Barnacle boy

I know it's been said one hundred times already, but this is a seriously cool release. *Wanders off humming the Space Harrier theme*

That looks sexy as hell, GB.

That could be really neat. Imagine how cool it would be going around the corners, with the left/right turns rotated 90deg into up/down climbing and diving... plummeting down into chasms and then pulling back to climb out the other side, etc.

Gameboy Advance != Gameboy. "I just saw" == "I just saw after fervently Googling for 'gameboy api'".

...apart from all the points he ignores.

Manifestation of psychological issues that have a profound root cause and/or effect(s) in real life. Apart from the obvious weirdness of being pathologically unable to admit fault or error (even in relatively mild cases where the fault is merely oversimplification or a lack or qualification), there's certainly something very odd about the huge importance he places on limited control states and being able to know the exact state "a priori" while almost completely disregarding the usefulness of a greater range/freedom of control.

@ Atariksi: Seriously? That's your reply? Let's be clear here, I have presented a simple example, which I'm going to post yet again so you can't try to misrepresent it: Now don't get me wrong; I don't think this is an earth-shattering insight. It's merely a simple real-world example that demonstrates that different people can perform differently with different sticks (shocking, I know!). It also neatly demonstrates the invalidity of these claims made by you: I've now asked you multiple times to explain how your claims about 'factoring out skill level' and only needing a single person as the subject can be supportable given the example I have provided, and this is your response: Uh oh. What a load of drivel. What's this business you're trying to slip in now: "Until he can get similar scores for digital joysticks, he cannot perform the experiment." What experiment? I'm not trying to perform an experiment. I've simply shown you an example, based on my own past experience, that demonstrates the falsity of the claims made by you as posted above. Why is it now important to have "scores being similar for each type"? What do you mean, and how is it relevant? If I said "Until Atariksi can get similar scores with analog and digital joysticks, he cannot perform his experiment", would you be like, "Oh okay, sure. I accept that arbitrary condition"? No, the point remains. I did better with the Speedking than with the Quickshot. My buddy did better with the Quickshot than with the Speedking. Therefore, if we take my buddy's case and apply Atariksi logic, the Quickshot is proven to be the better stick. Yet if we take my case and apply Atariksi logic, the Speedking is proven to be the better stick. Contradictory conclusions = faulty logic. Sorry, but you can't wriggle out of that. For the record, however, there wasn't a great deal of difference between my actual scores with the Quickshot and the Speedking. It's just that in our highly competitive Speedball 2 sessions, my performance with the Quickshot suffered just enough to consistently give my opponent the edge. The same was true for my buddy, except it was the Speedking that brought his win rate down. So I'm afraid that particular red herring you're trying to slip in there is nothing but a big ol dead end. So... how about you drop all the evasive waffle, and man up and explain as clearly as possible (even in point form if necessary) how your claims about 'factoring out the skill level' and only needing one subject to establish proof can be applied to my example. Or do I have to just keep bringing it up again and again and again? *Cue protracted silence from Atariksi, followed some pages later by a post that further muddies the water without addressing my question head on.*

Atarian63, pictured yesterday:

You are mixing "having learned to use joysticks" with "being used to both joysticks". Okay, you don't have to read the manual but you still need to experience both joysticks. Theoretical vs. practical. I know for a fact that I can easily adapt to various digital and analog joysticks with no effect on how I play the game. And that's true for the friends that come over and do the same. Maybe you are getting too emotional and letting it affect you which would disqualify you from experimenting but not your general case. So you can't generalize that the logic is flawed or skill factor is not factorable from your case. I appreciate that you've made a somewhat more honest attempt at answering my question than Papa Atariksi's obvious smokescreen, however there is a something you should realise about your reply: The suppositions you have presented above in an attempt to disqualify my example can all be directed at Atariksi's single subject "experiment". Perhaps he is not sufficiently "used to" all the joysticks in his test. Perhaps he is "getting too emotional" and letting it affect him when conducting his test. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to question the validity of my example (which involved using two subjects and two different types of joystick in literally hundreds of gaming sessions) on such grounds, you must also question the validity of a single subject claiming his personal experience constitutes a "proof" applicable to the wider population. All the quirks of the individual -- his level of experience with different sticks, his preferences, his bias, even his physiology (eg big hands vs small hands) -- will have an effect on his experience and level of success with different sticks. That is precisely why it is foolhardy to make claims such as this: In the words of the great poet, Sega Rally guy: GAME OVER, YEEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!

