lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (05/29/90)
In <1990May29.172524.15940@IRO.UMontreal.CA>, desmarai@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Stephane Desmarais) writes: > >(*) Many people misspell that word as "viola". May I tell them that viola > is the name of a NY Mets pitcher (at least, he was last year. I don't > know if he still is :-). "Voila" comes from "vois" and "la" ("see" > and "here"). > Viola is also a musical instrument, but at least it's better (and more recognizable as a mispelling) than the more common 'wala' or 'walla'. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) (05/29/90)
In article <MT87692.90May29030535@uikku.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: [...] >Okay, that's about that, now I had few other questions (or more specific I >would like to hear your opinions on following subjects): > >1. Should game be HD-installable? > > - IMHO I think this is quite useless because many HD drivers eat chip-memory > and you will run out of it especially on 512k chip-ram machines. And you > can make Disk-based routines lot more faster and more data in one disk > which helps people without HD. Yes. If you have a harddisk, you don't want to fool around with floppies. I wouldn't buy a game that can't be installed on my harddisk. You may think this is useless, but a lot of people don't. And besides, the kind of people who buy harddisk are the same kind of people who are prepared to BUY your program. You don't want to piss them off since they're your (potential) customers. >2. Should game multitask? > - IMHO I at least don't want to play those shit games with multitasking on. > But if we are talking about for example following "Multitasking": Game > disables interrupts while playing but for example if you pause it it will > turn interrupts back on. I would like to make my game work like this. But > there are few drawbacks: Copy-protection is alot harder to make and you > very easily run out of memory. Again, I wouldn't buy a game that won't let me multitask. I don't even want programs that take over the display. Also, if your program is copy protected I will hesitate to buy it. Word-in-the-manual, if done right, is OK. Any disk based protection is out. >3. Should game detect extra memory/diskdrives/processors? > - IMHO memory is must because it makes the game lot more playable and HD-people > don't argue about the loading speed. Extra drives eat memory which causes > serious trouble in 512k machines. Processors are useless in simple scroll > games because they at least should be using the blitter in nasty-mode so > processors don't speed it up too much. Nowadays the games also must run on > all motorola 680x0 family thanks to A3000. But by detecting I mean really > notice the speed increase and add new things to game (BTW my program notices > but noone of my friends has 68020/68030 so I dunno how much it helps:-). A program should, of course, use as little memory as possible if it's multitasking. Offer the user the ability to cache stuff that is needed often. Use as little CHIPMEM as possible. The program should, of course, not use CPU based timing. If you detect a faster processor give the user the OPTION of adding extras if you like. But don't use the CPU more than you need. Think about those other tasks. Also, you shouldn't adapt to faster processors because CBM has released the A3000. Even an A1000 can have a 68030. >4. Should game be exitable? > - IMHO exitable games are harder to protect and you can't destroy anything in memory > and you will end up again without enough memory:-( Yes. Anything else is not acceptable. I want to be able to start a game, play it while downloading some files, and then quit the game and resume work. > And I would like also to know how many of you people really play games while doing >something else? If you do, do you really like those every now and then updating >games with poor graphics (thanks to memory shortage). I do and I like them. The most important aspect of a game is NOT cute graphics. It's much more important that the game is fun to play. One of my favorite games is The Colony. It multitasks, I can install it on my harddisk and I can pull down it's window. Now, there are some other aspects of this game that I don't like, but those would be the same regardless if the game multitasked or not. The protection used is OK as protections go. Now, I don't like any form of copy protection, but I can see why it's needed. The solution used in The Colony is one of the better I've seen. Generally, The Colony, while not the best game I've ever played, does a VERY good job of adapting to your machine. It even adapted its screen to the size of my overscanned PAL (704*568) workbench screen. >-- >Mikko "Assembler rules OK!" Tsokkinen >Internet mt87692@tut.fi : UUCP tut!mt87692 : Bitnet mt87692@fintut --- Bjorn Knutsson / USENET: bjornk@bula.se or sunic!sics!bula!bjornk Stangholmsbacken 44 / Phone : +46-8-710 7223 S-127 40 SKARHOLMEN / "Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the S W E D E N / blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android
mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) (05/29/90)
In article <7373@bula.se> bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: > [...] > >Okay, that's about that, now I had few other questions (or more specific I > >would like to hear your opinions on following subjects): > > > >1. Should game be HD-installable? > > > Yes. If you have a harddisk, you don't want to fool around with > floppies. I wouldn't buy a game that can't be installed on my > harddisk. You may think this is useless, but a lot of people don't. > And besides, the kind of people who buy harddisk are the same kind > of people who are prepared to BUY your program. You don't want to > piss them off since they're your (potential) customers. OK! This seems you all want to have games in your HD. > >2. Should game multitask? > > there are few drawbacks: Copy-protection is alot harder to make and you > > very easily run out of memory. > Again, I wouldn't buy a game that won't let me multitask. I don't even want > programs that take over the display. Also, if your program is copy protected > I will hesitate to buy it. Word-in-the-manual, if done right, is OK. Any disk > based protection is out. The reason I said copy protection is harder to make I mean this: - game multitasks so one nice fellow starts Debugger and then the game which for example asks the words from manual. As soon as the title screen appears back to debugger and save the whole thing to disk and check the tasks pc and search the starting point. GREAT words are gone! And if it asks manual words all the time nobody plays it. - The only conclusions seems to make parallel dongles. And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? NO WAY MAN! > >3. Should game detect extra memory/diskdrives/processors? > > notice the speed increase and add new things to game (BTW my program notices > > but noone of my friends has 68020/68030 so I dunno how much it helps:-). > A program should, of course, use as little memory as possible if it's > multitasking. Offer the user the ability to cache stuff that is needed > often. Use as little CHIPMEM as possible. The program should, of > course, not use CPU based timing. If you detect a faster processor > give the user the OPTION of adding extras if you like. But don't use > the CPU more than you need. Think about those other tasks. Also, you > shouldn't adapt to faster processors because CBM has released the > A3000. Even an A1000 can have a 68030. In my programs case the speed isn't actyally increasing but you can see the objects much better. BTW do you really like that I don't use extra speed and let other programs run is better than extra details? > >4. Should game be exitable? Floppy users and low mem people will reset their machines anyway thanks to fracmentation and viruses! But this can be easily provided! > --- > Bjorn Knutsson / USENET: bjornk@bula.se or sunic!sics!bula!bjornk > Stangholmsbacken 44 / Phone : +46-8-710 7223 > S-127 40 SKARHOLMEN / "Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the > S W E D E N / blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android MITT -- Mikko "Assembler rules OK!" Tsokkinen Internet mt87692@tut.fi : UUCP tut!mt87692 : Bitnet mt87692@fintut
desmarai@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Stephane Desmarais) (05/30/90)
In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: >In article <7373@bula.se> bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: >> >2. Should game multitask? >> > there are few drawbacks: Copy-protection is alot harder to make and you >> > very easily run out of memory. > > The reason I said copy protection is harder to make I mean this: > - game multitasks so one nice fellow starts Debugger and then the game > which for example asks the words from manual. As soon as the title screen > appears back to debugger and save the whole thing to disk and check the > tasks pc and search the starting point. GREAT words are gone! And if > it asks manual words all the time nobody plays it. Anybody who can do that can probably do the same thing on a non-multitasking auto-booting program. > - The only conclusions seems to make parallel dongles. A nuisance when you have more than one program using a dongle, and may not be compatible (depending on how you do it) with every model of the Amiga computer. > > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >NO WAY MAN! You should notice that some multitasking programs do not require large amount of processing power. I think that downloading a file from the modem comes in that category. And of course, what if you have an accelerator board? And what if you want to cheat and have some "decelerator software" running? (mucho 8^) >> >4. Should game be exitable? > > Floppy users and low mem people will reset their machines anyway thanks to >fracmentation and viruses! But this can be easily provided! Yeah, but many users don't NEED to reboot because they have enough memory to delay the problem (and if every program you run exits properly, you just exit every program and voila (*), no more fragmentation. (*) Many people misspell that word as "viola". May I tell them that viola is the name of a NY Mets pitcher (at least, he was last year. I don't know if he still is :-). "Voila" comes from "vois" and "la" ("see" and "here"). -- Stephane M. Desmarais desmarais@iro.umontreal.ca (le Domaine Canadien) Departement d'informatique uunet!mcgill-vision!iros1!desmarais Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128 Succ. A Montreal Quebec Canada H3C 3J7 Projet IBM/CRIM/UdeM sur MAP/MMS (514) 343-7660
desmarai@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Stephane Desmarais) (05/30/90)
In article <1990May29.172524.15940@IRO.UMontreal.CA> I wrote >(*) Many people misspell that word as "viola". May I tell them that viola > is the name of a NY Mets pitcher (at least, he was last year. I don't > know if he still is :-). "Voila" comes from "vois" and "la" ("see" > and "here"). Of course, I meant "there". (And that damn Cancel function doesn't work here (Oh no! I used a 4 letter word! Everybody will get a wrong idea of french speaking people !!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) -- Stephane M. Desmarais desmarais@iro.umontreal.ca (le Domaine Canadien) Departement d'informatique uunet!mcgill-vision!iros1!desmarais Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128 Succ. A Montreal Quebec Canada H3C 3J7 Projet IBM/CRIM/UdeM sur MAP/MMS (514) 343-7660
lennox@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Craig Scott Lennox) (05/30/90)
In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: Floppy users and low mem people will reset their machines anyway thanks to fracmentation and viruses! But this can be easily provided! ^^^^^^^ You mean your game will include its very own viruses??! Wow. Where can I buy my copy? Sprinkle :-)'s liberally throughout. :-) -- | flame me at: lennox@shire.hw.stratus.com, Craig Lennox, Stratus Computer | |"Oh boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a REALLY BIG ram disk!" | | Disclaimer: My opinions are covered by section 2b of the Gnu Public | | License and thus do not belong to Stratus Computer. |
davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) (05/30/90)
In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: >In article <7373@bula.se> bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: >> [...] >> >2. Should game multitask? >> > there are few drawbacks: Copy-protection is alot harder to make and you >> > very easily run out of memory. > >> Again, I wouldn't buy a game that won't let me multitask. I don't even want >> programs that take over the display. Also, if your program is copy protected >> I will hesitate to buy it. Word-in-the-manual, if done right, is OK. Any disk >> based protection is out. > ... > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >NO WAY MAN! Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. It's not like the chip is going to explode or something if you try it :-). Your game will just run more slowly that it otherwise would (depending on how many tasks are being run, how processor intensive they are, their priorities, etc.). The choice, however, should be left up to the user; I personally don't like being told what my system's capabilities are when the programmer has no idea just what my system is. >> >4. Should game be exitable? > > Floppy users and low mem people will reset their machines anyway thanks to >fracmentation and viruses! But this can be easily provided! > Your _assumption_ that floppy and low mem people will reset the machines anyway is not a good enough reason to make _everyone_ reset their machines after playing your game. If people want to reset their machines, they can do it perfectly well without the programmer forcing them. > >> Bjorn Knutsson / USENET: bjornk@bula.se or sunic!sics!bula!bjornk >-- >Mikko "Assembler rules OK!" Tsokkinen -- Dave Schreiber The blue leprechaun at davids@slugmail.ucsc.edu (prefered but flakey) or (not both) davids@ucscb.ucsc.edu "Coffee, Darling?"
