Well i was reading the wikipedia entry for Tetris Worlds. When i was reading this caught my attention. I don't really think this is a fair statement. So i went ahead anc hanged the normal to classic. What do you guys think? And yes i realized that its trivial but its wikipedia, so hey what the heck.
Classic is more appropriate than Normal, especially because infinite lock time is the standard today.
Classic is beter, but not perfect. Like I mentioned in some other thread recently, Sega's arcade game Tetris, which was rather popular in arcades at the time, predates Game Boy Tetris and has lock delay. There are many Japanese people for whom Sega's Tetris is the "classic" one. I guess stick with Classic, as most will agree. It gets sort of copmlicated to add that side note.
Well, we might know that most tetris games in the past few years have infinite spin, but that's a small portion of time compared to how long Tetris has been around. I think the public still thinks that infinite spin is not "normal", and I'm hoping that some day TTC changes its mind and removes it or at least makes it an option like the XBox and GC versions of Tetris Worlds. So I'd say leave the word as "normal". Personally, I still despise Infinite Spin.
Ezzelin, are you aware that there is middle ground between no lock delay and infinite lock delay that has been in common use since 1988? While it had humble begnnings, by the 90s it was the rule, not the exception. It doesn't have to be broken, and is actually lots of fun when combined with fast gravity.
By wanting to remove infinite spin, are you also referring to the lock delay? To be able to call the gameplay "normal," lock delay has to be removed entirely. Otherwise, if you only want to remove infinite spin but still have a limited lock delay, then you would most likely agree with the term change.
Defitively, the best for me is a "limited" and "variable" lock delay.. Like TGM ofcourse! SRS or infinite lock delay is not a stupid concept, when you see how caffeine take in hand that, you can understand and admit SRS doesn't prevent to anybody to become very strong with this kind of tetris..
Are we looking at this from a western-centric perspective or a global one? Because people from different countries, having exposure to different subsets of the various versions of the game released in different parts of the world, will have varying opinions on whether the existence of lock delay (in whatever form) is "normal." The majority of people in certain territories will certainly view it as part of the "classic canon", while the majority of people in others will not. I feel it's impossible to be accurate on this thing without being detailed and complicated.
True, the arcade game differed per region: Atari's game is B-type with top-left rotation, gimmicks, and no lock delay; Sega's game is straight A-type with bottom-center rotation and lock delay. But wasn't Nintendo's game for Game Boy the same internationally?
If it is made clear that Vadim Gerasimov's original PC port is the most "traditional" version available to the public, then yes. The most noticeable differences between Gerasimov's version and the NES version are the speed curve above level 8, soft vs. hard drop, bidirectional rotation, and scoring.
It would depend on what each person would take the definition of "traditional" or "classic" as - in the sense of the historically earliest (but not most popular) version available to the public, in the sense of the most popular version in the first fad phase (in whatever territory), etc. It would have to give a definition of the exact area of games you would be referring to, be it perhaps "The Game Boy version which is the most globally popular version of the game", or "Versions released mainly in Western civilization for PCs and home consoles", or "Sega's Japanese arcade version and later games that followed the precedent it set", or whatever. I don't think single-word terms like traditional or classic will work, the global history is too varied for them.
"normal" was POV any way you put it. like needle said, "traditional" and "classic" could be problematic for wikipedia. at best he could've said "early." in any case, this whole argument's dumb since TZ restricts move/rotate. i.e. "infinity" is not, in fact, part of the tetris guideline since TZ apparently is following the guideline very strictly (though, maybe it could've been six years ago, who knows).
When was this about the guidelines? Wasn't it about the specific implementation for Worlds PS2/PC/GBA in particular?
Even if literal infinity is dead, you cannot deny that TZ allows "way freaking more than you ever need". Which is practically equivalent to infinity, as it does not force you to be efficient.
"When was this about the guidelines? Wasn't it about the specific implementation for Worlds PS2/PC/GBA in particular?" oh, i thought it was about what was "normal" tetris in comparison to tetris worlds. "you cannot deny that TZ allows 'way freaking more than you ever need'." then i guess technically tgm3 allows way freaking more than you ever need as well? (don't the two games use about the same limit?)
TGM3 classic rotation doesn't give you extra time, World does but I don't know how much, but the Heboris implementation doesn't give you nearly as much as TZ (TZ gives you 15 moves, right? This only doubles the time or something)
Correct. I'm not sure what Ti's limit is offhand, but I never claimed it was any less broken. There's a reason it was given seperate high score tables.
That's 15 lock resets per piece, right? That still asymptotically approaches Infinity. Does it revert to classic or step behavior after that? Are floor kicks allowed when the player is out of lock resets?
