Question Regarding Old Computer platforms.
Esperanto

'Ello. I notice many games might have a page that covers a game over a multitude of platforms, while others might have separate pages for individual consoles. I can see different scenarios where either choice might be most appropriate.

What I've started to come across recently playing really old games, particularly using DOS as a starting point, is that some releases have been ported to a number of consoles, handhelds, and obscure computers of yesterday land. Consoles and handhelds are generally sufficiently different in my mind to justify their own boards on a lot of cases. A SNES/Genesis port may be different but sufficiently enough to put together... various GB's and such.

Generally, I use (MS-DOS) when necessary, or sometimes exclude the parenthetical if the other versions (NES)/(GB) are already marked.

However, coming across more and more games that MS/DOS + Amstrand + AppleII + literally think of the most obscure eletronics from the 1980's. They can vary quite a bit, as you can imagine. So many ports had to be adjusted to the specific hardware used in the machines. Additionally, literally no runs them (I will at some point more often, but, yeah it's clearly a rare thing).

So my question is literally boiling down to this: Is it appropriate to use as (CPU) as a marking for a game page that's specifically handling all computer variations while leaving the console versions on their own pages? I mean, part of me doesn't want to make a page for a game for Commodore 64 and MS-DOS, just because a NES page already exists; something along those lines.

Edited by the author 6 years ago
United States

For Ultima Exodus they put up different categories to handle that. It's a valid option.

Esperanto

For a lot of situations that seems to make perfect sensible. But it can get unwieldy. Imagine game "Random Game" has been ported as such, and a page already exists for "Random Game (NES)":

"NES, SNES, Genesis, GB, PS2, PS, PSP, SMS, GameGear, PC, MS-DOS, Atari8bit, TG-16, X68000, PC-98, MSX, CD-i, 3DO, Amiga, C64, GBP, PSN, Mac, AtariST, CD32, Archimedes, CPC, ZXSpectrum, Satellaview, Apple-II, Lynx, Towns"

Given that the NES version already has a page and it's already console specific, and I'm trying to play the Amiga version, would requesting a "Random Game (CPU)" be an appropriate title if I was going to make a page specifically to cover all the old computer models. I figure this is probably alright, I just couldn't find any example of it already up; so just wanted to check if it was a kosher approach.

Antarctica

While I understand wanting to account for every platform for a game, isn't what you're trying to do a bit overkill?

You said it yourself, a lot of those platforms are extremely obscure, is it worth accounting for every single platform for a game at this point even if nobody has done a run on it? To me it might be better to wait until a run on those platforms exists, by you or someone else, then you can see if that version is actually that different from any other platforms. If that platform is slower than a bunch of others or if the game is very similar to another, then it's probably not worth including because I can't imagine people wanting to run on slower platforms since they'll probably be emulating them all to begin with. Even if the games have slight variations, that might not be enough to warrant inclusion of every system.

At the end of the day (assuming you're talking about a game you mod) you can split up categories however you like whether by platform, CPU type or some other way so I'd recommend doing whatever is easiest for you. Just make sure if you use something like CPU type to provide an explanation of the platforms that apply to that. I don't run the game so my 2 cents means nothing lol, but just figured I'd share my perspective.

607 and NihilistComedyHour like this
Esperanto

Yeah, overkill it is a bit; but I'm just cautious. In general, I have a policy of sorta adding the obscure platforms as I (or someone else gets to them). But also, I try to be aware of the fact that I might someday have to add something to it. If I have the board sort of set out well, I can keep it simple, while also sort of having the groundwork appropriately laid out to add stuff, it that makes sense. I guess I just like to be somewhat prepared for contingencies and such; though it makes sense to me that many wouldn't run on a game on a platform if a faster version of exact same game exists.

But yea, I'll keep that in mind going forward. So far it hasn't really been an issue yet, but Tetris is one of those games that I've been playing around with (and using to test emulators and such with) so I was trying to think of sort of the best way to approach that. I suppose I could ask the series forum actually to get their input on that specific sort of thing.