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (05/30/90)
In <CSUWK.90May30184857@clover.warwick.ac.uk>, csuwk@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Ade Lovett) writes: > >I'm just getting a little p*ssed off about the arrogance of some people. >Sure, you may have a super-fast Amy, but you're the exception not the >rule, and if you don't cater for the rule, you're not going to get any >sponds out of your game. Since these machines cost loadsa money, why >don't you just blow away another $500 on an A500 to run games? (In fact, >that's the way I work - development machine being an A2000 with lots of >RAM and an HD and a 68020, and an A500 for testing and playing games). Arrogance has nothing to do with it. I bought a machine that multitasks. I will not run programs that do not multitask, be they games or productivity software. My choice, and my choice alone. Write a game that does not multitask, and I won't be playing it. Simple. Buying an A500 to run games changes nothing. The A500 is an Amiga. It also multitasks, when you dont run a program that disables it with malice aforethought. Allowing multitasking need not slow the machine down appreciably, if the user is not running something at equal priority. Leave the choices to the user if you want the widest audience. Dictate to the user if you don't care about the people that feel differently about it. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
wakres01@pa.usl.edu (1712 Stelly John B) (05/30/90)
In article <3871@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: > >In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: >>In article <7373@bula.se> bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: >>> [...] >>> >2. Should game multitask? >>> > there are few drawbacks: Copy-protection is alot harder to make and you >>> > very easily run out of memory. >> >>> Again, I wouldn't buy a game that won't let me multitask. I don't even want >>> programs that take over the display. Also, if your program is copy protected >>> I will hesitate to buy it. Word-in-the-manual, if done right, is OK. Any disk >>> based protection is out. >> I guess what you need to decide is who you are writing your game for. If you are writing for the average, one-drive A500 owner, then HD support, and having to reboot after use, etc. may not be a consideration. Although A500 owners are a large portion of the game market, they do not constitute a large portion of comp.sys.amiga, so get ready for lots of negative response. Personally, I understand your plight as a programmer, but I don't think you should base any of your decisions on how difficult it will be to crack your program. Anyone who has the know how to crack something like a Psygnosis game would probably overcome the non-multitasking barrier very quickly. I think you should make all of your decisions based on what will make your game more fun to play. >> And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >>seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >>NO WAY MAN! > >Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. It's not like the >chip is going to explode or something if you try it :-). Your game will >just run more slowly that it otherwise would (depending on how many tasks >are being run, how processor intensive they are, their priorities, etc.). >The choice, however, should be left up to the user; I personally don't >like being told what my system's capabilities are when the programmer has >no idea just what my system is. Oh, come on, you know what he means... the game would be unplayable on a 68000, unless it devotes its full attention to the game. But again, if you intend to sell your game to ANYONE other than most people who use their amiga primarily for games, you must make your program multi-task, that is a sacrafice most will be unwilling to make. Personally, I want games that multi-task, and are HD-installable (and if I ever finish any of the ones I'm working on, they will be) I understand that some things are easier to do when your program owns the system, and some are only possible in this situation, but when you start making assumptions about the computer you are running on, you will inevitably run into problems on some systems... But if you make a REALLY great game, I'll forgive all of its transgressions (UNless its got a VIRUS !!!) John B Stelly III wakres01@pa.usl.edu
bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) (05/30/90)
In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: >In article <7373@bula.se> bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: > OK! This seems you all want to have games in your HD. Yes, why buy a harddisk if you can't use it? >> Again, I wouldn't buy a game that won't let me multitask. I don't even want >> programs that take over the display. Also, if your program is copy protected >> I will hesitate to buy it. Word-in-the-manual, if done right, is OK. Any disk >> based protection is out. > > The reason I said copy protection is harder to make I mean this: > - game multitasks so one nice fellow starts Debugger and then the game > which for example asks the words from manual. As soon as the title screen > appears back to debugger and save the whole thing to disk and check the > tasks pc and search the starting point. GREAT words are gone! And if > it asks manual words all the time nobody plays it. Sure, but people who want to remove your protection will do so no matter how much time you put into designing your copy protection. The reason you have copy protection is not to stop knowledgable people who are determined to crack your protection. They will remove it no matter how hard you try to stop them (unless you make the protection part of the program). The ones you want to stop is the ones who will make copies if all they have to do is start a copy program. This kind of people will not whip out a debugger in an attempt to defeat your protection. As I said, word-in-the-manual is OK, if done right. Asking for a stupid word every five minutes is not "done right". > - The only conclusions seems to make parallel dongles. Sure go ahead. I sure won't buy a game that requires me to insert a lot of unecessary hardware into my system. DigiView has an excellent protection. A parallel dongle that actually does something. That's OK. Having to insert a dongle to play a game is not. > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >NO WAY MAN! Well, you can always give the user the option of running your program at priority 127. If you don't get all the cycles you need, decrease the frame rate. Some people (me for instance) would be prepared to do this trade off in order to run things in the background. >> A program should, of course, use as little memory as possible if it's >> multitasking. Offer the user the ability to cache stuff that is needed >> often. Use as little CHIPMEM as possible. The program should, of >> course, not use CPU based timing. If you detect a faster processor >> give the user the OPTION of adding extras if you like. But don't use >> the CPU more than you need. Think about those other tasks. Also, you >> shouldn't adapt to faster processors because CBM has released the >> A3000. Even an A1000 can have a 68030. > > In my programs case the speed isn't actyally increasing but you can see >the objects much better. BTW do you really like that I don't use extra >speed and let other programs run is better than extra details? Again: Make it an option. Sometimes I will want to use the "spare" cycles for other things, sometimes I will happily give them to you. It depends on what I'm doing at the time. >> >4. Should game be exitable? > > Floppy users and low mem people will reset their machines anyway thanks to >fracmentation and viruses! But this can be easily provided! Then do it. Memory fragmentation is the only trace your program should leave. >-- >Mikko "Assembler rules OK!" Tsokkinen >Internet mt87692@tut.fi : UUCP tut!mt87692 : Bitnet mt87692@fintut --- Bjorn Knutsson / USENET: bjornk@bula.se or sunic!sics!bula!bjornk Stangholmsbacken 44 / Phone : +46-8-710 7223 S-127 40 SKARHOLMEN / "Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the S W E D E N / blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android
sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) (05/30/90)
In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi>, mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: > In article <7373@bula.se> bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: > > [...] > > >Okay, that's about that, now I had few other questions (or more specific I > > >would like to hear your opinions on following subjects): > > > > > >1. Should game be HD-installable? > > > > > Yes. If you have a harddisk, you don't want to fool around with .. > > of people who are prepared to BUY your program. You don't want to > > piss them off since they're your (potential) customers. Heh, this is true. > > OK! This seems you all want to have games in your HD. Only if the game will be interesing for many sittings. Otherwise, why waste the hard disk space? (Else, why buy the game at all? :-) In short, if it's worth playing often, then it's worth keeping at hand. > > > >2. Should game multitask? > > > there are few drawbacks: Copy-protection is alot harder to make and you > > > very easily run out of memory. Huh? I don't get it. You want to make sure someone can't run something and accidentally run out of memory? If they do, then they'll (hopefully) know it, and stop what they were trying to do. If your game allocates every thing up front, it shouldn't matter to your game anyway. If it needs dynamic memory, I'm not sure, but someone else can comment and give suggestions. > > > Again, I wouldn't buy a game that won't let me multitask. I don't even want .... > The reason I said copy protection is harder to make I mean this: > - game multitasks so one nice fellow starts Debugger and then the game > which for example asks the words from manual. As soon as the title screen > appears back to debugger and save the whole thing to disk and check the > tasks pc and search the starting point. GREAT words are gone! And if > it asks manual words all the time nobody plays it. > - The only conclusions seems to make parallel dongles. Do you think you can actually write a protection scheme that some determined pirate can't hack? I bet a lot of people would disbelieve. Besides, as someone mentioned in earlier messages, there's a cartridge of some sort that can freeze the machine and let you examine memory, so it sounds like disabling memory will not stop someone anymore, thus voiding your reason. Against normal people, I don't mind a look up manual or a key-disk, where it checks it the first time you load the program (so you don't need to KEEP it in the drive, just put it in once). (I know some don't like that, but I think that's more clean than a dongle.... or a daisy-chain of dongles.) > > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you > seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? > NO WAY MAN! Really? What about something like background printing? I'm sure there are some things that don't take up that much cpu time. If nothing was run in the background, your game should run full-speed. Right? Or does the OS or something steal away that many CPU cycles? > > > >3. Should game detect extra memory/diskdrives/processors? > > > notice the speed increase and add new things to game (BTW my program notices > > > but noone of my friends has 68020/68030 so I dunno how much it helps:-). > > > A program should, of course, use as little memory as possible if it's > > multitasking. Offer the user the ability to cache stuff that is needed ... > In my programs case the speed isn't actyally increasing but you can see > the objects much better. BTW do you really like that I don't use extra > speed and let other programs run is better than extra details? It shouldn't matter how fast the CPU goes. I guess you need to sync to some timer, the screen syncing to the vertical interrupt or something (OK, I'm a bit fuzzy here), but on a faster CPU, it should have a faster screen refresh, but without super-aliens that are double-speed (or whatever). In other words, the pace of the game should be the same, but the screen-refresh should be sped up. Some games do this nicely, some games don't. The ones that don't will not be fun at all on future machines and the ones that are nice will please owners of those machines, because they'll run even better! I remember when the AT's came out, and people would try playing some of the arcade games that they liked to play on the old 8088's.... yeah, right. In short, even on a 6MHz 286, these early games were UNPLAYABLE. I think the clone people have learned a lesson then. I hope we can learn from that too, before we go through more of it. > > > >4. Should game be exitable? > > Floppy users and low mem people will reset their machines anyway thanks to > fracmentation and viruses! But this can be easily provided! I know many commercial games reboot peoples machines, but why? I use just floppies, but I don't reboot after everything I do. Geesh. Also, I have a lot of mem. So, when you reboot to make things easy for "low mem people" you cause extra work for me. Is it that hard for "low mem people" to reboot their machine? I mean, really. And if it's memory fragmentation, once your program properly exits, it should return all memory and resources, so the only way it's fragmented would be if they were multitasking and ran other things (which you said you were going to prevent). > > > --- > > Bjorn Knutsson / USENET: bjornk@bula.se or sunic!sics!bula!bjornk > > Stangholmsbacken 44 / Phone : +46-8-710 7223 > > S-127 40 SKARHOLMEN / "Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the > > S W E D E N / blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android > > MITT > > -- > Mikko "Assembler rules OK!" Tsokkinen > Internet mt87692@tut.fi : UUCP tut!mt87692 : Bitnet mt87692@fintut These are just some thoughts. Please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere! -- Gary Wolfe uflorida!unf7!tlvx!sysop
<LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (05/30/90)
In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi>, mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) says: > > > The reason I said copy protection is harder to make I mean this: > - game multitasks so one nice fellow starts Debugger and then the game > which for example asks the words from manual. As soon as the title screen > appears back to debugger and save the whole thing to disk and check the > tasks pc and search the starting point. GREAT words are gone! And if > it asks manual words all the time nobody plays it. > - The only conclusions seems to make parallel dongles. Definitely no parallel dongles nor any of the perpherial ports. It will break some of the hardware that relies on the parallel/serial ports. It is also a pain for someone like my to have remove the monitor, pull out the 'CPU' box of my A1000 carefully, unplug the printer cable, plug in the dongle, turn on the machine and cold boot it every single #@%#%# time I want to play some games (if all games have their particular dongles) and undo it when I have to work or play a different game... I would DEFINITELY sue the dongle maker if any of my perpheial breaks down due to power cycling (switch machine on/off) or any 8520 chips or I/O chips in my perpherials needed to be replaced. Same goes for copy protections that uses software timing loops that can potentially damage a floppy drive. Even with a dongle and may be copy protection, one can always use a hardware 68000 emulation and do a real time trace to I/O access or something like that. (That really depends on whether the software is worth the effort) > > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >NO WAY MAN! What about my 20 MHz 68020 with a 24 MHz 68882 ?? (or someone with a 50MHz 68040 ?) I can see turning off multitasking for a 68000, but not on a much faster processor with more RAM and may be math coprocessor... > > In my programs case the speed isn't actyally increasing but you can see >the objects much better. BTW do you really like that I don't use extra >speed and let other programs run is better than extra details? > >> >4. Should game be exitable? > > Floppy users and low mem people will reset their machines anyway thanks to >fracmentation and viruses! But this can be easily provided! > >> --- >> Bjorn Knutsson / USENET: bjornk@bula.se or sunic!sics!bula!bjornk >> Stangholmsbacken 44 / Phone : +46-8-710 7223 >> S-127 40 SKARHOLMEN / "Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the >> S W E D E N / blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android > >MITT > >-- >Mikko "Assembler rules OK!" Tsokkinen >Internet mt87692@tut.fi : UUCP tut!mt87692 : Bitnet mt87692@fintut K. C. Lee (Grad. Student)
davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) (05/31/90)
In article <9143@rouge.usl.edu> wakres01@pa.usl.edu (1712 Stelly John B) writes: >In article <3871@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: >> >>In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: >>> And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >>>seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >>>NO WAY MAN! >> >>Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. It's not like the >>chip is going to explode or something if you try it :-). Your game will >>just run more slowly that it otherwise would (depending on how many tasks >>are being run, how processor intensive they are, their priorities, etc.). >>The choice, however, should be left up to the user; I personally don't >>like being told what my system's capabilities are when the programmer has >>no idea just what my system is. > >Oh, come on, you know what he means... the game would be unplayable on a 68000, What if I don't have a 68000? Or what if I don't mind? When I'm playing the game, _I_ want to decide for myself. >unless it devotes its full attention to the game. But again, if you intend to >sell your game to ANYONE other than most people who use their amiga primarily >for games, you must make your program multi-task, that is a sacrafice most will >be unwilling to make. > Exactly. If the game is very CPU intensive I will make sure not to run any other programsalong with it (or set priorities properly). However, I don't like being told that: 1) My machine can't handle running the game without disabling multitasking (or even that I will find the game unplayable while running something else) when the programmer doesn't know what system I using. 2) I can't be TRUSTED to not to set up my environment properly so the game won't be affected (for the novice user who doesn't know how, why not just make the game bootable, with a startup-sequence that insures that the game is the only thing being run; let the rest of us run it from wherever we usually run programs). Question: is there a signifigant difference between how fast a program will running in a monotasking environment, as opposed to one where simply no other user tasks are being run? Hmmm, I'll have to check that the next time I'm at my machine... > >John B Stelly III -- Dave Schreiber The blue leprechaun at davids@slugmail.ucsc.edu (prefered but flakey) or (not both) davids@ucscb.ucsc.edu "Coffee, Darling?"
csuwk@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Ade Lovett) (05/31/90)
In article <3871@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: > In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: > > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you > >seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? > >NO WAY MAN! > Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. It's not like the > chip is going to explode or something if you try it :-). Your game will > just run more slowly that it otherwise would (depending on how many tasks > are being run, how processor intensive they are, their priorities, etc.). > The choice, however, should be left up to the user; I personally don't > like being told what my system's capabilities are when the programmer has > no idea just what my system is. Right. Having watched this debate for a coupla days, it's time I chucked in my 1.4p (roughly equal to 2 cents :-) First, if your game doesn't need to be speedy then, fine, there's no reason why it shouldn't multitask. However, your average Joe Punter who goes into his local store and decides to buy a game which describes itself as blinding fast with stunning 3d graphics is going to be a little annoyed when he finds that because it's multitasking, it actually runs about as fast as downloading 4Mb of news at 1200 baud. It's all very nice for people to say "but on my A328732 Turbo-nutter with fuel injection it won't be a problem", but you have to cater for the majority of machines when it comes to games -- i.e. the bog-standard A500, 1/2Meg RAM, 7.14Mhz 68k. Consider a game where you've got a 4-bitplane screen which is updated 10 times a second. Just displaying the screen means you're going to be shifting 10x4x320x200 bits = 320k(ish) of screen data a second, not including all the time spent figuring out hidden plane removal (assuming a nice 3d shaded polygon blast-em-up game). In this case, you're not going to want to make a call to OwnBlit() only to be told by the OS "Sorry matey, task XYZ is using it at the mo for saving the file its just downloaded on to the HD" ... you want the blit, like, now (man :=) I'm just getting a little p*ssed off about the arrogance of some people. Sure, you may have a super-fast Amy, but you're the exception not the rule, and if you don't cater for the rule, you're not going to get any sponds out of your game. Since these machines cost loadsa money, why don't you just blow away another $500 on an A500 to run games? (In fact, that's the way I work - development machine being an A2000 with lots of RAM and an HD and a 68020, and an A500 for testing and playing games). aDe -- +--- Ade Lovett --------+- ade@cs.warwick.ac.uk ------ +44 932 842478 -------+ | Computer Science | INTERNET: ade%cs.warwick.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | | Warwick University | UUCP : ...!mcvax!ukc!warwick!ade | | Coventry CV4 7AL, UK | BITNET : ade%uk.ac.warwick.cs@ukacrl | +-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (05/31/90)
In <gaNH3Gm00UgyM2OJlY@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > A classic example F-18, >F-18 has a code wheel, so there is no reason that you can't copy the >files to HD, but when you try running it it kills multitaking before >it finishes loading everything into memory! They could at least have >waited until the program was fully loaded in (as it doe not do any >disk access after loading). So, remember if you want to be friendly >with HD owners don't kill the O/S or stop multitasking. F-18 loads and runs fine from the HD, though it does require a reboot afterward. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) (05/31/90)
In article <CSUWK.90May30184857@clover.warwick.ac.uk> csuwk@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Ade Lovett) writes: >In article <3871@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: >> In article <MT87692.90May29184145@kaarne.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: >> > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >> >seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >> >NO WAY MAN! > >> Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. It's not like the >> chip is going to explode or something if you try it :-). Your game will >> just run more slowly that it otherwise would (depending on how many tasks >> are being run, how processor intensive they are, their priorities, etc.). >> The choice, however, should be left up to the user; I personally don't >> like being told what my system's capabilities are when the programmer has >> no idea just what my system is. > [...] >First, if your game doesn't need to be speedy then, fine, there's no >reason why it shouldn't multitask. However, your average Joe Punter Perhaps someone should explain this to the creator of Arkanoid 1/2:-)... >who goes into his local store and decides to buy a game which describes >itself as blinding fast with stunning 3d graphics is going to be a little >annoyed when he finds that because it's multitasking, it actually runs >about as fast as downloading 4Mb of news at 1200 baud. It's all very nice >for people to say "but on my A328732 Turbo-nutter with fuel injection it >won't be a problem", but you have to cater for the majority of machines when >it comes to games -- i.e. the bog-standard A500, 1/2Meg RAM, 7.14Mhz 68k. >Consider a game where you've got a 4-bitplane screen which is updated >10 times a second. Just displaying the screen means you're going to be >shifting 10x4x320x200 bits = 320k(ish) of screen data a second, not including >all the time spent figuring out hidden plane removal (assuming a nice >3d shaded polygon blast-em-up game). In this case, you're not going >to want to make a call to OwnBlit() only to be told by the OS "Sorry >matey, task XYZ is using it at the mo for saving the file its just >downloaded on to the HD" ... you want the blit, like, now (man :=) > I don't see what the problem is. If I decided to run task XYZ and it hurts the performance of the game, then that's my problem. I can either live with it, or not run task XYZ and get the game going at full speed. Either way, it's my choice, which is the way it should be. If Joe Punter decided to download a program while playing the game, I don't really see where he would get off blaming the company for a loss of speed (now that WOULD be arrogant). >I'm just getting a little p*ssed off about the arrogance of some people. >Sure, you may have a super-fast Amy, but you're the exception not the >rule, and if you don't cater for the rule, you're not going to get any >sponds out of your game. Since these machines cost loadsa money, why >don't you just blow away another $500 on an A500 to run games? (In fact, >that's the way I work - development machine being an A2000 with lots of >RAM and an HD and a 68020, and an A500 for testing and playing games). I own a 68010 based A2000. Not exactly a 'super-fast Amy', unfortunatly. I owned a 500 for two years before I bought the 2000, and only was able to get enough money to buy the 2000 (+2Mb memory+HD+controller) after selling the 500 (well, actually I collected the UPS insurance money, but that's a long story :-( ). If I get a 3000 this summer, it will be after selling my 2000 system, working full-time for three months, and giving my parents a rather large amount of $$ (my share of my college expenses). I'm certainly not going to use what $$ I have left over to get a 500, especially if all I'm going to do with it is play games. Moral: Don't assume that someone who has (or is going to get) a super-fast Amiga is rolling in $$ (or ##, as the case may be :-). >+--- Ade Lovett --------+- ade@cs.warwick.ac.uk ------ +44 932 842478 -------+ Personal flames to E-mail, please. [boy, I'm getting tired of having to pad these out. Vile followup software >:-P...] -- Dave Schreiber The blue leprechaun at davids@slugmail.ucsc.edu (prefered but flakey) or (not both) davids@ucscb.ucsc.edu "Coffee, Darling?"
