Subject is a required field

[rainwarrior]

QR codes are just a way to encode text as an image that a phone can read. URLs can be conveniently delievered to a phone this way, rather than having to type it in.

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

[FrankenGraphics]

There's three types: URL, contacts, and freeform text. Although on iOS at the very least, free text is instead interpreted as a search string piped to safari. Contacts will ask to add the info to your devices' contacts list.

The problem with QR codes is that they're mostly only applied to ads or other messages of commercial intent, and most poeple don't walk about town scanning ads, they instead try to ignore them as good as they can, so QR codes are a largely misapplied tech many feel mistrustful of. I've never seen anyone scan an ad except for niched event posters/flyers. They had been more useful in situations where people actually might want to know more.

There's always a security check when you scan a QR code: your phone or tablet will always ask you to confirm the scan.

QR is better than an URL string as printed text whenever that URL has any information to the right of .domain/, because then you can almost be sure that noone's going to bother type that in. You can think of QR:s as links for the material world. For example if an art gallery or museum wants to link an object to a curated blog article, you'd use either QR or NFC.

[lidnariq]

As Rainwarrior said, QR codes are in practice a tool to solve the problem that phone keyboards are terrible. Outside of that context ... mostly they just feel obfuscatory.

(Wikipedia can tell you more than you actually want to know about QR codes, what they can hold, and how they work.)

[FrankenGraphics]

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.

[gauauu]

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.

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.

[tepples]

Am I still out of line?

[M_Tee]

…between the "author's wishes over the players'" camp and the "players' wishes over the author's" camp…

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.

How to handle Star Evil and other bait and switch games

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.

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."

Moreover, the argument keeps being brought up that a customer would be disappointed after buying the game, but aside from the reasons already mentioned, that argument still seems to make no sense:

The screenshot and description occur in the menu, not on the game packaging. That means that any potential customer would have made the purchase BEFORE seeing the screenshot or reading the description. Therefore, it's impossible for either to be a determining factor in their purchase.

Also, the ROM will be available for free. So, if we're talking about customers who have had a chance to access the menu (those who have downloaded the ROM), they have also had a chance to play the games, and thus, experience the reveal on their own, in the way the author intended.

Furthermore, as is evident by the balance of responses in this thread, more players would actually enjoy the reveal than would be disappointed, so the basis of "it's not how EA would market the game" is really

"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?

EDIT: typos

[tokumaru]

I'm opposed to including URLs altogether, I just mentioned QR codes because forum URLs with parameters, numbers and such are ugly to look at and annoying to type.

[M_Tee]

Yeah, I don't think anyone would actually type those, and you're right. They're definitely a visual distraction. It's different in a text file when they can be copied and pasted.

[gauauu]

For the record, I agree with everything M_Tee said about players vs authors wish, the nature of "bait and switch", and the thought about who will buy the game with what expectations.

[lidnariq]

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."

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?

[FrankenGraphics]

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. It's a stark (and intentional) opposite of an improved fan translation of simons' quest or nesrocks' super pitfall anniversary patch.

That's part of its many qualities, and part of why it is quite brilliant (imo).

[toggle switch]

surely it's obvious why that's fatuous?

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.

[lidnariq]

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.

And therefore why is it called a "remake of Star Evil" ?

That's part of its many qualities, and part of why it is quite brilliant (imo).

Did you ever play ZZT or Megazeux when they were brand new? Especially random user's worlds?

typically i would not presume a remake to be better than the original. why would i? they are often much worse.

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]

Why wouldn't I assume that it would be an earnest attempt at bettering it?

what about 'remake' implies 'make better' to you? those two things are in fact opposing goals.