The NESMaker Distinction

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

8 hours ago, CMR said:

I think sivak said he drew more inspiration from "I wanna be the guy" than Mega Man.

Gameplay-wise that is definitely a more accurate comparison.

And yes, he did say that.

[m308gunner | 352]

On 11/22/2019 at 11:02 AM, arch_8ngel said:

Have you played it?

He did "borrow" a sound or two from MegaMan (though he programmed them himself to sound that way).

(and stylistically, his disappearing blocks are very similar)

But the movement doesn't feel much like MegaMan if you ever play them side-by-side.

It is definitely its own beast.

Bolded, underlined, enlarged and colored to accurately reflect said game's difficulty. Still fun though.

[FrankenGraphics | 104]

On 11/22/2019 at 12:19 PM, arch_8ngel said:

 

This actually makes me sad that there are people out there assuming that some of the best known homebrews are hacks of existing games.

Project Blue has gotten the "oh, a mega man hack" a quite a bit too. And yes, "is it made in nesmaker" is an even more common question. From where i come, the answer "no" is in plain sight. It's in how it sounds, looks and plays - you see the absence of similar traits instantaneously. If you could trace something, it'd be the smb1-like physics and controls, which it was modelled after.

But i think people are just associating the theme of "cartoony style + sci fi + platforming + shooting" to the first thing they can, which would be mega man both in the case of project blue and battle kid. Similarily, i believe the Haunted  Halloween games were even more absurdly assumed to be a river city ransom hack at some point, where the only similarity is that it is a scrolling brawler. 

The nes maker assumption becoming more and more common is probably simply because that's another "only point of reference" for a growing number of people, just like hacks are for some other. I believe there's this perception that developing nes games isn't possible or at least viable (but, depending on where you come from, you may be aware that rom hacking is, or that you think nesmaker made making new games for the nes possible in the first place). 

Edited November 30, 2019 by FrankenGraphics

[toma | 71]

On 11/30/2019 at 12:37 PM, FrankenGraphics said:

I believe there's this perception that developing nes games isn't possible or at least viable (but, depending on where you come from, you may be aware that rom hacking is, or that you think nesmaker made making new games for the nes possible in the first place). 

I think this is a big part of it. There's a kind of perception that making a NES game is somehow "too hard" for modern programmers to do, so if you are doing it, that you must be "cheating" somehow. And of course, once people can figure out how you "cheated", they can then devalue your work. Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but there are definitely people with that kind of attitude out there.

Honestly, any time a tool is created that makes a difficult task "easy", these kind of people are going to pop up. "Was this cartoon made in Flash?" "Was this game made in Unity?" It's tough to avoid, and whether intentional or not, it creates tiers of sorts in peoples' minds.

These type of assumptions also affect some people differently than it does others. Someone making a game or demo just for the fun or challenge of it may not be bothered as much, but if you're running a Kickstarter or doing professional contract work, you really need the public to believe that you are creating a quality product with value. If the public at large decides that your work has no value, it's going to really hurt your bottom line. So far it hasn't really been an issue, but it's also hard for it not to be a worry every time you're asked the question.

I think that Micro Mages has been a great thing for the NES scene, not just because of the game, but because of that Youtube video about its development. I've pointed to it a few times when asked how I make NES games, telling people that I've used similar techniques when developing my own games. Rather than make it look like an easy process, it highlights a lot of the critical thinking and problem-solving skills needed in order to fit a full game into a small amount of memory. That sort of thing impresses people and gives a much better impression than the idea that anyone can do it using an "easy tool".

It's a tough line to balance, because this scene definitely toes the line between the hobbyist and the indie developer quite a bit. I'm not trying to be some sort of gatekeeper or anything like that, because we all started as hobbyists, but the fact that some of us are able to actually turn this into a real business is extremely exciting as well. We've got NES games being published on modern consoles, new NES games based on licensed properties, and it's all coming from within this scene. It really is an amazing thing when you think about it.

Edited December 2, 2019 by toma

[Lambda | 130]

This discussion had some interest to me: Maybe this story will provide some insight for those reading:

I work in IT security. As such, we have a few definitions for those that participate:

Hackers: write their own tools

Script-Kiddies (Skids): Download the tools hackers create and use them for their own purposes.