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (05/31/90)
In all the talk about games, it seems that one thing people are agreeing on is that HD owners really want to be able to put their games on the HD (I agree!), but then when it comes to multi tasking developers argue about how their programs need the entire CPU resources etc. One thing that some developers might just want to consider is that if you kill multitasking, you will probabily kill access to the HD (unless you want to write a driver for EVERY HD on the market), since the drivers run a tasks. A classic example F-18, F-18 has a code wheel, so there is no reason that you can't copy the files to HD, but when you try running it it kills multitaking before it finishes loading everything into memory! They could at least have waited until the program was fully loaded in (as it doe not do any disk access after loading). So, remember if you want to be friendly with HD owners don't kill the O/S or stop multitasking. -Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu
C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ("Eric Edwards") (06/01/90)
Many times in this discussion I've been told that the "average amiga" is a 512k A500 with 1 drive. I find this a little hard to believe. Most of the 500 owners that I know have 2 drives and 1 meg. Those that don't fit into two catagories. 1) They plan to get a second drive and an A501 in the very near future. 2) They don't use their computer much. Catagory 2 people are very unlikely to buy software and when they do are much more likely to be swayed by the pressence of the game running in a store display (i.e. off a HARD DRIVE) Catagory 1 people will at worse, delay the purchase and probably are few enough in number (the window is small) to not worry about. /*/Eric Edwards c506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu or c506634@umcvmb.bitnet/*/ /*/ "Sir, you are an excellent star ship captain /"We come in peace, /*/ /*/ but as a taxi cab driver you leave much to / shoot to kill" /*/ /*/ be desired" - Spock, "A Piece of the Action"/ --"Star Trekkin'"/*/
sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) (06/01/90)
In article <CSUWK.90May30184857@clover.warwick.ac.uk>, csuwk@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Ade Lovett) writes: > In article <3871@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: ... > > Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. It's not like the > > chip is going to explode or something if you try it :-). Your game will > > just run more slowly that it otherwise would (depending on how many tasks ... > > no idea just what my system is. > .... > First, if your game doesn't need to be speedy then, fine, there's no > reason why it shouldn't multitask. However, your average Joe Punter If it is speedy, why can't it multitask? You're assuming that anything running in the background is sucking away all the CPU time. Assumptions can be wrong. > who goes into his local store and decides to buy a game which describes > itself as blinding fast with stunning 3d graphics is going to be a little > annoyed when he finds that because it's multitasking, it actually runs But wait, who's FORCING you to multitask? If you put the disk in and type "Loadgame" when nothing else is running on your machine, why won't it go "blinding fast"? What's slowing it down? The overhead to the OS can't be that great (although, I haven't timed this.. You get your assumption, I have mine. :-). > about as fast as downloading 4Mb of news at 1200 baud. It's all very nice > for people to say "but on my A328732 Turbo-nutter with fuel injection it > won't be a problem", but you have to cater for the majority of machines when > it comes to games -- i.e. the bog-standard A500, 1/2Meg RAM, 7.14Mhz 68k. I'm going to go off-topic for a second, but I have a pet-peeve of my own that I'd like to express. What happens 5 years from now when everyone's got an '020, because they're dirt-cheap (or whatever)? As it is, I have a some old games which won't work with AmigaDOS 1.3. I'd say that enough machines are running 1.3 that you wouldn't want to ignore that market. Yet, to owners of machines with 1.3 in ROM (which includes Amiga 500 owners, as of many months ago), these games are junk, worthless. Sure, at one time they worked on A1000's. Remember when a lot of games wouldn't work with memory expansions? We had to run nofastmem, and that STILL didn't fix most of the games? (GRR! Thank goodness for fixhunk!) (Anyone want to buy Ferrari Formula One, or tell me how to get it to work with the newer stuff?) After all that, WE'RE GONNA DO IT AGAIN! We're going to go through another upgrade of technology, while junking games that really could have worked fine. It really gets tiresome. So, no, I don't think software should cater to one hardware standard, even if for the moment it seems to be the most popular. I think software should support the "standard" first, but support as much as possible, since in the future, there's sure to be another "standard." Today we have games which, as has been posted on USENET, don't work on the upgraded CPU's because of copy protection! Stop the madness now! ;-) Populous may not need the power of an '020, but why won't it work on one?! It won't work on an '010, and that's not a whole lot faster than the base 68000. (I think that even if game developers don't have an '020, they could spend the $10 to $20 and put in an '010 just to stop them from doing things based on funny CPU timing idiosyncracies.) While suspending multitasking may not affect future machines, copy protection and just general "only support the lowest-common-denominator" are bad concepts, if the future is not taken into account. I realize this isn't the topic posted, but is something that I have thought about before, and this topic reminded me of this (almost related) issue. > Consider a game where you've got a 4-bitplane screen which is updated > 10 times a second. Just displaying the screen means you're going to be .... > downloaded on to the HD" ... you want the blit, like, now (man :=) Like another poster said, have it bootable off of floppy. It can be easy to load and won't load any other tasks, for people who can't figure out how to not run other tasks. :-) > > I'm just getting a little p*ssed off about the arrogance of some people. What arrogance? That we want software that doesn't force you to limit the usefulness of your machine/OS to use it? Yeah, I'll be arrogant then! Geeesh! I've been timid that I haven't complained about this in the past. Maybe I should be arrogant in writing to companies... hmmm.... I guess I assume they'll figure out the Right Thing. (There I go, being optomistic again.) Seriously, I don't think it's being arrogant to ask for features. :-) > Sure, you may have a super-fast Amy, but you're the exception not the Acutally, I don't, I just have a 7MHz '010, but I sorta like the idea of having multitasking as an option. If nothing else, I'd like to play something while I wait for my autodialer to log me into a BBS. (The modem is doing most of the work, in that case.) I will also admit that most of the time, I can run a game, and don't need to multitask. I just don't see what forcing it off gets you. You get virtually nothing, and you remove a major selling-point (feature even!) of the machine. > rule, and if you don't cater for the rule, you're not going to get any .... > RAM and an HD and a 68020, and an A500 for testing and playing games). If I wanted to spend the extra $500 ($500? Maybe $550) I could find something more constructive to spend it on. (Like a hard drive? Wait, why bother, I can't put anything on it. ;-) > > aDe .... Disclaimer: oh boy, lots of opinions here! -- Gary "Yet Another Ramble" Wolfe ..uflorida!unf7!tlvx!sysop
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/01/90)
wakres01@pa.usl.edu (1712 Stelly John B) writes: >>> And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you >>>seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? >>>NO WAY MAN! >> >>Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. > >Oh, come on, you know what he means... the game would be unplayable on a 68000, >unless it devotes its full attention to the game. So? The decision should be in the hands of the user, not the game. When I did the port of Crystal Quest to the Ami, it was clear that on a standard 68000, multitasking made it play _very_ weirdly - but you CAN do it, if you want. I don't _force_ you to run other programs in the background, but neither do I force you _not_ to. Seems to work quite well. >Personally, I want games that multi-task, and are HD-installable (and if I >ever finish any of the ones I'm working on, they will be) I understand that >some things are easier to do when your program owns the system, and some are >only possible in this situation, but when you start making assumptions about >the computer you are running on, you will inevitably run into problems on >some systems... You don't need to trash the system in order to get control of almost all of it - and you most emphatically do NOT need to force the player to reboot once the game is over except under the most exceptional of circumstances - a game which needs ALL of memory in order to operate, a rare occurence indeed. C'mon, folks - use your imagination, use your skill. Make 'em good games, then go the next step and make 'em Great games - you can do it! -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) (06/01/90)
Well, what are you all talking about ?
--------------------------------------
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT GAMES ?
YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SPREADSHEETS OR WORD PROCESSORS !
Should a game multitask ? Should a game exit properly ? Can I install my game
on my HD !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY ! A GAME MUST BE ENJOYABLE ! That's all ! If you like a game, you forget
all the rest ! A game is like a woman. If you love it, you don't compute how
much money you will spend to make her happy !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, there are different types of games. A simulation game with a lot of disk
access should be able to be installed on a HD, and exit properly. Ok. But a
pure arcade game, a real shoot'em'up like Battle Squadron. Do you really think
it will be possible to make it multitask ? Of course not ! The refresh of the
screen is synchronized on the video rate, 50Hz. Look at the arcade games,
people who pay for playing them don't care if they are multitasking or not, if
the electronic card is based on 68000 or on a xz67655 !!!!!!!
What I think of a good game:
1) ENJOYABLE
2) Nice graphics and music (But not so important, see Tetris)
3) If this game doesn't need to bee especially fast (Not an arcade game), it
would be nice (BUT DON'T NECESSARY) if it could be installed on a HD. In this
particular case, it should have an option to exit without rebooting.
PLEASE, PROGRAMMERS, MAKE FIRST YOUR GAMES ENJOYABLE, AND DON'T BECOME CRAZY
LISTENING TO ALL THE 'SERIOUS PEOPLE' WHO THINK THEY NOW EVERYTHING,
ESPECIALLY ON THIS NET !!!!!!!!!!
I'M SURE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE ABOUT GAME VS MULTITASKING HERE,
ARE NOT REAL PLAYERS (SPENDING MORE THAN AN HOUR PER DAY PLAYING)
Most of the real players don'care with multitasking, and 99% of them haven't
got enough money to buy a hard disk ! Don't forget that folks !!!!!!!
Many of my friends bought their amiga only for playing. They even never used
the workbench disk. They buy a game, boot and play. When they are fed up they
boot another one on their single drive machine, and they don't even know what
multitasking mean !!!!!!!!
They are the one who make the game market. They are the one who save up money
to buy games, they are the one who make game software companies living. They
are the real customers !!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of you are using their amiga principally for 'serious application', even
at home (That idea makes me crazy !!! There are so many nerds here!), if you
are interested, I can give you a choice of real good games. Ones you can't
stop playing with once you tried them. I really think that here in Europe, the
game maket is much better represented. Best arcade games for the amiga are
made in Germany, England, Danemark... (Battle Squadron, Hybris, Sword of
Sodan were marketed by American companies, but their authors are all Europeans)
Don't forget: a game must be enjoyable !
