezone and Star Trek is unmatched... if you like that kind of gameplay. If you're into RPGs or first-person perspective combat shooters with realistic texture maps and interactive lighting then all the 8-bit games suck.

Another part of what I like about them is due to nostalgia. I see those games, I see just the packaging, and I feel like a kid again. It applies to original Hot Wheels (before they ruined them), LEGO sets, WB and MGM cartoons, all of that stuff. One of the cool things about new homebrew games is that it allows me to feel that "oh boy, a new game came out" rush again, like when I first owned an Atari 2600 (and, later, an Atari 800) and went to the store to buy a game for it. Now I have a Vectrex and Atari 5200 as well so that's 4 separate ways to experience that feeling again when someone makes a new homebrew game. I mean, the Crash wasn't necessary, those systems could have survived longer than 1984 and some company could have released a "real" Warrior for the Vectrex or an official Warlords for the 5200, right? So we had to wait 20+ years, big deal. It is for that reason that I very very very much prefer homebrews released as physical carts with boxes and manuals, so it's exactly like when new games came out in stores back in the day. It also explains my love of the new Camaros, Challengers and Mustangs even if they're not as cool as the original '60s/'70s versions, the nostalgia pull still works because they finally got close enough to that ideal.

I think the OP would get a truer, unbiased answer if he were to ask the question only to 8-bit software fans who didn't grow up with 8-bit games and only got into them later in life so nostalgia and familiarity couldn't play into the answer.


#2481605 FINALLY! Vectrex overlay repro's

Posted by ledzep on Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:53 PM

Well, if either of you are still looking for reasons to make even more Vectrex overlays, you might want to consider the ZVG board + hooking it to a Vectrex as a vector monitor = a market, though probably very small, for overlays to mimic the original arcade game looks. Some aren't going to be "right", the color vector games like Space Duel and Tempest would need some imaginative but otherwise incorrect color schemes and some games like the Star Trek Strategic Operations Simulator could have correct colors for the bridge info but not really for the main screen, but all the black & white games or games that don't have shifting elements could really use overlays. Battlezone would be a great one. I have one of those boards and the Vectrex wiring harness so at some point I'm going to have a Vectrex Zektor VectorMAME (say that 3 times fast) game droid. Would be cool to be able to get overlays. Can you imagine, a little Aztarac bubble overlay?


#2480962 FINALLY! Vectrex overlay repro's

Posted by ledzep on Fri Mar 9, 2012 12:03 PM


I discovered your ebay auction a week or two ago and I DID initially mistake the item as being a full set. Yes I thought the price was quite low for such a set, but it wasn't until i tried to add the auction to my "watch list" that i realized what you were selling for that price. At that point the site prompted me to select a particular overlay.

It's hard for me to discern the quality of your overlays from the pictures. I'd highly recommend providing pics of each overlay with the matching game running behind it.


That is definitely in my plans. Great suggestion.

I am awaiting the arrival of my Multi-Cart to fill in the gaps of the games I don't have. At that time, expect to see higher resolution photos and YouTube linked videos of each overlay with its corresponding game.


Fantastic. While I have most of the original games boxed with their overlays it's good to know that there are replacements available so the originals can stay in decent shape longer.

I have a couple of questions for you -

1) Have you considered talking to the various homebrewists out there who make games without overlays in order to come up with some "official" overlay designs for those newer games? I think it would be cool to have the option to buy one or more overlays from you for those games and that they would be what they "should" be in terms of design. I know a few programmers have created or made available overlay files for emulators but I'm sure most of the homebrew games don't have any.

2) Are your overlays arranged exactly like the originals or have you made adjustments for some that might not have been aligned correctly? I think I remember that Star Castle and maybe a couple others don't really line up with the game graphics correctly and could use some tweaking.

Anyway, thanks for doing this!


#2469107 Most overrated games in your opinion

Posted by ledzep on Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:23 PM

For classic I'd have to say any and all Pac-Man games. I never understood what a maze of dots being erased did for people. And this extends to collecting arcade games. I know some people who would like to get into that and don't have enough room but, boy, if they had the chance, they'd get a Pac-Man machine (or Donkey Kong, another overrated game). Seriously? They're the size of a refrigerator (I know, I own a few) and if you could manage to buy one the first one you'd go for is Pac-Man?