As a white-hat, I’ve written quite a few scripts and tools. There was one time when my step son wouldn’t do his homework. He wanted to play XBox instead. His mother (Nor I) wanting to be the bad guy, I wrote a Bash script that would identify the ID codes of Microsoft products. I then set a machine of mine into “Monitor Mode” and scanned the airwaves for his XBox’s connection to the home router. I then wrote a small script flooding the router with packets to deauthorize the XBox from the router. 

-Essentially, the home network worked fine, and all family members were unaffected... but my step son’s XBox was effectively “kicked” off the network until I stopped the DOS flood.
-Result: his XBox didn’t work online anymore, and he had to do his homework with neither his mother or myself having to be the “bad guy”  ... in his eyes... something was wrong with his XBox.

 

Later that night (Under inspiration), I wrote a script that would flood the router with UDP packets to several ports: essentially testing whether or not a specific router was susceptible to this type of DOS attack from within the network, if someone had tried it.

I released the script to several of my “friends”.

A few of them modified the script to include differences in packet type, and different ports to attack on.

New programs were born.

 

In essence: I had written a tool that others modified to create something that works for them. One I had given out freely ( this “freely-given”attitude could readily be substituted for someone selling a tool like NESMaker for such a nominal fee, based on perspective).
 

I hold no grudges against those who modified my scripts and used them for their own purpose. I assume that the creators of NESMaker probably hold a similar attitude once the product is paid for. 
 

In sum, and from my perspective: I Love Development!

Whether you are new or old on the scene, it is always great to see someone do something fun with a tool. (Tools can be used for so many different purposes).
If someone has done something new and fun with a tool, I look forward to supporting them as they learn and grow. We all had to start somewhere (Whether that be NN or NM).

(And more importantly for all of you programmers out there:... are any of you really going to tell me you have never googled a library case or searched stackoverflow for a question you had?... think about that!)

What would be “un-cool” is if someone used strictly predetermined assets and created something they called “their own” and released it to a community. This would be akin to my friend taking my scripts and simply modifying the “Authored By:” section of the code to state his name.

In essence, I’m concerned with seeing genuine growth. Labeling or not on the product... I’d love to see that person learn... this community is full or “learners”... and I think the majority of those looking to “scam” others on a cheaply made game are often brought into the light very readily, sheerly by the  experience of those in the community and what they have witnessed before. But if that person was honest about how they went about their project, like many on here are, that in sum would tell me that in one way or another... no matter how small... this person is adding to our community...they are trying to learn. and THAT is something I love to see

 

just my own thoughts.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Lambda

[fcgamer | 4,723]

@Lambda: excellent and insightful post!

As I've had the opportunity to play through more NES Maker games, I can somewhat see some of the general similarities between many of the early games. With that being said, I'd reckon a lot of folks are excited to get their ideas out on cart, to share with others. The initial games may be somewhat generic and average when placed on top of one another, but I'd imagine most of the guys making these games will use the support and encouragement to make each subsequent game even better, as knowledge grows.

Isn't this how things worked back in the "from scratch" camp though, so many years back?

It's the same situation with nes maker, with a new group of developers.

I'm personally excited to see what new comes out homebrew wise, it's exciting times  we are going through!

Edited January 21, 2020 by fcgamer

[Lambda | 130]

@fcgamer thank you, bud! And yes, we do live in an exciting time. I’d like to believe I’m as excited as you are, for what could lie on the frontier! People here in this community want to learn. They want to learn design, and development, and new techniques to further progress... and THAT is exactly why I’m so excited to be a part of this community, befriend people like yourself, and see what everyone has to offer.

There is one major goal for me here: to see my daughter (very young), appreciate NEW technology BECAUSE of what older technologies have provided us all to progress with. If everyone here (the people with younger generations that they know they can inspire) takes this attitude, the retro systems of old will NEVER die... they’ll continue to live on and provide fun and inspiration for so many more generations to come. I like to believe that that is exactly why we are all here... none of us want to see these wonderful technology breakthroughs and gaming systems die with US.. they should live on

Edited January 21, 2020 by Lambda

[TylerBarnes | 184]

Coming in late to this thread haven't really read from the start. My thoughts on the main topic. 