I'm pretty sure most folks here would have understood.

If you factor out the skill level, then you don't need a bunch of different test subjects. That was the point of that mathematical expression Sn(g)*A+Sn(g)*D = E. It can be extended to Sn(g)*A+Sn(g)*D+Sn(g)*P+Sn(g)*K + Sn(g)*T + Sn(g)*M= E where P = paddles, K=keyboard controls, T=touch tablet, M=mouse, etc. But we're concerned mainly about A and D so just set the other variables P,K,M,T = 0. You perform the experiment E and just note down the terms and as you can't already assume the inequality one way or the other so E is the experimental activity. You do a need to play each game many times unless you know the exact point of failure and can repeatedly do that part and you do need to play a few different games but no need to bother with those that have similar points of failure. You can optimize the joysticks so you don't have to iterate over all the various joysticks in the world. Funny how you cut out the post Kool Kitty was replying to, cutting out the very simple and obvious example that demonstrates that you cannot simply "factor out the skill level" Let's put it back in for your benefit (I've added some further explanatory points in red to help remove any confusion you might be pretending to have): So far you have been too timid to address this. Either too timid, or too intellectually dishonest. You have pretended to address it, with this post: But that was merely an attempt at avoiding the issue with intentional misconstrual (one of your favourite and most obvious tactics when proven wrong). I say intentional, as my example is so straightforward I find it hard to believe that you failed to understand. Furthermore, I've made a specific point of mentioning your reply here because if I didn't, you would most likely try to wriggle out of it by saying something like 'I already responded to this in Post #1121.' But make no mistake: You haven't addressed the issue. You have not acquitted yourself in any way. Your logic is flawed. If it isn't, then please explain to me how the following claims -- -- can withstand being applied to my straightforward real-world example above. (Bold emphasis mine, btw.) Let me remind you that in Post #1124 I said: That challenge stands. If you are too stubborn or too scared to honestly respond to my question, perhaps Divya16 can attempt on your behalf. Come on Divya, you claimed the following: So how about you explain how Atariksi's so-called 'logical expression' and factoring out of the individual's skill can apply to the example I presented above. Which is the better joystick? By the way, if I'm starting to sound repetitive, it's because I have to be laboriously specific in order to minimise opportunities for Atariksi to weakly dodge the matter through any one of his typical avoidance tactics. This is a fact that does not reflect well on his character.

Your assumption is just a speculation. What assumption did I make? I merely presented a hypothetical situation and asked some questions. You might not expect it, but what if someone reported exactly that, based on their own tests? How would you respond? In my hypothetical situation the subject has played hundreds of games of Donkey Kong and Pacman, as stated. Who is suggesting it represents a single attempt at a game? Not me. Please, this is a straightforward hypothetical and two simple questions. Allow me to repeat it: Suppose someone joined this thread and announced that they had played hundreds of games of Donkey Kong and Pacman using both a digital stick and an analogue one, and they found they consistently performed better with the analogue stick. Would you then accept that analogue sticks have been proven to offer 'better' control than digital ones? Would you be content with that sample size of one person being extrapolated to apply to the wider population? Perhaps you could try to answer those questions this time?