As for more modern games? Guitar Hero and it's more irritating cousin Rock Band. It's Simon!! Are you kidding me?!? Nobody would spend lots of money on a Simon game but, man, every person I know who owned an XBox talked up Guitar Hero and how cool it was to "play" his favorite songs. You're not playing your favorite song, you're playing Simon while your favorite song is playing through the speakers! Rock Band is even worse because there were people forming "groups" that "play" songs, they put so much effort into getting good at pressing buttons in sync with songs, it baffles me to no end. If you're that much into music and learning to play a guitar or learning that favorite song, buy a musical instrument and pay for lessons! I tried to play at some friend's Rock Band party, I couldn't get into it. I know how hard it is to learn to play guitar and this was certainly not the same thing. But people were impressed, acting like their friends were actually musicians playing songs in front of them. Wow, you're really good! Ya, at Simon.


#2335755 Best TV's for classic consoles.

Posted by ledzep on Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:00 PM

Not to pile on, but this idea that "it ain't authentic if it ain't RF" has come up several times, and in my opinion it doesn't make much sense. I addressed it in another thread recently:

All an A/V upgrade does is take the original signals from the console and amplify or reshape them into a purer form, which can be used directly by modern televisions and monitors. The RF modulator might have been a necessary intermediary in the 70s and 80s, when all we had were televisions with antenna inputs, but it isn't any longer. By installing an A/V upgrade, you're really removing a restriction to seeing and hearing the console in its best possible state, not adding something that the console didn't originally have.

However, if your console works fine through RF and you're happy using it that way, that's your choice. In some cases (like the Intellivision), I've found that the available A/V upgrades don't give you enough of an improvement to justify the trouble and expense.

Quite. I bought one of the last of the Sony Trinitrons before they all disappeared. Fantastic, it's my main and only TV. I cannot stand seeing the noise in LCD and plasma displays, improved as they have become. And I, too, have heard people complain about the massive weight (close to 300lbs) of that set. So what? Am I carrying it anywhere? No. That Sony is HD and has multiple inputs including HDMI. I wish SED had been pursued, I don't know what I'm going to do when this CRT kicks off.

As for the "it ain't authentic if it ain't RF" discussion, I agree that it doesn't make sense. Furthermore, I lived through that era. You know what else you need for a truly "authentic" experience? For all video games to be 8-bit and for arcades with classic games to be widely accessible. Because back then we didn't know that there would be 16-bit and 32-bit and 64-bit consoles and online gaming. Part of the "authentic" experience was the assumption that we were playing the "best" consoles available. And back then it was sort of true when there was nothing but Atari 2600s, then Atari 5200s and Colecovisions and Intellivisions. But now they are grossly underpowered, slow, and the games are blocky-looking compared to Playstations and Xboxes. And there aren't loads of twitch arcade games that people are expecting to be converted to home consoles. And no vector games! Crap!!

I have a modded Atari 5200 for two reasons. First, I don't care to have that goofy power block/switchbox permanently hooked to my setup. Second, it's very easy for me to take that 5200 to someone else's house and simply hook it up to his flatscreen TV with the RCA jacks. I plan to mod my Sears Telegames Video Arcade (Atari 2600) for the same reasons. And to avoid excessive color bleed.

You can't beat CRTs for the classic console gaming experience. But you won't get half of the potential out of that CRT if you feed the console through an RF switchbox hanging off the back of it, either.


#2335051 Opinion of Vectrex.

Posted by ledzep on Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:59 PM

What, what, what?!? How in the heck could I miss a release such as War of the Worlds?!?

Getting my payment out post haste. Thanks for sharing ledzep!!

No problem, glad another fan has found that guy's site! The more homebrews the better, I say. I still can't believe nobody has made a decent Tempest clone besides the now very rare Tsunami. But hopefully the more people out there keeping this amazing droid alive, the more opportunities for the "lost" vector games to be added. We're one working trackball away from Quantum, you know.


