>Now I know that the resulting games would not be as groundbreaking
>and distinctive as all-from-scratch 2600 games. But as you say, it would
>broaden the hobby. And the actual creating of the tool itself
>would be *very* groundbreaking and distinctive, since everyone has
>taken it as an article of faith that it Can't Be Done. (:
I'd be surprised if anyone said it can't be done. I have seen discussions
in the past that indeed said it would be difficult but certainly not
impossible, as long as you used prepackaged kernels.
Now, I hate to be the only dissenter here, but I think this is all a bad
idea, given the requirement for prepackaged kernels! Perpackaged kernels
lead to games that are all essentially the same. I think that "less than
groundbreaking" is an understatement. I think that this would not broaden
the hobby at all, but instead diminish it with a flood of games that are
mostly bad or at best mediocre, or perhaps even discourage programmers like
me who have spent countless hours trying to do real 2600 programming,
essentially killing the hobby with a mini-crash reminiscent of the original
crash of '82-'83.
Well, perhaps others know better than I do, but I have finished two 1k
minigames and am writing my third 2600 game. My games are not technically
superior, but I do know that they required custom, unique kernels and would
not work at all with any sort of canned kernel.
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://stella.biglist.com