Just for your information as I don't think some of these other people can understand this simple point: If I apply skill S0 to game g with digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S0(g)*A+S0(g)*D is the experiment. Guess what-- if someone else with skill S1 uses same game g and digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S1(g)*A+S1(g)*D then those subjects S0..Sn get factored out. It's called the distributive property in simpler mathematics. Your skill applies equally to both games so you don't need hundreds of subjects to determine the results. Although other people can repeat the experiment for themselves. Newton performed the control experiment himself-- didn't depend on other people doing the samething for him to do the control experiment. The target is to determine which joystick provides better control not how various people fare at various games. I don't know where to begin on your little equation, practically every aspect of it is incorrect, so I'll go with the most glaring math example: You can't factor out your skill variables. Although your notation uses the same names, they are in fact different variables and cannot be factored out, a common error in flawed proofs. No test plan? (do you know what a test plan is?) I'm so sorry, but the skill is of the same person using both types of joysticks and is thus factorable. When I played Miner 2049er with analog joystick and scored average of 35K and scored average of 48K with digital joystick-- I applied the same skills using those two joysticks. My skills didn't change. The controlled variable is ONLY the joysticks, and thus the conclusion from that experiment is that digital joystick provides better control. And I already listed five (5) items that back me up logically (inherently flawed analog joysticks). FYI, S(Miner2049er)*A < S(Miner2049er)*D, so given you have some skills to play the game (i.e, S(g)!=0), you divide by S(g) and thus A<D. QED. Explain this then Atariksi: I used to own an Amiga with two Konix speedking sticks. My mate also owned an Amiga, but he had two Quckshot sticks. My Speedking and his Quickshot were both digital, though they were quite different in terms of construction and design. During our many games of Speedball 2,we observed the following: 1) When he would come over to my place and play against me using the Speedking, I would usually beat him while he whined and moaned about the controller. 2) When I would go to his place and play against him using the Quickshot, he would usually beat me, and I would moan about the controller. 3) When either of us brought our preferred controller with us, our wins and losses over multiple games were fairly evenly matched. He knew how to use the Speedking. I knew how to use the Quickshot. Neither of us needed an instruction manual. So how does your so-called 'logical expression', your factoring out of skill, and your resulting conslusion account for the outcomes we experienced? If we apply Atariksi 'logic', then as I applied the 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Speedking, the Speedking is therefore scientifically proven to be the better joystick. Yet as my mate applied his 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Quickshot, the Quickshot is therefore scientifically proven to be the better stick, according to Atariksi 'logic'. The two conclusions are incompatible. Thus your logic is faulty. QED. edit: typos! Uh oh look who slipped out from under the rock Yeah, as if he never changed-- using his own misunderstandings/misexperiments to blame others. What need was there to experiment with two digital joysticks given that you can use one digital joystick and get different scores by playing the same game multiple times. Where in the above post did I say anything about a 'need to experiment with two digital joysticks'? I didn't. Your response is nothing more than a weak attempt at deflection, at hedging towards another Chewbacca Defense. What my post does illustrate, however, is a simple real world example in which one person performs better with Stick A and worse with Stick B, while the other person performs better with Stick B and worse with Stick A. So I ask again, how does the example I have described above sit with this argument from you (bold emphasis mine): How do you factor out the skill of each person in the example I have presented? What are you left with? It's plain that if we apply your argument to my real-word example, we are left with the claim that Stick A is better than Stick B (due to the experience of Person 1), and Stick B is better than Stick A (due to the experience of Person 2). It doesn't work. Your logic is broken. So I'm challenging you point-blank: Instead of dodging the question by resorting to intentional misconstrual and deflection, explain to me how your so-called 'logical expression' and your factoring out of the individual's skill can apply to the scenario I described above, in which my mate routinely performed better with the Quickshot over the Speedking, while I routinely performed better with the Speedking over the Quickshot. Which is the better joystick? Here's another way of looking at it. Suppose someone joined this thread and announced that they had played hundreds of games of Donkey Kong and Pacman using both a digital stick and an analogue one, and they found they consistently performed better with the analogue stick. Would you then accept that analogue sticks have been proven to offer 'better' control than digital ones? Would you be content with that sample size of one person being extrapolated to apply to the wider population? By the way, Atarian63. I was hoping someone who wasn't on Atariksi's ignore list would quote my post so he couldn't pretend he hadn't seen it. Who better than the one guy who will quote the entire thing without having anything to add. No argument, no pertinent criticism. Just a throwaway line and the old rolleyes smiley. Perfect! You really are a useful tool sometimes.

I addressed all of your points and your entire passage was quoted in #1089. He screwed up and by agreeing with him, you screwed up or never read my reply. You cannot compare some N64 game score by itself or with another system's score or with another player. There's no Atari 2600 joystick interface for those games-- at least you didn't use one. Nor is your experiment controlled. How you can miss all those points and say "Thanks" is beyond me. Pretty sure he expressed the thing about his son's generally greater capability with the N64 stick as an observation rather than as an attempt at presenting a "controlled experiment" -- an observation highlighting the fact that is possible for an individual, while being able to use both digital and analogue controllers, could be more experienced and adept with one method in particular. Or do you deny that possibility? And why is an Atari 2600 joystick interface suddenly a vital component in your so-called logical expression: S0(g)*A+S0(g)*D Now, do you have a reply to my post #1108? C'mon, don't be shy.