#2334276 Opinion of Vectrex.

Posted by ledzep on Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:02 PM

I can't wait for Warrior, the old arcade game that Fury Unlimited is making. I still need to break out my Vectrex to play War Of The Worlds. What's next, Red Baron?


#2329178 5200 marketing question

Posted by ledzep on Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:59 PM

I accidentally raised from the dead an older thread on this topic attempting to link to it :dunce: but there is some good info on the topic there.

I would speculate that Atari couldn't get enough supplies together for a wide Christmas '82 campaign and concentrated on the U.S and Toronto for those initial months and then once the crash started in 83 they decided not to risk a full expansion into Canada as Coleco had scooped them.

Unless someone can find some Sears or other catalogs from 82-83 that prove otherwise, I think its clear that the 5200 never had anything more than a test launch in Southern Ontario.


Speaking of Sears, I wonder what a Tele-games version of the 5200 would have been packaged like. Still with games in black boxes with different names? Maybe it would be the Super Video Arcade. I'm a sucker for the Sears version of the 2600, obviously.


#2162449 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:02 AM

[quote name='atariksi' date='Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:48 AM' timestamp='1291301333' post='2148937']
I already gave you all the parameters. Just consider the Donkey Kong experiment who data was recently posted and you should be able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role:
(1) Jumping from one ledge to another in pie screen, 3rd platform is one;
(2) Jumping over the oil barrel is another one;
(3) Jumping amidst a bunch of barrels with some diagonal jumps in both directions and some straight up jumps;
(4) Getting to an exact point under the ladder quickly and climbing it (on all screens);
(5) Jumping from escalators back and forth to get the prize;
and other spots requiring timing things.

I played the game with gravis joystick as pictured and with Atari 2600 joystick as pictured. I played the pie screen multiple times with each. At least 10 times each.
[/quote]

No, you didn't begin to give all the parameters. I gave them to you, more than once. For a start, you have failed to present who comprised your control and experimental groups of gamers. Multiple gamers is a requirement for any experiment that claims that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for every gamer.

Nobody gives a shit how many times you played anything or what you played it with, don't you understand? If you played a games at least 10 times then all you have is data for yourself. And since we all know you suck at using analog joysticks the data is worthless for substantiating any claims about digital joysticks applying to any gamers other than yourself (and your lipsticked imaginary pal).

I will "consider" the Donkey Kong "experiment" when you release all the parameters of your experiments and all the data generated by them. Until then it's just biased speculation on your part that your results apply to anyone else. I am able to see how the uncertainty regions and long throw play a detrimental role for you because you suck at playing games with analog joysticks. What has yet to be established is evidence that they play a detrimental role for anyone else. You know how you can begin to establish that? Hmm? You got it, release data that shows how other game players suffered the same problems with your "uncertainty regions" and "long throw play". Aaaaaaw, but that would mean you'd have to do something you are philosophically against doing and that is actually running a comprehensive, unbiased experiment using a control and an experimental group. Aw, man!

[quote]
I have done both. You just keep misreading or not reading the points I have made. And stop with the name calling. You need to be emotionally unbiased to even discuss scientific experiments what to speak of performing them.

[some rubbish deleted]
[/quote]

You have?!? Well hot damn, that's great! So where is it? Where is your evidence that your claim that it's a scientific fact that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true?

[awaiting some rubbish relating to how you don't need to provide links to authoritative sources because you don't want to]

[quote]
No, if you make 100 experiments of F=ma and you release 10 experiments that show F=ma. What difference does it make whether you post data for the other 90. I posted the ones that are popular titles and narrowed the data to where there's high failure rate for analog joysticks; its easier to discuss small sets than to dump megabytes of the hard drive on a discussion forum.
[/quote]

Almost. If I, like you, claimed to have run 100 experiments of F=ma and then only release the parameters and data from 10 of those experiments while refusing to release the parameters and data for the other 90 by hiding behind idiotic claims that logic is an acceptable substitute or that people can infer the results for the other 90 experiments based off of the measly 10 that I grudgingly present then I would be laughed out of whatever scientific institution I had made that claim in. Just like everyone (minus Didntknow16) has been laughing at you ever since you revealed that you don't have the "megabytes" of data for the supposed "hundreds" of experiments you pretend to have run.

