fawtytoo

Like I said before, MS clearly understood game design principles. In "Abandoned Uranium Workings" there are 2 seals that you don't go any where near, so why are they there? And yeah, which shaft do you use in the "Cold Room"? In "The Sixteenth Cavern", do you drop down through the exit to get that item and then get stuck because you didn't notice the item in the top left, or get the item in the top left and drop right down below the conveyor and go up to the last item?
Maybe MS knew the concept of speed runs. After all, the faster you complete a level, the higher your score.
Concerning MS interviews; there is one in his bedroom (I think) where he was asked where the boot came from in the Game Over screen in MM. MS answered with "the top of the screen". Obviously the interviewer meant where did the "idea" come from. Very funny answer.
Incidentally, I've reverted level 16 in my port to the OG layout. This discussion has helped me rethink that level. Thanks for your thoughts.

Like I said before, MS clearly understood game design principles. In "Abandoned Uranium Workings" there are 2 seals that you don't go any where near, so why are they there? And yeah, which shaft do you use in the "Cold Room"? In "The Sixteenth Cavern", do you drop down through the exit to get that item and then get stuck because you didn't notice the item in the top left, or get the item in the top left and drop right down below the conveyor and go up to the last item?
Maybe MS knew the concept of speed runs. After all, the faster you complete a level, the higher your score.
Concerning MS interviews; there is one in his bedroom (I think) where he was asked where the boot came from in the Game Over screen in MM. MS answered with "the top of the screen". Obviously the interviewer meant where did the "idea" come from. Very funny answer.
Incidentally, I've reverted level 16 in my port to the OG layout. This discussion has helped me rethink that level. Thanks for your thoughts.

Hi guys and gals,
Just thought I'd upload the latest releases of MM & JSW for Windows. They are 64bit only but should work on 7 onwards.
Any feedback on compatibility would be welcome.
Regards,
Steve
ManicMiner.zip JetSetWilly.zip

Did MS intend that item to be there? Is it a design bug/flaw? An oversight. Once the game is released it's too late. His contract would have mean meeting a deadline. You can only do so much testing. Supposed to be troll? MS understood game design principles but doesn't strike me as the sort that troll's.

I know you weren't scolding me (it's my port after all and I'll do what I want with it), but it made me think if I'd done too much to it on that level.
Level design, for any kind of game, usually avoids being designed that allows game engine bugs to creep in, which is what my post is about. That particular level illustrates that. I guess that the change I made was a kind of "that's how I would have done it" but now feel I've deviated from the OG which isn't the design goal. "Game play is 100% identical" I think is my claim. That level breaks that rule.
I'm just thinking out loud. Suggestion welcome.

When you die or exit a level in MM, nothing is drawn in it's final positions. That is, it's all one frame behind the game logic. This is most noticeable in the "Sixteenth Cavern" when you drop into the portal, collect the final item and exit the level. If everything was drawn up-to-date, the final item would be erased and you would see Willy's feet below the portal. But that doesn't happen.
In order to address this and have the drawing up-to-date, I use an "Action" in my port that allows the game logic (ticker) and the drawer to complete before changing the state of the game. This works very well. Except for level 16. If I use the exact same level layout as the OG, as Willy falls through the portal to the final item, the item is collected. But as Willy is still falling, on the next frame he is no longer "inside" the portal and so falls onto the conveyor below. If I correct this, then I end up with the same visual anomaly as in the OG. Further fixes could be made but not without making the code unnecessarily complex for such a simple game.
My solution was the move the final item one tile lower. But that looks odd and begs the question as to why. To further the solution and add a "reason" for the change was the add a gap in the conveyor below the portal to make it more obvious as to why the item is lower. The "reason" given was to provide more of a challenge to get the final item.
On reflection, the final item should be placed immediately below the conveyor for the "challenge" and the conveyor gap was not necessary. But then why didn't Matt Smith do that?
The whole point of this is that I considered that final item to be pointless and didn't need to be there. I think this is analogous to the uncollectable item in JSW "Conservatory Roof" where the solution was to remove the offending nasty whereas another solution would be to remove/reposition the item.
@JianYang referred to my change as "very naughty". So I thought it needed a dedicated thread for the explanation/discussion.

Did MS intend that item to be there? Is it a design bug/flaw? An oversight. Once the game is released it's too late. His contract would have mean meeting a deadline. You can only do so much testing. Supposed to be troll? MS understood game design principles but doesn't strike me as the sort that troll's.

I just had a thought but I'm not sharing it. It will be an easter egg.

I know you weren't scolding me (it's my port after all and I'll do what I want with it), but it made me think if I'd done too much to it on that level.
Level design, for any kind of game, usually avoids being designed that allows game engine bugs to creep in, which is what my post is about. That particular level illustrates that. I guess that the change I made was a kind of "that's how I would have done it" but now feel I've deviated from the OG which isn't the design goal. "Game play is 100% identical" I think is my claim. That level breaks that rule.
I'm just thinking out loud. Suggestion welcome.

Compiling on Linux is a lot easier than on Windows. You need to install the packages ...
libsdl2-dev build-essential ... then download the source code and type "make" from a command line from the same directory as the Makefile.
Probably should add that to the README.md.

I signed up to this website after noticing this thread.
I'm not much of a binary kind of guy, just happy to share the code. Not much interested in Windows, so sorry there too.
Thanks for the mention here.

I signed up to this website after noticing this thread.
I'm not much of a binary kind of guy, just happy to share the code. Not much interested in Windows, so sorry there too.
Thanks for the mention here.

I signed up to this website after noticing this thread.
I'm not much of a binary kind of guy, just happy to share the code. Not much interested in Windows, so sorry there too.
Thanks for the mention here.

I signed up to this website after noticing this thread.
I'm not much of a binary kind of guy, just happy to share the code. Not much interested in Windows, so sorry there too.
Thanks for the mention here.