That's not the point. People get better control with the digital joystick is the issue. I already admitted I can get higher scores with analog joystick when comparing with other people playing with digital joysticks. That's an uncontrolled experiment. Skills have to be factored out so that's why I can't compare like that. Hmm. When quoting 5-11under, you cut off a rather important part of his reply. Here's the full paragraph (bold emphasis added by me): He is clearly making the point that some individuals may well perform better in general with an analogue stick than with a digital one. He notes that this may be due to greater familiarity with a particular kind of stick, and points out that this is precisely why the results of your "experiment" can vary across different people: ie. it's possible a person might do better using an analogue stick in a given game than they would using a digital stick. It's a straightforward point he is making, and clearly expressed. However, when you replied to him, you cut off half the paragraph and then replied specifically in regard to comparing scores between different people. That was not his argument. He was talking about comparing an individual's performance with one method of input to the same individual's performance with another. So what happened there? Did you misunderstand his point? Or did deliberately misconstrue it and misrepresent it because it exposed a flaw in your argument? In short, did you "mess up in understanding", or are you intellectually dishonest?

Just for your information as I don't think some of these other people can understand this simple point: If I apply skill S0 to game g with digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S0(g)*A+S0(g)*D is the experiment. Guess what-- if someone else with skill S1 uses same game g and digital joystick D and analog joystick A then S1(g)*A+S1(g)*D then those subjects S0..Sn get factored out. It's called the distributive property in simpler mathematics. Your skill applies equally to both games so you don't need hundreds of subjects to determine the results. Although other people can repeat the experiment for themselves. Newton performed the control experiment himself-- didn't depend on other people doing the samething for him to do the control experiment. The target is to determine which joystick provides better control not how various people fare at various games. I don't know where to begin on your little equation, practically every aspect of it is incorrect, so I'll go with the most glaring math example: You can't factor out your skill variables. Although your notation uses the same names, they are in fact different variables and cannot be factored out, a common error in flawed proofs. No test plan? (do you know what a test plan is?) I'm so sorry, but the skill is of the same person using both types of joysticks and is thus factorable. When I played Miner 2049er with analog joystick and scored average of 35K and scored average of 48K with digital joystick-- I applied the same skills using those two joysticks. My skills didn't change. The controlled variable is ONLY the joysticks, and thus the conclusion from that experiment is that digital joystick provides better control. And I already listed five (5) items that back me up logically (inherently flawed analog joysticks). FYI, S(Miner2049er)*A < S(Miner2049er)*D, so given you have some skills to play the game (i.e, S(g)!=0), you divide by S(g) and thus A<D. QED. Explain this then Atariksi: I used to own an Amiga with two Konix speedking sticks. My mate also owned an Amiga, but he had two Quckshot sticks. My Speedking and his Quickshot were both digital, though they were quite different in terms of construction and design. During our many games of Speedball 2,we observed the following: 1) When he would come over to my place and play against me using the Speedking, I would usually beat him while he whined and moaned about the controller. 2) When I would go to his place and play against him using the Quickshot, he would usually beat me, and I would moan about the controller. 3) When either of us brought our preferred controller with us, our wins and losses over multiple games were fairly evenly matched. He knew how to use the Speedking. I knew how to use the Quickshot. Neither of us needed an instruction manual. So how does your so-called 'logical expression', your factoring out of skill, and your resulting conslusion account for the outcomes we experienced? If we apply Atariksi 'logic', then as I applied the 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Speedking, the Speedking is therefore scientifically proven to be the better joystick. Yet as my mate applied his 'same skill' to both sticks and routinely did better with the Quickshot, the Quickshot is therefore scientifically proven to be the better stick, according to Atariksi 'logic'. The two conclusions are incompatible. Thus your logic is faulty. QED. edit: typos!

Oh, and for the record, I suspect that Atariksi and Divya are not the same person. My suspicion is that Divya is Atariksi's offspring, and that much of the refusal to accept reality exhibited in this thread is driven on the one hand by a desire for parental approval coupled with the need to see one's parent as right and wise, and on the other hand, a desire to save face in the presence of one's child. Of course, that's just my MENTAL SPECULATION on the matter.