[quote]
Nope, I clearly stated that the analog joystick "hatred" was to emphasize my point early in the thread since you were mixing up other controllers (go back and read it). And as a follow-up I stated that I can hate things AFTER establishing they are inferior. I still use analog joysticks since some software only support analog joysticks on PC/A5200.
[/quote]

Retroactive excuses to distance yourself from your admission of bias don't play here, my redundantly incorrect friend.

So you have established that analog joysticks are inferior? When/where did you do that? I mean, if you'd done that you'd have like, I don't know, evidence to back up this new, unsubstantiated claim, right? Do you? Let's see it.

Dare I say it? Put-up or shut-up time again, haahahaa.

[quote]
Your reasoning does not follow (assuming it's reasoning). Nor does calling it crap change the truth. If I want to prove that infinite levels employed in a scenario produce zero control, I have to resort to math or deductive logic as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range (0..1300 or whatever). You can only experiment on a limited set. If I want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throw in general, then you need a logical/mathematical proof rather than an experimental since experiment can only take into account a limited number of joysticks and their throw distance. Nonetheless, the experiment by itself is also proving digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks.
[/quote]

You didn't address the argument. So you are now claiming that you have to resort to math or deductive logic (neither of which you've done effectively) as all analog joysticks digitize their values to a limited range? Haahahaa, you are now stating that all your "hundreds" of experiments that are the core of your "scientific fact" are flawed or inconclusive!! Fantastic, you've just negated yourself and all the hours you've spent taking pictures of TV screens with games displayed on them and pretending that that was "data". What a colossal blunder.

And, for the record, if you want to prove that analog joysticks have longer throws in general you most definitely do not need a logical/mathematical proof, you need to physically measure all the joysticks and the ranges of their travel. Any claim about a physical property must be proven or supported by physical measurements, genius. Only an idiot would attempt to use a logical/mathematical proof to prove a physical property of something that can be physically measured.

How do you prove that DVDs hold more information than CDs? Logic/math? No, you see how much data can be stored on each type, from each manufacturer using each method of disk writing. How do you prove that plasma monitors display a wider color range than LCD monitors? Logic/math? No, you pump the same images into both types, from multiple manufacturers and you physically measure the color ranges of those monitors. How do you prove that analog joysticks have longer throws than digital joysticks? Logic/math? Only if you're retarded. You measure the joystick lengths and travel ranges of every available joystick, analog and digital, that you can get your hands on and rely on manufacturers' specs for the ones you can't get to. "Logic/math" is for people who don't want real data when it's freely available. "Logic/math" is for people who know that the physical data will refute their faulty claims, so better to not even introduce it.

[quote]
You've got your PMails and forums confused. I have every right to answer any post which is related to my experiment especially if it mistakenly disparages it (like in your case).

[more self-contradictory stuff from you about data being useless deleted]

If you want more data, then stop claiming it's useless. Actually, you are unfit to talk about scientific experiments given your biased stands. People who are interested in the truth can talk about scientific experiments.
[/quote]

I admit, it's hard to tell when I'm talking to you or you since aprioriksi and Didntknow16 both answer posts in the same way using the same phrases. It's not like I can see when you're dressed like a boy and when you're dressed like a girl, right?

You have every right to corroborate your claims of having run "hundreds" of experiments that generated "megabytes" of data (and not those useless jpegs of TV screens) yet you refuse. Why? No mistake, you have disparaged yourself by making excuses for not providing the minimum to prove your claim. What's the minimum? Why, all the parameters for your experiments and all the data those experiments generated, of course.

[more excuses and distractions about "logic" and "emotion" expected]

I don't want more data, I want all the data. I'm not saying your data is useless, I'm saying providing incomplete, out-of-context subsets of your claimed total amount of data is useless. And it is useless for you to hold back the rest of this supposed data. All that does is reinforce the obvious truth that you don't actually have any of those "megabytes" of data.

