However, I think they are a solution to a problem we don't have, in this particular case.

Moderator: Moderators
If this is something we're concerned about, then creating a wiki page for the competition cart would be a solution. People could update links as needed. Personally, I'm not sure I care. It's the nature of things that links eventually go out of date. I think including the links, (knowing full well that they'll eventually be broken) is fine.FrankenGraphics wrote:btw the general solution for avoiding broken links in static media is using an intermediate hub such as one single page with all the relevant links or contacts, or a simple autoredirector page within your control - all depending on case. If any of the links break, you can fix it. Of course, it means that hub must be maintained, but if the links are many, this tends to be more sturdy.
I honestly feel that by revealing the twist in the game description you are greatly decreasing the player's potential enjoyment found in playing it. So, by phrasing your opinion as "players' wishes" you are making a very bold and unearned claim. Sure, some players may not find the reveal, but honestly, it only takes a few tries to realize that shooting sequence is unbeatable. Curiosity should take care of the rest.tepples wrote:…between the "author's wishes over the players'" camp and the "players' wishes over the author's" camp…
Last I checked, bait and switch is specifically a negative term, used to refer to the use of advertising something desirable and delivering something undesirable of a notably lower quality.tepples wrote:How to handle Star Evil and other bait and switch games
"Of the very narrow group of people who will download the ROMs to read the menu but not play the games, the infinitesimally small number who actually think the game would be good based on the screenshot and who also think that the resulting game is not as good as "generic space shooter" might be disappointed."Also, proposed title for A53v4: Star Evil – It's Totally A Space Shooter Bundle: Quadruple Action 53 Vol. 4, Function 64… Did I Mention Star Evil Was A Space Shooter?
Your argument seems to boil down to "why would you assume that a remake of a terrible thing be better done than the original thing?" which ... surely it's obvious why that's fatuous?M_Tee wrote:Star Evil is the exact opposite of bait and switch. It makes the player expect something of a very low quality, but delivers something unique and interesting. To most people, there is nothing desirable about generic-looking remake of already generic space shooter from a notoriously low-quality multicart. I'm honestly bewildered by the fact that the basis of your argument seems to be "people will be disappointed the game isn't actually a crappy space shooter."
not really, care to explain? typically i would not presume a remake to be better than the original. why would i? they are often much worse.surely it's obvious why that's fatuous?
And therefore why is it called a "remake of Star Evil" ?FrankenGraphics wrote:Well, why hold on to assumptions when it only takes 3 seconds to realize that new star evil isn't here to redeem old star evil.
Did you ever play ZZT or Megazeux when they were brand new? Especially random user's worlds?That's part of its many qualities, and part of why it is quite brilliant (imo).
Care to reevaluate the context in which this was submitted? This isn't a random thing I found in GoodNES's "Public Domain ROMs" (which were usually copyleft, not public domain, whatever, tangent) section, but is rather something being placed in a multicart of games submitted by a bunch of people who put a lot of work into making things that look good and play well. Why wouldn't I assume that it would be an earnest attempt at bettering it?toggle switch wrote:typically i would not presume a remake to be better than the original. why would i? they are often much worse.
what about 'remake' implies 'make better' to you? those two things are in fact opposing goals.Why wouldn't I assume that it would be an earnest attempt at bettering it?