Wow. There have been some pretty lol-worthy arguments made in this thread, but this one is a doozy. Let me get this straight. What we're seeing here is an attempt to take the example of a person playing the same game with two different types of joysticks and represent it in mathematical terms in order to argue that the differences between different individuals is irrelevant (ie: the level of skill exhibited by the test subject can be factored out) as in any given test the individual's skill level "applies equally to both games" (though I think he meant 'to both gaming sessions' or 'in both cases' as it is in fact the same game being played, just a different controller... but never mind that.) First off, the attempt to illustrate the concept mathematically as presented above makes NO SENSE AT ALL. You simply came up with some labels for the key concepts and strung them together with a few operators, sticking a plus sign in the middle in the hope of of making it vaguely resemble a factored equation. But the result is absolutely meaningless and comes across as nothing more than a Chewbacca defense-like attempt to obfuscate the issue. Secondly, the assertion that a person's skill applies equally in both cases completely ignores the possibility that the individual being tested could be more experienced and more adept with a particular controller, which would undoubtedly have an effect on this nebulous attempt at quantifying a subject's skill level as being somehow fixed and equivalent in both cases. To put it another way, what happens if a subject with skill S0 does better with digital stick, yet the subject with skill S1 does better with the analog? How does that mesh with the argument that differences between the subjects can be 'factored' out in your nonsensical attempt at a mathematical representation? And hey, can you show me how it would look with the subject's skill level factored out? Factor out 'S0' and show me what you're left with, hmm? One more question: By your logic, if I want to test the effects of a certain medication, can I perform the test on one person and then state that the results apply to the population as a whole? Can I argue that as I applied the experiment hundreds of times on this single subject and the results were the same each time, I have scientifically proven something about the effects of that medication across the population? Can I HONESTLY make such a claim?

"Provided you are unbiased enough to accept that my pseudo-scientific psychobabble about the nature of the universe is a logical FACT, I will proceed to my next topic ... JOYSTICKS." *Class stampedes for the exit*

From Yoda to Chewbacca.

I know exactly what you mean Pete, and it relates to the point raised earlier about reflected/ambient light and the way objects are affected by the colour of their surroundings. Sticking to the same shades at differing luminance can make things a bit sterile sometimes. For example, I actually prefer this: ...to this: The second one still looks good, but to me it's a little sterile, not earthy enough. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's meant to be in the cold depths of space or something, but still!) I think he feels the darker green in the c64 palette is too light/bright and hence too distracting. I've never had a problem with that green, but another darker one could come in handy. Come to think of it, the lighter green in the palette could have probably been ditched, with either cyan or yellow stepping in to fill the gap depending on the coolness or warmth of the scene.

Indeed. Surprisingly fit for the job in hand, really. The fact that it's difficult to come up with a better fixed 16-colour palette says a lot. I tried some time ago, and in the end about the only change I was happy with was sacrificing the lightest grey in favour of an additional, darker green (I'm sure that will delight dimensionX!). And maybe make the white a very bright grey to compensate (full white can be a bit overkill anyway). There was a suggestion in that thread to ditch the purple in favour of something else, but come on... no grapes, no plums, no purple aliens? Fuhgeddaboutit!

There was a very interesting thread on this subject at wayofthepixel.net http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=4306.0 The c64 palette actually compares quite favourably. Bear in mind though that in that thread they're generally treating the palette as having completely free colour placement with no restrictions. When designing a palette with placement restrictions in mind, smooth ramps might be less of a priority. For use in games with c64-like restrictions, I feel that version 1 of the c64 palette was best, back when the colours were grouped into 3 different luminance ranges (5 if you include black and white) rather than the later 7 luminances (9 with b & w). With the old palette you basically had a range of dark colours, mid colours, and bright colours, which worked well for 3 colour sprites/tiles. However the newer palette is better for pictures - the extra luminance levels allowing for smoother gradations in tone.

Pfft. Typical Nikyo fanboy. Always quick to bring up the Haines' sound cancellation issue while conveniently ignoring the effect the Nikyo audio output had on late-term expectant mothers. Mine's the same size as yours, Pop! (fnarr, fnarr!) you have to click the image to see it unscaled

Which one does better rainbows? The Haines Chromaview could do cool rainbows, chosen from a palette of 512 colours, however the rainbows could only be drawn at an angle of 14º (approx). Furthermore, the red component of each step in any line had to be half the value of the blue component in the corresponding step on the line immediately its the left, and twice the value of the green component in the step to the right. Fortunately, perhaps, the palette featured 254 shades of red, though many Haines fans claimed that this was more a hindrance than a help and argued that blue shades should have had the lion's share. Protracted and passionate Red vs Blue debates ran for many years via surface mail. Sadly, several delivery errors led to unnecessary misunderstandings in the Haines scene, as well as triggering a violent gang war that raged across most of LA throughout the late '70s. The Nikyo FunCenter could also do cool rainbows provided you used the optional Nikyo MegaGoggles with HyperRefractive Lenses (plus vibration feature).