I definitely see both sides.
   If I could briefly compare it to modern game dev on PC, there are some pretty amazing tools that make things easy and give you an engine to actually play with straight away. I will say, Unity for example, since it is very popular. Many individuals, and teams have used this tool to great effect and produced some great games. The player of these games does not necessarily care whether the dev used advanced tools that gave them more premade code/structure in comparison to another dev that built their own framework and engine. The gamer, for the most part, wants to play a great game.
   I think it's the same on NES.  The feeling of accomplishment and pride the dev should be feeling first and foremost is seeing there game idea/story/implementation/character/etc be well received by people that have played it. This is the usually a pretty universal goal of making any interactive piece of software like a game. However, this is not said to equate the two accomplishments (using tools vs from scratch). They are in different leagues for sure, and it takes a great deal more effort/talent/patience/dedication/time/etc to do it all from the ground up, but if your game is great, I think you should feel proud regardless of the tools you used. 
  I'm not sure if I have made up my mind if I feel one should be forced to put an asterisk on their project and declare it as tool assisted. Right now I'm inclined to say it ultimately doesn't matter. I feel that the more people are interested in seeing the NES as a viable console to make/play new games on, it will create a bigger market for sharing your own custom creations with a wider audience. An audience that is also trying to participate. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by TylerBarnes

[Sumez | 2,947]

I haven't followed the debate here, and I'm not sure exactly what people are even trying to decide on, but as a homebrewer, and a partial response to the last post by @TylerBarnes, here's my take.

In most branches of video game development, using premade engines, libraries etc. has always been a part of development. There are many, many different layers of abstraction, and in PC games using assembly code hasn't been a thing for decades now.

But there's still a big difference between using something like Klik & Play and its sequels which strips away everything tech'y, and isolates game making to the creative process - and Unity, which makes a lot of tools readily available, but also allows you to manually edit almost everything, and pretty much requires programming to get anything genuinely good out of it.
As far as I'm aware Nesmaker falls in the former category, but in the end it doesn't really matter - it's the output that counts, right? Making a game isn't necessarily a programming exercise. For someone like me who's a programmer at heart, it is - but if someone already invented the wheel there's no real reason to do it again. Doesn't mean you're not a genuine game developer.

The only distinction I'd make, is whether Nesmaker games qualify as "homebrew". I personally think they fall on the other side of the threshold simply due to them not encompassing any of what defines NES homebrew to me - basically, understanding how the NES works and lerning to create a product that's able to interface with it. Nesmaker itself is of course homebrew, and its existence allows hobbyists to make games for the NES without getting into homebrew, which is a quality in and of itself.

You could argue that a Nesmaker game is still a "homebrew product", because the nesmaker engine is included, but the act of creating a Nesmaker game is a Nesmaker-specific thing, it's clearly not homebrewing. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Sumez

[Mugi | 84]

9 hours ago, Sumez said:

But there's still a big difference between using something like Klik & Play and its sequels which strips away everything tech'y, and isolates game making to the creative process - and Unity, which makes a lot of tools readily available, but also allows you to manually edit almost everything, and pretty much requires programming to get anything genuinely good out of it.
As far as I'm aware Nesmaker falls in the former category

actually, nesmakers "engine" is raw assembly code and is freely editable in any way you wish. The UI is simply there to make some tasks less bothersome, and the editability of few things are limited because of the way it's bound to the UI, though nothing a seasoned coder can't work around of

It's definitely not a klick&play engine, as much as it is simply a generic multifunctional game engine template which is indeed fully written in assembly.

[Sumez | 2,947]

So it's an open source K&P then

In terms of "homebrewing" I think there's a big distinction between making heavy edits in Nesmaker's engine code, or just using the editor.

[Mugi | 84]

its a blurry line really, there's no clear disdinction on what constitutes as edited or what doesnt.

my project is a prime example of this, as it started off as a nesmaker game, and such, the sourcecode does bear similarities in code structure, function naming et cetera to the nesmaker engine, but on the other hand, all routines and then some have been 90-100% rewritten or just plain deleted from it, to a point nothing really remains aside some rudimentary things that make no sense to rewrite, like controller input routines or some such. Its literally a piece of code that is copypasted out of nesdev wiki to begin with.

 

[Sumez | 2,947]

9 hours ago, Mugi said:

its a blurry line really, there's no clear disdinction on what constitutes as edited or what doesnt.

Why is it blurry? Either you do some actual NES programming, or you don't.  

[Mugi | 84]

its blurry because the question was about whether or not its written from scratch or not.

nesmaker provides a fully functional engine written in assembly, but using it as-is would mean that it's not written from scratch, as you did not write it yourself.