------------------------------------------
Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France
Internet: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr
Surface Mail: Michel BUFFA, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis,
2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE
Voice phone: (33) 93.65.78.39, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 65
------------------------------------------xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (06/01/90)
In article <7934@mirsa.inria.fr>, buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) writes... [stuff deleted] ^ ^What I think of a good game: ^ ^1) ENJOYABLE ^ ^2) Nice graphics and music (But not so important, see Tetris) ^ ^3) If this game doesn't need to bee especially fast (Not an arcade game), it ^would be nice (BUT DON'T NECESSARY) if it could be installed on a HD. In this ^particular case, it should have an option to exit without rebooting. ^ ^PLEASE, PROGRAMMERS, MAKE FIRST YOUR GAMES ENJOYABLE, AND DON'T BECOME CRAZY ^LISTENING TO ALL THE 'SERIOUS PEOPLE' WHO THINK THEY NOW EVERYTHING, ^ESPECIALLY ON THIS NET !!!!!!!!!! ^ ^I'M SURE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE ABOUT GAME VS MULTITASKING HERE, ^ARE NOT REAL PLAYERS (SPENDING MORE THAN AN HOUR PER DAY PLAYING) Er...that's pushing it. After I come home from work I usually play something to unwind...now it's mostly stuff I can multitask with so I can download or dearc or SOMETHING in background so i don't feel too guilty about not finishing the NCSA HDF port I should be working on. (sorry guys...but after programming all day my brain gets tired. Falcon is about the most mentally stimulating thing I can deal with :-) I buy more "games" than "applications" and I found that these days I don't bother with games I can't install on my hard drive. If it doesn't multi-task then it damned well better be good enough for me to stop everything else to play it. ^ ^Most of the real players don'care with multitasking, and 99% of them haven't ^got enough money to buy a hard disk ! Don't forget that folks !!!!!!! ^ ^Many of my friends bought their amiga only for playing. They even never used ^the workbench disk. They buy a game, boot and play. When they are fed up they ^boot another one on their single drive machine, and they don't even know what ^multitasking mean !!!!!!!! ^ ^They are the one who make the game market. They are the one who save up money ^to buy games, they are the one who make game software companies living. They ^are the real customers !!!!!!!!!!!! Hmmm...explain why I've spent nearly 1k on games then? I should have bought more memory but $50 here and $50 there... ^ ^Most of you are using their amiga principally for 'serious application', even ^at home (That idea makes me crazy !!! There are so many nerds here!), if you Thank you so very much to condecend to talk to us "nerds". (No smiley here since there wasn't one in your post). ^are interested, I can give you a choice of real good games. Ones you can't ^stop playing with once you tried them. I really think that here in Europe, the ^game maket is much better represented. Best arcade games for the amiga are ^made in Germany, England, Danemark... (Battle Squadron, Hybris, Sword of ^Sodan were marketed by American companies, but their authors are all Europeans) ^ ^Don't forget: a game must be enjoyable ! ^ ^Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France Let's be honest. If all they are doing is playing arcade games they could get a lot more bang for the buck to get a Sega Genesis these days. If they are playing simulations or RPGs where you don't need to count every last CPU cycle then multi-tasking isn't such a bane. Having a game HD installable is now just an expected feature on other machines. It is an indicator that an author is paying attention to the users and I like that. The better companies provide that and it is a minimum standard that should be adhered to. Same with the other features. To be frank...from the dozen or so Amiga users I know the people who spend the most money on games are the ones with a hard drive, extra memory and other hardware. They are the ones who know just how much effort (or lack of effort in some of these games) goes into any software product and is more likely to be a paying customer. Just my observation and MHO. Nuff Said. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
ludde@draken.nada.kth.se (Erik Lundevall) (06/02/90)
In article <7934@mirsa.inria.fr> buffa@mirsa.inria.fr writes: >YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT GAMES ? >YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SPREADSHEETS OR WORD PROCESSORS ! > >Should a game multitask ? Should a game exit properly ? Can I install my game >on my HD ! Games are also applications, just as much as spreadsheets. Why should they behave different? >HEY ! A GAME MUST BE ENJOYABLE ! That's all ! If you like a game, you forget Yes of course, but that has nothing to do with if it is a well behaved game. The question is, will people buy an enjoyable game that doesn't multitask, exit properly etc. >Most of the real players don'care with multitasking, and 99% of them haven't >got enough money to buy a hard disk ! Don't forget that folks !!!!!!! Yes, that's true for many Amiga users. The potential market is bigger if those who do care about games being well behaved are satisfied also though. They will vote with their wallet, and it's up to the software house if they will care. >They are the one who make the game market. They are the one who save up money >to buy games, they are the one who make game software companies living. They >are the real customers !!!!!!!!!!!! Gee, I suppose I'm not a real customer then. I do buy games occasionally though, and I have noticed that I have BOUGHT more games than many of these "real players". Does that at least make me a virtual customer? >------------------------------------------ >Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France > > Internet: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr >Surface Mail: Michel BUFFA, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, > 2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE > Voice phone: (33) 93.65.78.39, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 65 >------------------------------------------ -Erik Lundevall Internet: ludde@nada.kth.se SnailMail: Korsbarsvagen 4B/422,S-114 23 STOCKHOLM,SWEDEN BBS: +46 8 348523 300-2400 bps (Camelot - Swedens first Amiga BBS) "The keyboard is mightier than the sword"
p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst) (06/02/90)
In article <3916@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: >Question: is there a signifigant difference between how fast a program will >running in a monotasking environment, as opposed to one where simply no other >user tasks are being run? Hmmm, I'll have to check that the next time I'm at >my machine... The most time consuming task is the input.device (ala, Intuition()). And more cycles may be eaten by interrupt code. But this not a cause for trouble. I can go with this little speed penalty. -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
bn@okcusr.UUCP (06/02/90)
>Arrogance has nothing to do with it. I bought a machine that multitasks. I will >not run programs that do not multitask, be they games or productivity software. >My choice, and my choice alone. Write a game that does not multitask, and I >won't be playing it. Simple. I agree with this statement 100%. One of the most imoportant strengths of the Amiga OS is the fact that it can multitask. I can understand why high speed games would want to hog the CPU, however, I thing that they should at least GIVE YOU THE OPTION of running something in the background. If you run something on not, that is your business, however, the software should always have the option. I will not buy software that doesn't multitask eiter. I used to not care, however as soon as I got more than 512K of memory and found out what multi- tasking is all about, I quickly changed my mind. Bo Najdrovsky ...att!mwood!attcc!ulab!bn or mwood!attcc!ulab!bn@ATT.ATT.COM
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/02/90)
C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ("Eric Edwards") writes: >Many times in this discussion I've been told that the "average amiga" is >a 512k A500 with 1 drive. Whether or not that's the "average", it IS the baseline. If you can make your application run on a 512K one drive Amiga, you'll sell a lot more copies of it than if it requires more - because while many people DO have more resources, many do not. If you require 1M, you're cutting out all of those 512K guys right from the start - and why do that unless you absolutely have to? -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (06/03/90)
Michael Buffa (I think; the quotes got thick and furry for a while there) said: >>HEY ! A GAME MUST BE ENJOYABLE ! That's all ! Yes, a game must be enjoyable. Which is for me, at least, one reason why a game that takes over the machine and doesn't exit cleanly loses out. Here's why. I do a lot of work on la machine. I'm a writer, for example, and I publish a magazine on Amiga systems (the LOW ORBIT mentioned in my .sig.) I also like to play games - but I do it, generally, during breaks, in between other jobs. I don't want to have to shut down my hard drive and reboot to play a game, then reboot and reload all my applications when I'm done. You see, if a game doesn't behave properly, then I won't be able to play it nearly as much. I'll only be able to play it when I'm not doing anything else - which isn't very often. So I lose enjoyment attainability with games that don't multitask and otherwise behave - so much, in fact, that I "enjoy" games like the PD asteroids I've got more than the far better designed and complex "Shadow of the Beast." I've played the latter _once._ So yes, a game must be enjoyable. But if the most enjoyable game in the world presents such a complex problem to play that one only gets to play it every few months, how much entertainment value have you actually received? Damn little, in my opinion. - R'ykandar. -- | R'ykandar Korra'ti | Editor, LOW ORBIT | PLink: Skywise | CIS 72406,370 | | Elfinkind, Unite! | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | phoenix%ms.uky.edu@ukcc.bitnet | | "Careful, mom, the toys are loose!" - from The Wizard of Speed and Time |
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/03/90)
buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) writes: >HEY ! A GAME MUST BE ENJOYABLE ! That's all ! If you like a game, you forget >all the rest ! But if you can get all the rest AND an enjoyable game, shouldn't you go for the whole package? >A pure arcade game, a real shoot'em'up like Battle Squadron. Do you really >think it will be possible to make it multitask ? Of course not ! >The refresh of the screen is synchronized on the video rate, 50Hz. That has nothing to do with it. Look at my port, Crystal Quest. Arcade game. Lots and lots and lots of things moving around all the time. Put it on a 68030, run a download in the background, and what do you get? Lots and lots and lots of things moving around all the time. Put it on a 68000, run a download in the background, and what do you get? Lots and lots and lots of things moving around pretty sluggishly, but you can always pause for a minute or two - it's your choice. >I'M SURE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE ABOUT GAME VS MULTITASKING HERE, >ARE NOT REAL PLAYERS (SPENDING MORE THAN AN HOUR PER DAY PLAYING) Watch your mouth - the day I spend less than an hour playing a game or two is probably going to be the day I die. Why the hell do you think I got into this silly business, anyhow? >Most of the real players don'care with multitasking, and 99% of them haven't >got enough money to buy a hard disk ! Don't forget that folks !!!!!!! Most of the real players who can think do care about multitasking, given the choice. Most of them would love to have a hard drive, so they can keep tens or hundreds of games on tap at any moment. >Many of my friends bought their amiga only for playing. They even never used >the workbench disk. They buy a game, boot and play. When they are fed up they >boot another one on their single drive machine, and they don't even know what >multitasking mean !!!!!!!! That doesn't make them right, it makes them pitiful. They don't know what they're missing, poor things. >They are the one who make the game market. They are the one who save up money >to buy games, they are the one who make game software companies living. They >are the real customers !!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone with money is a real customer. That includes the poor folks who haven't bothered to figure out how their computer works, but it also includes those of us who want to use the thing to its fullest. Why should I compromise, when I don't have to? -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
cstxqbt@warwick.ac.uk (CrisP of Truth and Justice) (06/04/90)
Mutitasking is not a problem for the games writer. There is nothing wrong with Exec. The problem is mulitittasking with intuition. Lets face it intuition is a load of rubbish. I can't stand useing any proggrams that make extensive use of it. I reffuse to use DMCS because of this. In DMCS it is that it takes too long to go about refreshing all the distturbed windows. It window handeling is far from perfect. Even if you don't use windows it is still not ideal. Did you know that if you leave the screen in front pulled down, ( And I don't just meen pulling a window down. ) the whole maching slows down to a snails pace. You may not notice tthis if you are not useing much of the cycles before hand. Finally it is too dificult to manipulate the display if you are restricted to useing intuition screens. - CirsP.
deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/04/90)
C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ("Eric Edwards") writes:
Eric> Many times in this discussion I've been told that the "average
Eric> amiga" is a 512k A500 with 1 drive.
On 2 Jun 90 11:12:54 GMT, farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) said:
Mike> Whether or not that's the "average", it IS the baseline. If you
Mike> can make your application run on a 512K one drive Amiga, you'll
Mike> sell a lot more copies of it than if it requires more - because
Mike> while many people DO have more resources, many do not. If you
Mike> require 1M, you're cutting out all of those 512K guys right from
Mike> the start - and why do that unless you absolutely have to?
The key is to think ahead. If you can run an application on a 512K
machine, all the better. [what about the original 256K A1000? ;-)]
However, it is a poor idea indeed to *assume* the configuration of the
least common denominator... In a few years, you can be pretty sure a
512K A500 will NOT be the most common configuration, just as the old
256K A1000 is by no means common now.
If developers write with the current configurations too much in mind,
they work themselves into a corner later when configurations change.
