Guess at rules or not?

[tiltjlp]

While most early EMs have playfield graphics that offer clues to what the rules might have been, most commercial flipperless lack such graphics, so it harder to figure out what the rules should be. I've recently found some decent images for quite a few obscure and seldom seem flipperless pin games. The problem is that in most cases all I know about the games is the values of scoring holes or cups, and haven't a clue about the playability and possible bonuses or other details.

So my question is a fairly simple one; should I make these tables, knowing that the actual rules and play factors might not be accurate? Now with later EMs, once a game is released, someone's memory of having played the game might result in the author being able to adjust the rules and bonus factors so we end up with the game being pretty close to accurate. With most of the flipperless games I could make, that probably won't happen, since these games are usually 60-75 years old, and no one is going to be able to provide me with information to assure accuracy. So would you rather have more flipperless tables, even if the rules are based on my experienced guesses, which could well be wrong, or should I only make games that I know the exact rules for?

I know that this might not be that important to most folks, since flipperless isn't the most popular era, but I'd really like to know everyone's opinion, so there are only two choices, yes and no. Please vote, becauseI can continue making pin toys just as easily, or even with a lot less effort, but I'd like to know what most folks would prefer. And just because I start making more commercial flipperless, I'm not going to stop making those pin toys.

John

 

[davidsss]

I'd say release and be damned!

Recreate the tables, your experience will probably lead to a pretty close, if not totally accurate, interpretation of the rules. You may recall Wild Card which I recreated and so did Compufox. We had to guess from incomplete rulesets, and we came up with different interpretations. Both recreations play well and make sense. At the end of the day no-one has come back to us with memories of the rules so we have the rules we worked out.

I would say it is better to have a slightly inaccurate reproduction than none at all.

DS

 

[Shockman]

I think it should have a third answer. Peace. It is the answer . . . the only answer.
I voted no, so you can surmise that I would be all for it.
The only chance to get it right, and comfirmed right would be to make it, and hope someone remembers it and remarks.
If it was a real one, in parts, and you could wire it and make it work, but work different ways, and no chance of guidence, I bet you would put it together one way or another.

 

[Shockman]

I think I got ripped off for some points, for that last post. only 33?

 

[tiltjlp]

I think I got ripped off for some points, for that last post. only 33?

Are you looking at your points, which now show 546, or your posts, which now show 35? I've got way more points than I know what to do with, so I'll give you some of mine. Just remember this the next time I do something to bug you, OK?

John

 

[Shockman]

I was joking about the points. I had no idea what they were, but I just looked it up. Like Karma isn't it?
Thanks, I'll try to remember to pass them off.