 

[Sumez | 2,947]

Oh at least to me it doesn't matter if something is "written from scratch". Like you said yourself, nearly any code base will have a bunch of snippets copies wholesale from somewhere else.

[dale_coop | 162]

On 1/21/2020 at 10:06 AM, Sumez said:

But there's still a big difference between using something like Klik & Play and its sequels which strips away everything tech'y, and isolates game making to the creative process - and Unity, which makes a lot of tools readily available, but also allows you to manually edit almost everything, and pretty much requires programming to get anything genuinely good out of it.

With this definition, NESmaker would be somewhere in the middle... because it's a bit "click and play"... but the real purpose of a tool like NESmaker is to get users to change the default scripts and code their own features, customize deeply the default game engine (otherwise you don't really do much in NESmaker).

[Sumez | 2,947]

I guess I don't really understand Nesmaker then. It feels weird to pay for a complete product if you're expected to manually change it?  

I'll admit I have no firsthand experience with it.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Sumez

[MachineCode | 159]

This discussion is still going on eh? RE the charge: It's most likely in lieu of an ongoing licensing since it's more or less inevitable that some of their code and work will be used in all works produced using NESMaker.

[TheNew8bitHeroes | 18]

Since this has come up again, and I've received multiple requests to chime in, and it seems there is still a pretty broad misunderstanding of what "NESmaker" is, does, and how it's being used (as opposed to "non-NESmaker" developed NES games), I thought I'd try and write a definitive write up on this thread to help clarify a few things.  It will be thorough and hopefully as objective as I can make it.

I've been an independent game developer since the early 2000s and a game development instructor since 2006.  I've been actively involved in NES development since around the end of 2013.  I chronicled the homebrew scene as part of The New 8-bit Heroes documentary.  Besides building our game engine "from scratch" using notepad and an assembler, we got to see (and document) the workspaces/workflows of Joey Parsell (Memblers), Damian Yerrick (Tepples), John White, EDB Holland (Sole Goose), Derek Andrews (Gradual Games), Eli Galindo (Piko Interactive), Jordan Ordorica (Sivak / Battlekid), Frank Westphal (Armed for Battle), Rob Bryant (Sly Dog Studios), Brad Smith (Lizard), Rachel Weil (a bunch of awesome stuff), Brian Parker (RetroUSB), the entire Collectorvision team, James Deighan (now with MegaCat), Kevin Hanley (KHAN Games), Kevin Horton (Kevtris), and probably a handful more that are slipping my mind.  I list that group specifically because they are formative in NES homebrew development, and I met almost all of them personally.  I got at least a glimpse into their development process, their tool chains, got the stories of how they got into it all and how they built their games. 

The argument of "tool use" requiring a particular designation:

Just about every person on that list used some tool chain to aide in their process.  Whether they created their own custom tools to handle things particular to their game, utilized free tools listed on the NESdev boards, or used non-NESdev related tools in ways that could generate or organize necessary data.  Many developers (on the NESdev and Nintendo Age forums) started with burner projects, walking through entry level tutorials and building simple games through cargo cult programming (effectively, copying snippets of code and pasting it in their game, tweaking until it worked).  Lots of developers farmed out difficult portions of their projects to other developers.  Almost everyone that we met used a tracker like famitracker to create music combined with someone else's ASM sound engine (famitone, gg sound engine, and pently being popular examples).  Most people used Shiru's suite of tools, like his screen and map tools.  There is an epic catalogue of tools on the NESdev wiki to do any number of things.  These include full IDEs like NESICIDE and WUSDN that were around long before NESmaker.  In addition to NES specific tools, developers use things like photoshop and pixly, they use modern source control for asset organization, they use Notepad++, FCEUX or MESEN emulators for their debugging and PPU viewers, CC65 to write in a higher level language and compile down for the NES,...ultimately too many things to list here.  For clarity, those advocating for a distinction between "NESmaker games" and "from scratch" games are not talking about "from scratch" at all.  They are of the opinion that all of the things listed above can be used without any special designation, while NESmaker itself crosses some arbitrary border into "uses tools" that needs to be qualified.  To me, this demonstrates the absurdity of the argument.  I'm sure there are the most rare exceptions, but every single developer who has ever developed a legitimate NES game, from homebrewers to major studios in the 80s, used tools and external resources to a large degree to create their games.  So we need to either disregard the "uses tools" distinction altogether, or otherwise be fully transparent of all tools used to create a game.  I'm down with either, but the whole thing just seems sort of ludicrous to me.