Timmiluvs likes this
Utrecht, Netherlands

Hm, interesting. I'm not too experienced, but for the first game I submitted, I went with one game for all platforms, and created different categories for the different consoles. I kept ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC and C64 as one category, though, and Android and iOS too, as I think/hope they probably don't differ.

United States

Honestly I wouldn't add categories for every obscure 80s computer until someone did a run for them. But when the versions for those platforms are menaingfully different, I wouldn't hesitate to have categories.

607 likes this
United States

I've gone back and forth on this type of thing, but the way the leaderboards and moderation are set up, I almost always prefer creating multiple games, one for each time-comparable version of the game.

In theory, this means that every game should (IMO) be capable of being its own "series" so game mods can add multiple leaderboards for incomparable versions of the game and not have to wait for the site admins. In practice, with the current feature-set, you could either request a series for the game and create new leaderboards, or only request the game for the platform you're interested in. There are obviously situations where this isn't cut and dried, but in my experience it works better.

To answer your question of using (CPU) for a distinguishing title, I would probably never use CPU as it doesn't mean anything. It's vague and misleading. There's always going to be a CPU.

I'm not sure what I'd use though. I think the site would be better served by creating a Series for a multi-platform game by default, even if it never had sequels, such that you can (1) offload some of the game creation, and (2) have separate full boards with separate moderation as needed for each platform if and when someone wants to submit a run.

United States

As an example, I feel like this is the wrong way to do it:

https://www.speedrun.com/wizardry_pgotmo

Esperanto

I'm trying to avoid situations that I feel like that page set up puts itself in a potential for a future trap... I realize most of the platforms will probably never be run, but what if it's discovered there is a demand to do a 100% category? Double the number of categories? I mean, I use MISC when I can, but when you are dealing with a slew of platforms I can see both scenarios working out well for their games.

Exp: https://www.speedrun.com/mk1

I think the MK1 board makes perfect sense. A pretty simple game, where basically every platform is the same general concept and you only really have to account for timer differences or platform specific issues in the rules. Then as a subcategory, you can do Any%/100%/Glitchless, whatever the situation may be. And that still grants room for an additional categories that need be.

I pretty much have Lemmings set up the same way because even though the game is basically running differently on every port, almost all them have the same idea with 120 identical levels (for the sake of a IL I'll eventually make, you can imagine the ease of not having to do that on more than one game page).

And then there are of course situations where you have basically the same game like Jeopardy for NES but like 4 versions; they are all the same gameplay more or less but are officially their own official releases.

There are plenty of instances though where independent game pages for console make sense to me, particularly if the person making the page originally is only actually knowledgeable about that one platform; sometimes though, it's not quite clear how to best approach a situation where you might have one game page for one console, where there are 14 other consoles going on.

@btrim I agree that (CPU) is basically meaningless. Just not sure what is the best call a clumping of some consoles.

607 likes this
United States

Don't add categories with no runs. Ever. That's your solution.

Be ready to add categories, but don't have empty ones.

Esperanto

By the way, perfect example of what I'm talking about.

https://imgur.com/a/7Tjfo

United States

There's not a great or standardized way to handle this, just give it your best guess.

(Console), (PC), (1993), etc are all fine. CPU is non-standard, but if you think that makes it clearer, it's probably a fine way to go here.

I think adding empty categories is fine for having the board organized properly.

Edited by the author 6 years ago
Esperanto

Thanks. I was actually thinking about it, and it appeared in this particular instance that switching the title to the year seemed most appropriate, as it would be accurate, and a bit more clear-- something not really considered first; though I can see plenty of instances where that might work, I think for the most part everything can get cataloged relatively well, if not by console, than year.

I've considered (Console), (Handheld), (CPU) as sort of platform groupings, if some sort of situation like that arrives again; but I anticipate really avoiding doing something like for the sake of contributing to the site-wide consistency.