I think I prefer the alternate schedule myself, though the original schedule might get people to learn things from a soundchip during the first two weeks, then apply them in the next two.
Also, is it encouraged/would it affect your score to showcase a lot of possible effects and instrument settings in your module, given that they will be demo modules? Should they be kept simple (given that they will be demo modules)? Or doesn't it matter much at all?
I think I prefer the alternate schedule myself, though the original schedule might get people to learn things from a soundchip during the first two weeks, then apply them in the next two.
Also, is it encouraged/would it affect your score to showcase a lot of possible effects and instrument settings in your module, given that they will be demo modules? Should they be kept simple (given that they will be demo modules)? Or doesn't it matter much at all?
Scores will be determined by votes from other participants, so whatever you think the rest of us would find impressive, go for it.
Oops, slight oversight on my part. I will fix this.
EDIT: Done.
InterrobangPie wrote:
Definitely prefer the alternate schedule.
Noted!
icesoldier wrote:
I'm guessing in the alternate schedule, 2C33 == FDS?
Correct. I figure since we're calling the N163 and 5B by their 'real' name, might as well do the same for the 2C33.
icesoldier wrote:
I kind of prefer the original schedule, so we can have long-term themes, and it can force people to experiment with chips.
I kind of see what you mean, though I guess people will still be forced to "experiment with chips" no matter what order they're in. My point of view is that by doing them one at a time, you may have to wait for a long time for yours to come up, and when it's gone, it's gone. You know... Still. I'll tally the votes and see who wins in the end!
icesoldier wrote:
Also, this sounds cool. Having songs bundled with the tracker is a good way to introduce people to the program. And what way to choose songs could be better than a contest?
Those were my thoughts exactly!
lvk wrote:
I think I prefer the alternate schedule myself, though the original schedule might get people to learn things from a soundchip during the first two weeks, then apply them in the next two.
Yeah, that's a point to the original one.. But I still lean towards the alternate one myself!
lvk wrote:
Also, is it encouraged/would it affect your score to showcase a lot of possible effects and instrument settings in your module, given that they will be demo modules? Should they be kept simple (given that they will be demo modules)? Or doesn't it matter much at all?
I think I might have people score the technical and musical aspects of a module separately, and then make a total out of 20. Would that work do you think?
Maybe there should be a third column titled 'robokabuto', which gives you 10 points if you are robokabuto and 0 if you are not robokabuto.
On a more serious note, 10 for technical and 10 for musical seems fine. The technical score would be based on the .ftm, yes? Also, would the musical score be judged from how it plays back within famitracker? I can imagine the VRC7 contest section would be difficult if you had to compensate for all the NSF players out there.
Lastly, any DPCM restrictions anywhere? I can imagine N163 percussion would score higher for technicality than DPCM percussion anyway, but still.
I strongly discourage troll entries. I hate to be a killjoy but the motives of this contest are kind of serious in nature (making the best tunes that will be used as demos to showcase the tracker's capabilities). Cirnosis wouldn't feel right in such a contest would it...
I guess subtle references are okay, possibly, but I still don't condone them.
.png){kind=avatar}
