Glenn Saunders wrote:
>Andrew Davie wrote:
>>I'm much more the purist. The supercharger is bad enough! I see little
>>point in developing for a (modern-day) expanded 2600.
>But why program with one hand tied behind your back if you don't have to?
Not that I've done any 2600 programming yet, but I think I can answer this
one in a roundabout way: for the same reason demo coders restrict themselves
to 4K even though they've got PCs available to them with 64 Meg of memory --
the challenge of it.
>Writing kernels for the TIA chip in and of itself is challenging enough,
>but why make things worse by intentionally limiting how much memory you
>are going to let your programs occupy?
Also a good question. I think both approaches can, and perhaps even should,
exist side by side.
>>Sure, you can store gobs more images and have heaps of differing kernals
>>with this memory. But... why?
Picture something like Puzzle Bubble/Bust A Move... The gameplay itself
is pretty simplified, and even the coding may not be that difficult, but
how many puzzles can you store in 4K along with the kernel? I have a PC
version where you can make your own puzzles, but a cart version couldn't
do this really. On the other hand, you could make a Supercharger version
with lots & lots of puzzles, and be able to load others from add-on CDs or
tapes that are released later on, unsing the original disk's load for the
kernel. Sometimes bigger is better even when it isn't entirely NECESSARY.
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #105 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 slapdash@xxxxxxxxxxxx VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