You are unfit to talk about having run "hundreds" of experiments until you release all the data and all the parameters of your claimed experiments. So far you have fallen so very short.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
As for hypocrite, I find two definitions that apply to you -
[/quote]
Once again, just making a claim doesn't make it true. Read on:

[quote]
Definition of HYPOCRITE

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
[/quote]
That doesn't apply to anyone.
[/quote]

Oh yes it does. You. You have tried multiple times to present an appearance of virtue. You cry about "personal attacks" as if everyone is using them on you and you have never done the same on this thread (another fault), you try to turn your monumental failures to support your claims of running hundreds of experiments that generated megabytes of data into a virtue by hiding behind "logic" and "math", like those are higher forms of proof instead of simply shutting everyone down by presenting all your data.

[quote]
[quote]
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I go around asking for proof from blowhards who claim to have proof yet repeatedly make excuses as to why they won't present that proof.
[/quote]

You misunderstood that definition. You are making claims that are unfounded yet demand proof from others. That's hypocracy as it applies to you.
[/quote]

You misunderstand your understanding of the definition. You have repeatedly contradicted yourself in this thread, you are guilty of personal attacks on forum members while simultaneously complaining about personal attacks you claim are aimed at you, you guilty of claiming to have followed the scientific method while failing to have run a comprehensive experiment using control and experimental groups as well as communicating your results and you have claimed that your biased opinion about digital joysticks is a scientific fact while failing to have shown where it has been confirmed repeatedly and been accepted as true (that means by most everybody, not just you and your menstruating puppet).

Put-up or shut-up time again. Release all the data and all the parameters from all your experiments or admit by your failure to do so that you are a fraud.


#2157677 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:59 AM


All the parameters are missing. Every specific move you made in your fake experiment. You can't just say that you "played hundreds of games" or you ran your experiment a hundred times, you have to spell out what you did, how you did it, who you did it to,

I gave you list of games in post #114, 137. That's enough for the conclusion which also happens to be logical and mathematically supported. All parameters are present. My playing of Popeye and DK was given in REC files. I don't need to play the whole game to show the higher failure rate of analog joysticks. Just spots where the uncertainty and long throw a play a big role. If you want to see the experiment repeated live, come over and I'll put it in your face since you can't seem to do it yourself. As I said, I played hundreds of games but whatever data is presented is sufficient to draw the conclusion.


A "list of games" is not all the parameters, so that is definitely far far from "enough" for a conclusion. The only thing "logical" about your position is that it is logical to assume that you will continue to make excuses for failing to reveal how you ran your experiments, who you ran them on, what gear you ran them with, what data was gathered from these "hundreds" of experiments and what the conclusions, if any, were the result. Adding up the number of times you refuse to follow the scientific method does not mathematically support your theory (even though it is a rapidly increasing value). You haven't even looked at that link, have you? No, of course not. If you had you would see what it is you are required to do as someone who claims to have run "hundreds" of experiments. Yet you won't. For shame.

Nobody cares what your playing of Popeye and DK resulted in. Why? Because you insist that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks for everybody, not just you. Nobody disputes that you hate analog joysticks and suck at using them. What everybody disputes is that you have proven that almost everybody scores higher when playing video games with digital joysticks as opposed to analog joysticks, something you have claimed more than once yet never supported with a shred of evidence. All we get is samples of games you have played. You do not represent all or even most video game players. You merely represent yourself and your cross-dressing alter-ego.

I want to see you run this lie of an experiment you claim to have run. That means that when I show up you better have -

(1) a control group of video game players and an experimental group of video game players who are participating in a double-blind experiment (meaning they don't know what controllers they're actually using for a specific game and neither do you until you check the controllers afterwards in order to negate your overbearing bias towards one type of controller),
(2) a series of sample joysticks for the gamers to use, some of which are actual digital joysticks, some of which are actual analog joysticks, some of which are digital joysticks with analog joystick guts and some which are analog joysticks with digital joystick guts so that they can be randomly used by the gamers (each with a unique marking so that you can match them to the test runs later),
(3) a large sample of games to be played that include games that are geared towards digital joysticks, games that are geared towards analog joysticks and games that are geared more towards other controller types (trackballs, paddles, etc.) but that can be played with joysticks,
(4) a video camera to record every gaming run by every gamer in either test group,
(5) an accurate way to record the outputs from the various joysticks (not any useless joystick "simulator") that are hooked into the gaming console. This console should be one that can both accept a number of different joysticks and be able to read both types of joysticks natively.