In the professional game world, there isn't some giant clamoring of insistence demanding Ori and the Blind Forest clarifies it was made with Unity so that it can be properly catagorized.  There is no assertion that Undertale must be thought of separately from other indie games because it's a GameMaker game.  No one is petulantly demanding that Skyrim or Fallout be put in a special genre because they use the Creation Engine.  That's just not the way it works, at any level, from small indie titles to major multi-platform AAA releases.  Generally, these games have no problem with listing and crediting the tools with which they were made, but use of those tools doesn't somehow necessitate some hierarchy of classification.  Being both in the game world outside of NES development and being a part of NES development, there's nothing different in this case except by those who want to invent a difference.  But if the charge is that games need to list the tools with which they were made?  Great.  Then make it a universal point, and have every game list all things not created by them that were utilized in the game's creation so that the player can determine whether or not the level of usage of development tools keeps it within their own orbit of personal interest.

Strange gray area cases:

Lets pretend that you disagree with the above paragraph.  That you believe usage of NESmaker specifically to create a NES game absolutely must be qualified as some different beast than "proper homebrewing".  Alright.  But let's start with our own studio's in house games.  Does a game that we, the tool creator, who have programmed every line of code from scratch, as well as built the tools to better organize our graphics and assets, fall into the same category of requring the distinction?  Are they no longer "from scratch?"  If so, wouldn't that imply that anyone who builds their own tools needs to list their own "maker tools" and be qualified as not "from scratch"?  Because...that would be just about every NES homebrew that exists and likely ever will.  Let's say you agree that that's a special case...THAT is a true homebrew and needs no distinction.  Cool.  What if one of our team members who is not a programmer develops a game in house?  That is still our studio's tools, all the programming done in house and from scratch, but by an individual who was not personally responsible for the coding.  Does that game require the distinction?  Would that mean that an artist at MegaCat that uses their in house tools can't make a game without it requiring a special designation of not "from scratch"?  Or, what if we work with an external studio...say we work with Retrotainment and use NESmaker to generate nametable data for screens for a game that uses the physics engine they created for Haunted Halloween.  Does that require the distinction?  What if Piko Interactive really likes our asset management and organizational structure...they write all of their own code "from scratch", but use NESmaker for graphics and assets because of the ease of organization.  Does that require the distinction?  Since NESmaker has the ability to expand its use by creating custom plug ins, what if someone didn't use any existing NESmaker methods, builds their own plug ins in C, but utilizes NESmaker because it's what they learned on and they like using it?  Even though they have programmed the engine from the ground up and even created their own tool chain, does that require distinction?  

It's cases such as these which further make the idea of a distinction rather absurd.  As people find more and more creative ways to work NESmaker into their development tool chain, what level of usage denotes that this is a "from scratch homebrew" versus "needs to be labeled made with tools" homebrew?  Or does the fact that NESmaker was, in any way, part of the development require a distinction?  And if so, why?  And why only this particular tool?  See how senseless that gets?

The idea that NESmaker games are template games:

No game created with NESmaker that has attempted any sort of legitimate release was a reskin of a template project.  There are far more burner project roms that were reskins of the Nerdy Nights tutorials floating around the internet than there are direct reskins of NESmaker tutorials.  The feared apocalyptic storm of NES shovelware that was warned of simply never happened, and in fact ALL NES game Kickstarters seem to have benefited from more people getting into the passion of developing in the last two years.  For developers that have pursued full releases, an extraordinary amount of work went into the game, including at the code level.  Experiencing an awful lot of homebrews, I can tell you that most NESmaker games that are of quality to be released contain MORE custom code than many of the existing "from scratch" homebrews that were created pre-NESmaker.  I'd be happy to offer examples for anyone interested.  What NESmaker templates allow developers to do is quick wireframes and rapid prototyping, but the default modules that come with NESmaker are hyper-generic with plenty of inefficiencies and bugs.  They are starting points to give users the confidence to begin exploring the ASM with real time feedback, and begin truly building their own games.  Can a person make a game in NESmaker with zero programming experience?  To the same level a person can make a game in Unity or GameMaker with zero programming experience.  But there is an obvious difference between a beginner's tutorial re-skin and Ori and the Blind Forest, despite them both using Unity.  They might both start with the same base for object management and screen refreshing and sound handling, but no one would mistake a novice user's tutorial project for a polished, professional game, even though they use the same starting point and IDE.  