The Amiga OS offers great capabilities, and makes it easy to be widely
compatible between configurations, IF you follow the (very clearly
stated) system programming guidelines. The fools who insist on
breaking the rules at every turn will find themselves buried deeply as
times change, an they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Deven
--
Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu
Snail: 2214 12th St. Apt. 2, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 271-0750
Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible.jonabbey@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan Abbey) (06/05/90)
In article <1031@mpirbn.UUCP> p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst) writes: > >The most time consuming task is the input.device (ala, Intuition()). >And more cycles may be eaten by interrupt code. But this not a cause for >trouble. I can go with this little speed penalty. > >-- >Michael van Elst >UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve >Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de > "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree." So what would you say to a game that inserts an input.device handler above intuition, and gobbles all input events? I'm working on a 3d modem maze game, and the current scenario entails the game taking ruthless control over the system by locking out intuition, but upon a left-amiga n, it releases the input.device, and meekly withdraws to a window on the workbench screen for purpose of monitoring serial port messages from other players. Would this be acceptable? I'm using frame buffering, so I can't work with an Intuition screen and get any reasonable speed, I fear.. Does 2.0 provide better support for people going directly to the view level? Jonathan Abbey (512) 926-5934 | Amiga Programmer Wanna-be jonabbey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu bix: jonabbey +----------------------------- The University of Texas at Austin - CS Undergrad | Speaking for myself, at best
soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) (06/05/90)
NOTE: > = bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: >> = mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: bjornk@bula.se (Bjorn Knutsson) writes: >In article <MT87692.90May29030535@uikku.tut.fi> mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: >[...] >>2. Should game multitask? >> - IMHO I at least don't want to play those shit games with multitasking on. >> But if we are talking about for example following "Multitasking": Game >> disables interrupts while playing but for example if you pause it it will >> turn interrupts back on. I would like to make my game work like this. But >> there are few drawbacks: Copy-protection is alot harder to make and you >> very easily run out of memory. ``Shit games'' with multitasking on are the sort of games that I prefer to play when I'm programming or downloading. That's why I'm a great fan of ``Shanghai'' and ``Conquest''. Yes, I admit it: I'm a slow moving slug who likes wargames and adventures. Who cares about games with nifty graphics and mind-blowing sound effects if the games aren't interesting? If I'm going to fork out Aus$60.00 for a game, it might as well be a game I can get my teeth into and masticate for months on end. ``Bards Tale 2'' is pretty yummy. > [...] >Word-in-the-manual, if done right, is OK. Any disk based protection is out. Hear, hear! TOO MUCH disk based protection seems to only disadvantage legitimate buyers and keep pirates in business. I can live with the ``check disk'' protection, but when the game does funny buggers with my drive (drag the head back and forth), I know I'll not be able to stand the game for long. >>3. Should game detect extra memory/diskdrives/processors? >> - IMHO memory is must because it makes the game lot more playable and HD-people >> don't argue about the loading speed. Extra drives eat memory which causes >> serious trouble in 512k machines. Processors are useless in simple scroll >> games because they at least should be using the blitter in nasty-mode so >> processors don't speed it up too much. Nowadays the games also must run on >> all motorola 680x0 family thanks to A3000. But by detecting I mean really >> notice the speed increase and add new things to game (BTW my program notices >> but noone of my friends has 68020/68030 so I dunno how much it helps:-). Seems like a lot of effort for nothing. Why not keep the game interrupt driven for the graphics and sound and use any spare processor time for updating various variables? I think ``Flight Simulator II'' on IBM-PCs has a constant game speed but increases the number of screen updates if there is a faster processor. That way, your littul ol' Cessna doesn't fly like an F-16. If IBM-PC programmers can do it, why can't Amiga programmers? Isn't the Amiga supposed to be a gosh-wow graphics based computer? :-> >>4. Should game be exitable? >> - IMHO exitable games are harder to protect and you can't destroy anything in memory >> and you will end up again without enough memory:-( Sound like bad programming to me. If the program cannot release all its allocated resources, then the program belongs to the junk heap. (Let's not get distracted by memory fragmentation problems!) Even with UNIX and megabytes of virtual memory, we have to write programs that do not consume too much memory or else our paying clients won't be able to run their programs. >> And I would like also to know how many of you people really play games while doing >>something else? If you do, do you really like those every now and then updating >>games with poor graphics (thanks to memory shortage). Me! Me! Remember the reflex slug? (Memory shortage? Poor updating? Your program must be using a ridiculous amount of RAM just to do your graphics. If you are an assembly programmer, as you claim in your signature, your code may require major redesign. If a mediocre programmer like me can program the VIC-20 to do horizontal bit-by-bit scrolling in 512 bytes, surely you can do better. Wot? The VIC-20 does not have bitmaps? Amazing what can be done with redefinable characters.) >I do and I like them. The most important aspect of a game is NOT cute >graphics. It's much more important that the game is fun to play. One >of my favorite games is The Colony. It multitasks, I can install it on >my harddisk and I can pull down it's window. Now, there are some other >aspects of this game that I don't like, but those would be the same >regardless if the game multitasked or not. The protection used is OK >as protections go. Now, I don't like any form of copy protection, but >I can see why it's needed. The solution used in The Colony is one of >the better I've seen. Hmm... What is this game about? Is it a nice meaty adventure game? Am I correct in assuming that the copy protection is a random keyword in the manual? I don't want to ramble on. Suffice to say that if a programmer states it can't be done, he's probably missing the point. >>-- >>Mikko "Assembler rules OK!" Tsokkinen >>Internet mt87692@tut.fi : UUCP tut!mt87692 : Bitnet mt87692@fintut >--- >Bjorn Knutsson / USENET: bjornk@bula.se or sunic!sics!bula!bjornk >Stangholmsbacken 44 / Phone : +46-8-710 7223 >S-127 40 SKARHOLMEN / "Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the >S W E D E N / blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android ----------------------------------- Soh, Kam Hung Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403
buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) (06/05/90)
In article <2214@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: |> ^Many of my friends bought their amiga only for playing. They even never used |> ^the workbench disk. They buy a game, boot and play. When they are fed up they |> ^boot another one on their single drive machine, and they don't even know what |> ^multitasking mean !!!!!!!! |> ^ |> ^They are the one who make the game market. They are the one who save up money |> ^to buy games, they are the one who make game software companies living. They |> ^are the real customers !!!!!!!!!!!! |> |> Hmmm...explain why I've spent nearly 1k on games then? I should have bought |> more memory but $50 here and $50 there... Ok, you are one of the customers, but you are not the majority. In Europe, the customers who buy games are 16-25 years old, and 80% have got an AMiga 500 with a single drive. |> ^Most of you are using their amiga principally for 'serious application', even |> ^at home (That idea makes me crazy !!! There are so many nerds here!), if you |> |> Thank you so very much to condecend to talk to us "nerds". (No smiley here |> since there wasn't one in your post). I wasn't talking especially about you. (I don't even know you), I was talking about the feelings I've got when I read some of the messages here (like, yesterday night, I was compiling... and so on.) |> Let's be honest. If all they are doing is playing arcade games they could get |> a lot more bang for the buck to get a Sega Genesis these days. If they are |> playing simulations or RPGs where you don't need to count every last CPU cycle |> then multi-tasking isn't such a bane. Having a game HD installable is now just |> an expected feature on other machines. It is an indicator that an author is |> paying attention to the users and I like that. The better companies provide |> that and it is a minimum standard that should be adhered to. Same with the |> other features. Yes, but the Sega is not marketed in Europe, the games are expensive, you can't try them before buying them (With the Amiga, you can try the games with demo versions, with pirated versions...if you are honnest enough -like I am- you can buy only good games like Kick-Off, F29, Turrican...) |> To be frank...from the dozen or so Amiga users I know the people who spend the |> most money on games are the ones with a hard drive, extra memory and other |> hardware. They are the ones who know just how much effort (or lack of effort |> in some of these games) goes into any software product and is more likely to be |> a paying customer. Just my observation and MHO. I've got an HD too, but it seems like your friends are pretty rich. People I know buy one or two games per months, and that's all their money. They are 15 years old, and they really don't dream about an HD. In France, the Amiga 500 are sold in supermarkets. They don't sell HDs, RAM expension boards. They sell Amiga 500, games, joysticks, Nintendo, etc... ------------------------------------------ Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France Internet: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr Surface Mail: Michel BUFFA, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, 2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE Voice phone: (33) 93.65.78.39, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 65 ------------------------------------------
buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) (06/05/90)
In article <15397@s.ms.uky.edu>, phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) writes: |> Michael Buffa (I think; the quotes got thick and furry for a while there) said: |> >>HEY ! A GAME MUST BE ENJOYABLE ! That's all ! |> Yes, a game must be enjoyable. Which is for me, at least, one reason why |> a game that takes over the machine and doesn't exit cleanly loses out. Here's |> why. |> I do a lot of work on la machine. I'm a writer, for example, and I |> publish a magazine on Amiga systems (the LOW ORBIT mentioned in my .sig.) |> I also like to play games - but I do it, generally, during breaks, in |> between other jobs. I don't want to have to shut down my hard drive and |> reboot to play a game, then reboot and reload all my applications when |> I'm done. |> You see, if a game doesn't behave properly, then I won't be able to |> play it nearly as much. I'll only be able to play it when I'm not doing |> anything else - which isn't very often. So I lose enjoyment attainability |> with games that don't multitask and otherwise behave - so much, in fact, |> that I "enjoy" games like the PD asteroids I've got more than the far better |> designed and complex "Shadow of the Beast." I've played the latter _once._ |> So yes, a game must be enjoyable. But if the most enjoyable game in |> the world presents such a complex problem to play that one only gets to |> play it every few months, how much entertainment value have you actually |> received? Damn little, in my opinion. I understand, but there is a difference between a game you play when you want to stop working for a while and a game you are going to play for several hours. In the first category, there is for example Tetris, which I play on my Sun4 while I compile my applications, and that I can pause and iconify when I'm really working, and in the second category, there is Ultima games, arcade games like Battle Squadron (We understand clearly that this particular game can't exit cleanly because it is so giant and so addictive it's sure it takes all the memory, and anyway, we don't care because everytime you loose, you want to play again)... You talked about "Shadow of the Beast". That's a very bad example as this game is a very bad game. It's nice, but not enjoyable at all, much too difficult, no interest. In this case, of course, it's really a pain that the game crashes your machine, can't load properly, and so on..... In conclusion: if a game is really good and if it is necessary due to memory limitation or other reasons that it can't exit cleanly, can't be installed on HD, that's OK. If it's a very simple game like tetris, a simulation game, a game with a lot of disk access, it must be possible to install it on HD and exit cleanly; but it also be enjoyable. Anyway, a bad game will be always a bad game, and a good game always a good game, some of them better designed than others (but don't flame the authors of TURRICAN if their game don't exit cleanly, because they made such a good job) Do we agree ? ------------------------------------------ Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France Internet: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr Surface Mail: Michel BUFFA, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, 2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE Voice phone: (33) 93.65.78.39, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 65 ------------------------------------------
borgen@sfd.uit.no (Borge Nost) (06/05/90)