I list this out for you because we all know that you have done nothing like this before. You have made it clear that you only tested yourself, which makes your theory worthless. You have made it clear that you are unaware of or incapable of understanding the scientific method (I put that same link in again in order to give you the opportunity to ignore it twice) which makes your testing methods worthless. So now I have done for you what you cannot do for yourself, which is formulate a comprehensive, unbiased experiment for you to conduct. I expect to see at least 6 people in the control group and another 6 in the experimental group (although more would make for a more convincing test). These people should be of varying video gaming abilities and experience.


Not familiar with "Dr. Frog", but I have heard of Dr. Jackass. Have you? Goes like this. Once a puma living in the hills came to visit Dr. Jackass who spent all his time online.

You are just choosing random analogies. Dr. Frog did not want to perform the experiment because he was narrow-minded and considered himself a big-shot. You are just name-calling. Once again you fail to understand that logic/math is not a replacement for the experiment. The experiment and logic/math are two ways to prove my point.

"Accepted by many" doesn't have to mean majority. There are other people who accept that digital joysticks provide superior control than analog joysticks-- I mentioned some of those big names-- MasterPlay, Amiga Corp., Commodore, Atari, etc. etc. And you see from the polls many people besides the two active arguers accept the same. You are just speculating and acting like Dr. Frog: "I don't know of anyone besides you two who makes such a claim." That's your limited vision.


You chose an analogy that had nothing to do with the debate and I found one that directly applies to you. Which one is random, again?

Where do you get the idea that I'm "just name-calling"? If it's ok for you to reference a story with two frogs in it then I can reference a story that involves a mountain lion and a donkey. Now I wonder why you would think that "jackass" was aimed at you. Psychologically project much?

Yes, the experiment and logic/math are two ways to prove your point. Let us know when you actually accomplish either of those.

You see from your own poll that many people besides the legion of people refuting you accept that analog joysticks are better. Since you are so terrible with English I will mention now that corporations are not "people", so when you claim that "there are other people who accept that digital joysticks provide superior control than analog joysticks" and then list gaming/computer companies you sound even more ridiculous than you normally do when you are merely making excuses for why you won't release all the data from your experiments along with all the parameters involved in those experiments. Or are you saying you know individuals named Atari, Amiga Corp., etc.? I suppose you might know someone who insists on being called "Commodore" but why would you want to?

I'm not speculating, I am certain that you will never, ever, back up your claims about having "megabytes" of data from "hundreds" of experiments.

P.S. Put-up or shut-up time. Release all the data from your "experiments" along with all the parameters from those experiments or it's colossal fail for you.


#2156525 Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

Posted by ledzep on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:38 PM

You can stop speculating as there's more than two people in this thread who disagree with you what to speak of the world.


Besides you and Didntknow16, who are the others who disagree with him? Because I only see you two.

Nor does majority make you right. Nor does speculating about people's character make your useless speculative argument any stronger.


If majority doesn't make him right then it doesn't make you right, either. So explain why at the start of this demonstration of your bias that you made a point of mentioning how everybody (majority) knows that digital joysticks provide better control than analog joysticks and that lots of other people have run the same experiments (you provide ZERO proof for that, by the way) and they all came to the same conclusion. If majority doesn't make you right then having lots of people supposedly getting the same results that you got is worthless and a waste of time to mention. And you are now stating that the results of your poll will be worthless, too, because if more people vote for digital joysticks that doesn't make you or your poll right, haahahaaha. Way to negate yourself. If you want people to think that the results of your poll matter then you have to agree that majority matters and that makes him right, not you.

Stop speculating. I'm going to let you think about it and calm down before I answer the rest of your gibberish and drivel since they don't even address the points he made.