For reference, the concept behind NESmaker comes from spending 6 years teaching game development.  I learned definitively that for most students, giving a visual wysiwyg front end was the best way to teach programming, because there was an easy visual cue with which to marry the understanding of the code and logic.  Unity was a better way to teach C# than trying to write an application in C#.  GameMaker was a better way to teach coding logic through their proprietary GML than having them try to start off by just writing straight code.  This was true almost 100% of the time for hundreds of students over 6 years.  Having gone through the process of learning ASM myself, and watching dozens of others, both more and less experienced than me, going through the same, I am positive I would've learned ASM, and the ins and outs of NES development, much quicker with a tool like NESmaker.  Not because it "did it for me", but because it was easier to track down what I was doing and how it was affecting the game.  I would've become a better ASM programmer faster.   And what you'll see from the majority of NESmaker users is a similar statement - that they never would have learned ASM the old fashioned way, but now they feel they've really grown in proficiency in a short amount of time.

So while yes, it is possible to crank out a burner project in a day with NESmaker without doing any programming, it's also possible to crank out a burner project in a day with the Nerdy Nights tutorials or some of the other resources on the NESdev forums with some simple copy and pasting.  I'm not sure exactly what the difference is there.  

Also, many people don't seem to understand that it's entirely possible to use zero of NESmaker's module code bases, and literally write everything "from scratch" inside of the tool, even creating plug ins to use NESmaker in a way that we never designed it to be used.  And there are several users doing exactly that.  Most use a template module as a starting point to wireframe, and then completely rip out the guts and program better, more efficient, and more game specific routines meant for their game.

The idea that NESmaker games are inferior:

This is just ignorant.  A game is good or a game is not.  Just like a novel is good or a novel is not.  No one sits around and laments about the merits of a novel based on whether it used Microsoft Word with spell check and a handy online thesaurus, or a Hermes 3000 typewriter, or an in pen on hand-made paper made from trees cut by the authors own hands.  Just like a good song is a good song.  No one sits around and laments about the merits of a song based on whether it relied solely on live performance with proper mic placements or recorded it multitrack and mixed it using ProTools.  There may be purists who are more interested in the craft than the final product, and that's completely understandable.  For instance, I love analog recording and am a bit of a tone junky, and I love hearing about clever uses of vintage analog gear in sessions.  I'm also a filmmaker, and I love seeing movies shot on actual filmstock and cut with razors in a vintage editing suite rather than filmed digitally and edited in Adobe Premiere.  However, that doesn't mean that I think songs that were recorded to ProTools and that used digital plug in effects rather than analog outboard gear need to have a special identifier and be placed in a separate classification of songs.  I don't think movies that were filmed on DSLRs and edited with Premiere need to put in a separate bin based on the tools used to film and edit them.

And it certainly does not make these output media automatically inferior.  Contesting that it does is just...kinda dumb. 

 

As always, I love the conversation and the discussion.  The goal here, as it has been since I got involved in this almost a decade ago, is to see people make more NES games and keep the system alive for future generations.  Anything that is in service of that goal, I am in full support of.  Anything that imposes a petty or pretentious layer of elitism which might be detrimental to that goal, I am adamantly against.  I'm not sure how that's not the position of everyone who is part of this passion, but...I've just come to accept that there are people who do this that just don't want anyone new in their clubhouse.  I hope that changes.  I'll keep supporting everyone who is doing something related to NES development, and thanks to everyone who does the same!

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by TheNew8bitHeroes

[Gloves | 11,776]

Really well put @TheNew8bitHeroes. 

[WaverBoy | 20]

Agreed 12 billion percent. Thank you.

[Sumez | 2,947]

Whoa, that's a lot of text

[MachineCode | 159]

22 hours ago, TheNew8bitHeroes said:

No one sits around and laments about the merits of a song based on whether it relied solely on live performance with proper mic placements or recorded it multitrack and mixed it using ProTools.  There may be purists who are more interested in the craft than the final product, and that's completely understandable.  For instance, I love analog recording and am a bit of a tone junky, and I love hearing about clever uses of vintage analog gear in sessions.  I'm also a filmmaker, and I love seeing movies shot on actual filmstock and cut with razors in a vintage editing suite rather than filmed digitally and edited in Adobe Premiere.  However, that doesn't mean that I think songs that were recorded to ProTools and that used digital plug in effects rather than analog outboard gear need to have a special identifier and be placed in a separate classification of songs.