In article <2214@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >In article <7934@mirsa.inria.fr>, buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) writes... > >Let's be honest. If all they are doing is playing arcade games they could get >a lot more bang for the buck to get a Sega Genesis these days. If they are ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sound reasoning, but ... Neither the Genesis nor the TurboGrafx were officially released in Europe last time I checked (the dreaded PAL<>NTSC difference + marketing). Adding more to the game vs. MT: According to Jez San (Starglider I & II, general 3D wonder-programmer :-) there is a very god reason for killing the OS: memory. (First remember that Atari ST and Amiga go head-to-head in Europe) When you take an ST and an Amiga with lowest working OS needs, the ST will have more available memory. If you make a game for the ST that uses all available memory, then something will have to be let out of the amiga version (if it is going to fit in 512K Amigas), and ST-owners will say that the Amiga is an inferior machine. Therefore he has (so far) taken over the whole machine to give Amiga- owners the same game as ST-owners. (All read in an interview with Jez San) (OK, so it wasn't that much about MT, but memory instead) >playing simulations or RPGs where you don't need to count every last CPU cycle >then multi-tasking isn't such a bane. Having a game HD installable is now just >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project > \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov > | >Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own. -- |//// ______________ don't use R/r(eply)! *mail* me ______________ \\\\| |/// ...and then there was AMIGA... \\\| |// internet: borgen%stud1@sfd.uit.no (Boerge Noest) \\| |/ studying at the worlds northernmost university \|
dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) (06/06/90)
In article <7958@mirsa.inria.fr> buffa@mirsa.inria.fr writes: >|> Many of my friends bought their amiga only for playing. They even never >|> used the workbench disk. They buy a game, boot and play. When they are >|> fed up they boot another one on their single drive machine, and they >|> don't even know what multitasking mean !!!!!!!! [same author later on] >I've got an HD too, but it seems like your friends are pretty rich. People I >know buy one or two games per months, and that's all their money. They are 15 >years old, and they really don't dream about an HD. In France, the Amiga 500 >are sold in supermarkets. They don't sell HDs, RAM expension boards. They sell >Amiga 500, games, joysticks, Nintendo, etc... > I'm suprised that you didn't guess the causual relationship. If none of the kids' software will run with expanded memory or a hd there isn't much point in them getting them. Besides 2 games a month is $1200 a year, quite a chunk to a hd to say the least. Back when I was in highschool we used to play "B1 Nuclear Bomber" on PETs and it didn't take long before we figured out that if you changed the value of a certian varible you got more bombs or how to substitute teachers names for Russian cites. Computer games can be insidious like that- you start off playing games and before you know it you've learned something and might even start programming. However the type of games that you describe that require you to boot off them and reboot when exiting completely insulate the user from computer and they don't learn anything about the computer beyond the boot sequence- not about the os, or the cli or windowing interfaces. Consequently they never progress and "learn what multi-tasking means" as you say. In contrast here where hog-the-machine games are less popular I don't know anyone who just boot game disks. Even if they never had the intention of programming when they bought the computer , they've learned about fractles, file formats and editors. >I wasn't talking especially about you. (I don't even know you), I was talking >about the feelings I've got when I read some of the messages here (like, >yesterday night, I was compiling... and so on.) > My point: if the nature of certain games didn't prevent many users from using pd games, looking at the source and maybe trying a few things of their own you wouldn't find the idea of people using compilers so wildly improb- able. Back to your original advice to developers about not being overly concern- ed about making nice games. This kind of thinking will cost them customers and not gain them much. I usually have an editor open and iconified, and vt1002.6 open and iconified and some files in a recoverable ram disk. When I play a game I'd like to play it for a while and then exit it and get back to work. If I have to boot off the disk and worry about losing my rrd I'm less likely to play it. So if some asks me "what to you think of Pioneer Plague, Rocket Ranger and Thexder" I'd say there alright games but I don't use that much because they're too much of a hassle and the author is likely to lose a sale. Had "Shufflepuck Cafe" been a `nice' game I would have bought it instead of leaving it at the dealer's. Seeing as mag reviews mention how well a game fits into the enviroment, an author who doesn't take some steps to accomodate this will get bad word-of-mouth. Further I'd be suspicious of a program that wasn't nice. How in the world do you debug a program that bypasses the os? A bunch of #ifdef DEBUGs? If the author couldn't figure out how to allow the user to use a harddisk for the program files or how to free all the memory the program allocates do I really want to risk $40-$50 on the rest of his programming skill? I can understand arcade style games needing a lot of cycles but is it that much effort to have the "pause game" button reenable multi-tasking? My guess is that the short amount of time it took to do this would be recouped in greater sales. So to sum up: non-nice games- they're bad, bad; Dan Quayle- still gaining acceptance; boot-requring programs- not gonna buy: naa gaa baa; multi-taking? its good! good!; stay the course; a 1000 points of light; stay the course. Peter Dill dill@cs.buffalo.edu "Never send a monster to do the work of an evil genius"
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/06/90)
deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >The key is to think ahead. If you can run an application on a 512K >machine, all the better. [what about the original 256K A1000? ;-)] >However, it is a poor idea indeed to *assume* the configuration of the >least common denominator... In a few years, you can be pretty sure a >512K A500 will NOT be the most common configuration, just as the old >256K A1000 is by no means common now. You *assume* that you will be running on a minimal configuration. You then *check* to see if your assumptions are wrong. Where you find extra capability, you can use it, but making the assumption that those extra features will be there is dumb - unless your application specifically demands it. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
bscott@nyx.UUCP (Ben Scott) (06/06/90)
In article <7958@mirsa.inria.fr> buffa@mirsa.inria.fr writes: >I've got an HD too, but it seems like your friends are pretty rich. People I >know buy one or two games per months, and that's all their money. They are 15 >years old, and they really don't dream about an HD. In France, the Amiga 500 Why don't they "dream" about a HD??? 1 or 2 games a MONTH? Geez, I wish I was making that kind of money when *I* was 15. (wish I was making it NOW... and I make a minimum of $20 an hour, usually more... but I got expenses) Anyway, consider this (just based on your example): Conservative estimate of the cost of the average game, say $30 US. 2 games a month: $60. Say $50 on average, since they don't always buy two in a month. After only a year of not doing this: Presto! (or "voila") $600, plenty for a reasonable 20 or 40 meg HD system on a 500, maybe with RAM slots if you're lucky. I buy maybe one game a year, and as it is they take too much of my time. But a good, original game concept beats out a snazzy graphics shootemup clone ANY day, and I don't care how many animated objects you put on the screen at once. I have probably spent more hours with Tetrix than I ever have at any game or ever will, with the possible exception of M.U.L.E. As for the other parts of this overblown thread, I agree with the person who said it's sloppy/uninformed programming and not extravagant graphics which prevent multitasking and OS friendliness. But then, what do I know, I'm just a rabid telecommunicator who gets involved in too many discussions on too many nets. . <<<<Infinite K>>>> -- |Ben Scott, professional goof-off and consultant at The Raster Image, Denver| |Internet bscott@nyx.cs.du.edu, FIDO 1:104/421.2 or Arvada 68K (303)424-9831| |"My brothers and sisters all hated me,'cause I was an only child!"-Weird Al| |"Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?" - Basil Fawlty | *AMIGA POWER* |
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (06/06/90)
In article <7958@mirsa.inria.fr>, buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) writes... ^ ^In article <2214@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov ^(Nigel Tzeng) writes: ^ ^|> ^Many of my friends bought their amiga only for playing. They even ^never used ^|> ^the workbench disk. They buy a game, boot and play. When they are ^fed up they ^|> ^boot another one on their single drive machine, and they don't even ^know what ^|> ^multitasking mean !!!!!!!! ^|> ^ ^|> ^They are the one who make the game market. They are the one who save ^up money ^|> ^to buy games, they are the one who make game software companies ^living. They ^|> ^are the real customers !!!!!!!!!!!! ^|> ^|> Hmmm...explain why I've spent nearly 1k on games then? I should have bought ^|> more memory but $50 here and $50 there... ^ ^Ok, you are one of the customers, but you are not the majority. In Europe, the ^customers who buy games are 16-25 years old, and 80% have got an AMiga 500 ^with a single drive. ^ Okay. Makes sense to some degree. Especially considering that the newer Game machines (Genesis, etc) don't seem to be in great supply in Europe...the Amiga would be the best game platform around (bang for the buck wise). But here's a question: It appears that the US Amiga game market differes from the European ones. The ratio of "high end" machines (in this case 1 meg+, and maybe a HD and second drive) to low end (original 512K A500s single drive) is higher. If you are a US developer wouldn't you tend to optimize for the US market? Won't you want to release a "European" version more suited for that environment? ^ ^|> ^Most of you are using their amiga principally for 'serious ^application', even ^|> ^at home (That idea makes me crazy !!! There are so many nerds ^here!), if you ^|> ^|> Thank you so very much to condecend to talk to us "nerds". (No smiley here ^|> since there wasn't one in your post). ^ ^I wasn't talking especially about you. (I don't even know you), I was talking ^about the feelings I've got when I read some of the messages here (like, ^yesterday night, I was compiling... and so on.) Well I do spend some time using the system as more than a game platform... ;-) ^ ^|> Let's be honest. If all they are doing is playing arcade games they ^could get ^|> a lot more bang for the buck to get a Sega Genesis these days. If they are ^|> playing simulations or RPGs where you don't need to count every last ^CPU cycle ^|> then multi-tasking isn't such a bane. Having a game HD installable ^is now just ^|> an expected feature on other machines. It is an indicator that an author is ^|> paying attention to the users and I like that. The better companies provide ^|> that and it is a minimum standard that should be adhered to. Same with the ^|> other features. ^ ^Yes, but the Sega is not marketed in Europe, the games are expensive, you ^can't try them before buying them (With the Amiga, you can try the games with ^demo versions, with pirated versions...if you are honnest enough -like I am- ^you can buy only good games like Kick-Off, F29, Turrican...) That's kind of a shame. Then again the European kids get a break of sorts. When they need a computer they have one at hand already. A nice one in fact. You can't expand a Nintendo or a Sega to a real computer no matter how much cash you sink into it... ^ ^|> To be frank...from the dozen or so Amiga users I know the people who ^spend the ^|> most money on games are the ones with a hard drive, extra memory and other ^|> hardware. They are the ones who know just how much effort (or lack ^of effort ^|> in some of these games) goes into any software product and is more ^likely to be ^|> a paying customer. Just my observation and MHO. ^ ^I've got an HD too, but it seems like your friends are pretty rich. People I ^know buy one or two games per months, and that's all their money. They are 15 ^years old, and they really don't dream about an HD. In France, the Amiga 500 ^are sold in supermarkets. They don't sell HDs, RAM expension boards. They sell ^Amiga 500, games, joysticks, Nintendo, etc... Actually most fall into the same age group (16-25) but are at the older end (more like 23-25) and are working. Since most are also programmers they have this idea of a "minimum" system for home use. After all when you come home after using a SGI or a Sun you don't really want to use a floppy system with too little memory to have 5-6 processes doing something. That would be too painful to bear ;-). Actually for the group I have the "lowest" configured system (1 meg mem, 48 meg slow seagate HD, A500). Of course there is the valid question: Do you really want to come home and play with yet another computer after banging your head against one for 8-10 hours already? ^ ^------------------------------------------ ^Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France ^ ^ Internet: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr ^Surface Mail: Michel BUFFA, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, ^ 2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE ^ Voice phone: (33) 93.65.78.39, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 65 ^------------------------------------------ NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/07/90)
buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) writes: >In conclusion: if a game is really good and if it is necessary due to memory >limitation or other reasons that it can't exit cleanly, can't be installed on >HD, that's OK. IF you can prove to me that it is necessary, THEN I will agree that it might be o.k. But so far, nobody has. Show me one game which honestly requires those limitations, and give me a sensible and realistic explanation of why it does, and I might accept it. But again - I have been programming games for 12 years now. I have seen NO game on the Amiga which I could not reproduce in a multitasking (mostly), hard-drive friendly, OS friendly, not-need-a-reboot fashion. ESPECIALLY when you consider that you can, as a matter of practical fact, take over the entire box and still have all of the other benefits mentioned. I've gotten very tired of some programmer's self-serving disclaimers. As far as I can tell, it's more laziness than reason which they are serving. We are all human, and I've done my share of lazy programming and sloppy practice - but that does not make it either right or desirable. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu (wayne wallace) (06/07/90)
I've got a better idea: buy SimCity, a multitasking game, and forget this argument ever happened! -- * // Only /\ |Lord Zar,Commander Of All He Surveys|Stay Alert! Trust * *\\ // /--\MIGA |(and hater of spaces near commas.) |No One! Keep--AHHHH* * \X/ Internet: lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu QuantumLink & Portal: Lord_Zar * * "NOT THE ALLUDIUM Q36 EXPLOSIVE SPACE MODULATOR!" "Yes!" - Wayne and Martin *
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/07/90)
borgen@sfd.uit.no (Borge Nost) writes: >According to Jez San (Starglider I & II, general 3D wonder-programmer :-) >there is a very good reason for killing the OS: memory. [...] If you make >a game for the ST that uses all available memory, then something will have >to be let out of the amiga version (if it is going to fit in 512K Amigas), >and ST-owners will say that the Amiga is an inferior machine. Well, you know what they say about sticks and stones :-) Besides, I don't buy his argument. IF you are multitasking-friendly, THEN it is not necessary for your entire game to fit into 512K at the same time - you can keep unneeded parts out on the disk, and load 'em in when required. Sure, it's a little clunky, but properly managed, it's hardly noticable. If you throw out the OS, though, you're up the creek without the paddle, and limited exactly to what you can fit into that 512K. Seems like a bad choice to me. In short, it's a good excuse, but a bad reason :-) -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/07/90)
In article <2214@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: > >To be frank...from the dozen or so Amiga users I know the people who spend the >most money on games are the ones with a hard drive, extra memory and other >hardware. Yeah, counting just the game boxes I can see from where I'm sitting (31), not counting the ones in the other room where the A1000 is, at an average price of $35 I could probably already have a hard drive on my A2000 if I didn't like games and extra memory and a modem and half a dozen compilers and hundreds of disks for downloads and ... so darn much. RSN. Glad I'm not one of those dweebs who spends all his money on games, pumping up the market, so my opinion can be safely ignored. Some of us out here do lots and lots of different things with our Amigas, including playing games, but we bought the machine to be able to do lots of different things _at once_; sell us what we want to buy! Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (06/07/90)
I wrote: Deven> The key is to think ahead. If you can run an application on a Deven> 512K machine, all the better. [what about the original 256K Deven> A1000? ;-)] However, it is a poor idea indeed to *assume* the Deven> configuration of the least common denominator... In a few Deven> years, you can be pretty sure a 512K A500 will NOT be the most Deven> common configuration, just as the old 256K A1000 is by no means Deven> common now. On 6 Jun 90 07:41:31 GMT, farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) said: Mike> You *assume* that you will be running on a minimal Mike> configuration. You then *check* to see if your assumptions are Mike> wrong. Where you find extra capability, you can use it, but Mike> making the assumption that those extra features will be there is Mike> dumb - unless your application specifically demands it. [below, "you" == any developer (game developers, particularly in this instance, but all really) and "user" or "he" == the user of the game or application, of whatever gender.] What I meant was not to do stupid things based on the (questionable) assumption of running on a minimal configuration. That is, don't flush loaded bitmaps and reload from floppy if there's enough RAM to hold them all in memory, don't take over the machine based on the assumption that it's the ONLY way to get the needed memory, don't use instructions which fail on an '020, [e.g. MOVE SR,<ea> instead of calling GetCC()...] and so on. If you're running on a minimal-configuration system, THEN take measures if you must. If you really need all the memory on a 512K machine and absolutely MUST take out the operating system to run at all, then make the program CHECK at startup to see if there's less available RAM than the program needs, and if (and only if) there isn't enough memory, ask the user whether to toast the system to run the game, or not. It is important to offer the user the option to abort. They might want to save something they're working on or whatever, and then rerun the game, letting it trash the system. But it is a bad idea to assume you know better than the user what he wants to do with his system. You don't know what the user may be doing. Second-guessing will result in numerous situations where you chose wrong. Much better is to give intelligent *defaults*, so if the user is clueless, you can guide him, but if the user knows what he wants to do, stand aside and let him. If you are convinced that you need to disable multitasking for all possible speed, then give the user the choice of whether or not to disable multitasking, with the default being to disable it. But let the USER make the final decision. He knows his particular situation better than you do. Deven -- Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu Snail: 2214 12th St. Apt. 2, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 271-0750 Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible.
" Seaman) (06/08/90)
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: < deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: < >The key is to think ahead. If you can run an application on a 512K < >machine, all the better. [what about the original 256K A1000? ;-)] < >However, it is a poor idea indeed to *assume* the configuration of the < >least common denominator... < < You *assume* that you will be running on a minimal configuration. You < then *check* to see if your assumptions are wrong. Where you find extra < capability, you can use it, but making the assumption that those extra < features will be there is dumb - unless your application specifically < demands it. The problem here is that many (most? ALL?) game developers seem to be assuming the minimum configuration, and never bothering to check for more. Many, in fact, are apparently presuming that there is *nothing* else out there. A perfect example is Shufflepuck Cafe. I bought it, took it home, and found the following: 1. Disk-based copy protection (bleah!) 2. No multitasking (bleah again!) 3. Runs very erratically on a 68020 (triple bleah!) When played in 68020 mode on my 2500/20, the game is *somewhat* playable, but the sound and music are completely out of sync. For example, when the opponent 'snarls' at you, there is usually the sound of glass breaking, or (more commonly) random noise. The game seems somewhat 'too easy' in 68020 mode as well. Note that it does play perfectly in 68000 mode. I find this ridiculous in the extreme. Just to play this (incredibly addictive) game, I must reboot, hold down both steenking mouse buttons, select 68000 mode, THEN play the game, and reboot yet another time to get back to 'real' work. Why should this be necessary? I would be perfectly happy to have the game disable multitasking while playing, so long as it reenabled it during pauses, and when finished. This would IN NO WAY impact the user on a single floppy A500, but would definitely increase the sales of an otherwise great product. To the developer's 'credit', the game does allow me to use the original as a 'key disk' (though this is not documented anywhere). I was able to copy the disk, and when booting, the program completely loads before checking for the protection, at which time you are asked to place the original disk in df0:. I can then pop out the copy, pop in the original, then PRESS A BLOODY KEY, then pop OUT the original again, and pop back IN the copy (there are data files used periodically in the game). Some fun, eh? The big problem with these assumptions is that the basis for the assumption changes too rapidly. The 'assumption' that a 68000 based machine is the 'lowest common denominator' is no longer true. Yet there are still MANY games that will run on nothing else. While it may (for the time being) be true that 68000's make up the majority, it does not imply that all Amigas are 68000 equipped. -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | /o -- -- -- cseaman@sequent <or> ||| -- -- - I'm Outta Here, Man! ...!uunet!sequent!cseaman |vvvv/ -- -- - The Home of the Killer Smiley |___/ -- -- --
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/09/90)
deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: >What I meant was [...] followed by a whole bunch of excellent advice. Sorry, Deven - I misread what you were originally trying to say. To your clarification, I say "Right ON!" (being the old '60s holdover that I am :-). Especially this: >But let the USER make the final decision. He >knows his particular situation better than you do. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (06/09/90)
I have seen "stereo headphone on a BOING!" logo for some games that have stereo output. Now that the Bitnet people demand multitasking, we might see an Amiga juggling tiny BOING! balls on a startup screen for games as a logo for the multitasking feature. Adding the ability to exit to OS with rebooting shouldn't be hard at all. I am wonder how the game programmer debug/test his/her games. Do they have to do a reboot every time they want to test out the cureent version of the game and go back to edit-compile cycle ?? Doesn't sound too efficient to me. The way I see it, they could have made 2 versions of the games - one for the 512K game machine option that take over the whole machine and a version for expanded muscle machines with lots and lots of memory with multitasking enable. All the programmer have to do is to change some codes and recompile - instant expanded market just like that. Anyone with > half a brain would be able to figure that out. Even MS dos games can do CGA /EGA (even VGA) graphics depending on the machine configuration. On my 020 Amiga, all the system stuff like takes up 5% of the CPU time. If I run pm, the CPU idle line is always near the top and it does move at all even if I move my mouse around/type/click in windows/download file at 2400 to ram. The weak excuse of system task eating up CPU cycles do not happen here. I find it hard to believe that a game need to burn up all the extra 3-4 time CPU cycles available. K. C. Lee / [\/ ] Yes ! I want multitasking/OS friendly games "Stereo wherever available" and "Multitasking wherever faster CPU is available" Anyone is welcome to use the above lines & the juggling BOING! balls for part of signature or part of startup screen/packaging for multitasking/OS friendly games. (It would be nice to toss me a free game or two for the idea. :)
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (06/09/90)
In article <27632@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) writes: |[...] | So to sum up: non-nice games- they're bad, bad; Dan Quayle- still gaining | acceptance; boot-requring programs- not gonna buy: naa gaa baa; | multi-taking? its good! good!; stay the course; a 1000 points of light; | stay the course. | |"Never send a monster to do the work of an evil genius" ...It'll never fly in Tustin, baby... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (06/10/90)
In <90160.022356LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET>, LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >Adding the ability to exit to OS with rebooting shouldn't be hard at all. >I am wonder how the game programmer debug/test his/her games. Do they >have to do a reboot every time they want to test out the cureent version of >the game and go back to edit-compile cycle ?? Doesn't sound too efficient >to me. In at least one case (a game programmer here in Vancouver BC, whose programs and the company he writes for shall remain nameless), the developer will write the game, complete with the ability to quit and be back in his system. When the game gets to release time, this will no longer be possible. He was showing me the game one day, and I commented on the ability to get out, and asked why it couldn't stay that way. His answer was that the publisher sets the rules. I didn't buy the game when it came out. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
hamish@waikato.ac.nz (06/11/90)
In article <6908@ucrmath.ucr.edu>, lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu (wayne wallace) writes: > I've got a better idea: buy SimCity, a multitasking game, and forget this > argument ever happened! > Does SIMCITY work on a 68010 and is it HD installable. If so I will rush out and buy it! If not, I will save my money and try to convince someone to write a clone of it that does. I'm hooked after seeing it on a PC, and the game looks great. > -- > * // Only /\ |Lord Zar,Commander Of All He Surveys|Stay Alert! Trust * > *\\ // /--\MIGA |(and hater of spaces near commas.) |No One! Keep--AHHHH* > * \X/ Internet: lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu QuantumLink & Portal: Lord_Zar * > * "NOT THE ALLUDIUM Q36 EXPLOSIVE SPACE MODULATOR!" "Yes!" - Wayne and Martin * -- ============================================================================== | Hamish Marson | Internet hamish@waikato.ac.nz | | Computer Support Person | Phone (071)562889 xt 8181 | | Computer Science Department | Amiga 3000 for ME! | | University of Waikato | | ============================================================================== |Disclaimer: Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the | | finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers | | opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree) | ==============================================================================