Quote Originally Posted by Gleeok View Post
Personally, I don't think the 4th should be the last one. Difficulty-wise it's about the equivalent of the 2cd quest, and there's just too many cool ways to push it to the next level. It would be a little anti-climactic to leave it there. There's tons of new "gimmicks" that 2.5 would be able to add, even without scripting, such as how the Stalfos in the 2cd quest now shot swords and the bubbles were a completely new type by being split into red/blue, and so forth.

I say, it should go out with a bang. You can use whatever features you want as long as it fits in a cohesive manner.
Despite my original and painfully obvious bias toward a more modern contest I am actually warming up to the idea of a 5th quest. Keep in mind we don't actually have to pick one or the other. The question actually would come down to "Would 5th quest have the needed support?" You know what is great for determining that, Gleeok? A poll.



Quote Originally Posted by Glenn the Great View Post
Okay.


Changing gears here a bit, one thing I would NOT want to see is a rule *requiring* quest entries to make use of every feature available.

While use of the new features should definitely be allowed and encouraged, forcing people to shoe-horn a checklist of features into their quest would run the risk of making the quests feel unnecessarily gimmicky.
The quests should be judged on how they stand up as a whole... someone could hypothetically make a quest that is light on new features but plays as a better overall experience than the other entries, and I think that would be OK.
I wouldn't want to require use of EVERY new feature but I think new feature requirements would not be unreasonable. Contests use requirements all the time to challenge entrants and to ensure the end product isnt just of great quality but original and characteristic(if that is the right word). For instance I wouldn't mind seeing a minimum set of rules to highlight 2.5's most notable features similar to:

* Must use enemy editor to create at least 2 new dungeon enemies
* Must use enemy editor to create at least 1 new dungeon boss
* Must use item editor to make at least 1 new item
* Must make use of "suchandsuch.z" script

I don't think these requiremnts would be unreasonable in either contest(now refered to as Nth Quest and Proto Quest). For instance "new" doesn't necesarilly mean completely original. An octorock that shoots swords and a slingshot(bow) that shoots rocks instead of arrows would be "new". It wouldn't win you any points with whoever is judging but it satisfies the requirements and doesnt overly burden the quest maker. "suchandsuch.z" could be a simple script like Item Message script or Sign Post script or even both. Neither are hard to implement.

For an Nth Quest contest obviously the restrictions to keep it in line with 1-4th would still be around in a minimal sense. I would say overworld changes would have to be approved by "judges" unless explicitly allowed. For instance if someone wanted to swap one chunk of the map with another it would depend on how well it was implemented and if the resulting change was something that wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb in Zelda1. The graveyard is now on the right side of the map now but looks as if it was meant to be there. Dungeon design would have to be Z1 style and any liberties taken with it would have to not disrupt that. This way we ensure it has the feel of 1st quest gameplay. I personally wouldn't want to see too high of difficulty. High difficulty is great for Z1 enthusiasts but not for most of the ZC community.

For a Proto Quest overworld I think it would have to be an open overworld where 90% is accessible without making use of items. It should have at least 4 distinct areas (forest, mountain, lake/sea, desert) and a consistent look and feel. The whole idea would be that the overworld would be easily used as a base for future quest designers. Maybe even restricting the number of layers that can be used and how.

If we have a contest where the entire quest is built from scratch I think it could use most of the same requirements with a little more leniency. Maybe set a minimum and maximum number of [freeform] dungeons. Limit the size of the overworld. Or something.

just some ideas