That's actually been a debated issue in the audio engineering community for the last 20 years but more on the how it was used end. Some folks like to use Pro Tools simply as a means of replacing tape and edit more or less to remove stray noises, cut together comps, and and add fades to regions to avoid pops and clicks as it's way easier to do that in PT vs automating it on a console. A lot of people just put up with Pro Tooling no talent hacks to death in order to make a living due to the rapid decline of the record industry, and then talk shit amongst themselves about how much that session sucked and how much they miss actual talent having a budget behind them vs polishing the turds of pretty, marketable faces. Goes double if the engineer was actually a musician that took the time to learn their craft to a point where they don't need grid quantize and pitch correction. That sort of heavy handed usage does have an inherent special identifier. It sounds much different. Far more mechanical and synthetic sounding.

Also, In the late 90's/early 00's, when albums made entirely in Pro Tools were a newer and rarer thing, people used to divulge that information quite a bit. But, it was more done as a point of pride and to set it apart in a positive way. Like, "Hey, check it out. This album was made using the newest in cutting edge audio recording technology."

Not sure about the film world as I have no experience there. From what do know about audio for film, I can see Pro Tools being a godsend in that world.

I more or less agree with the rest of what you said regarding NESMaker and appreciate you taking the time to explain the development process and the motivations behind it. I'm still of the opinion that it should be the developer's choice and that it should be done out of pride, or a wish to share information about the process with interested parties vs shame. Template based burner games, just like overly Pro Tooled recordings, tend to stand out on their own as shitty products so I don't feel there should be shame just because someone chose a particular toolset or engine.

 

[gauauu | 81]

On 1/23/2020 at 10:38 AM, TheNew8bitHeroes said:

Anything that imposes a petty or pretentious layer of elitism which might be detrimental to that goal, I am adamantly against.  I'm not sure how that's not the position of everyone who is part of this passion, but...I've just come to accept that there are people who do this that just don't want anyone new in their clubhouse.

I don't think that's a fair characterization at all.  Some of the people who were most welcoming to me when I joined this scene were folks who have argued in favor of a labeling distinction.

You might not agree with their reason (and there are plenty of good arguments against a distinction), but reducing their arguments to petty elitism is just inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

[TheNew8bitHeroes | 18]

Quote

That's actually been a debated issue in the audio engineering community for the last 20 years but more on the how it was used end.

MachineCode - I understand what you're saying.  I worked in the music industry since the late 90s.  But no human being alive insisted that tapes, records, or CDs come with a disclaimer that the music on them was produced using Pro Tools.  That's not a thing that ever happened.  You're right that some people thought (and still think) that the existence of DAWs has led to an uptick of attention for mediocre talent, as you described.  But it also launched careers of many extremely talented musicians, launched entirely new genres of music, and changed the art of music producing altogether.  And analog recording still exists, and those that do it are usually very proud of the fact they record to 2" tape and their music never touched the digital domain, but they don't at the same time insist that anyone who used a DAW imprint that fact on the album artwork.  Which is the parallel what is being suggested in this case.  It's like saying that the Billboard Charts had to list whether an album was recorded to tape or to digital.  Is that really the avenue we want to take new NES games?...

Quote

Some of the people who were most welcoming to me when I joined this scene were folks who have argued in favor of a labeling distinction.

Alright.  They were the most welcoming to me when I joined this scene as well.  I'm not sure how that plays in to the conversation though.  Is this mandating of a distinction something that is welcoming those new to NES development, or confrontational and exclusionary to those new to NES development?  To me, it's the latter.  It's people saying, "Well, you don't do it the way I did it, and I need to make sure people KNOW you don't do it the way I did it.  My way belongs to a group that your way doesn't."

You say it's not elitism.  The definition of elitism is: "Elitism is the feeling or notion that oneself or their group- along with the accompanying ideals and standards- are better than another person's or group's"

The Jim Power Kickstarter includes the words "Jim Power NES was NOT made by any sort of game maker program; so the quality of the product is far superior." in its description.

That literally could be a dictionary example of elitism.