At 12:52 PM 3/6/97 -0600, you wrote:
>I think the dearth of 2600 programming stems from the fact that it is not
>easy by any stretch of the imagination. Development for ROM or Supercharger
>is largely the same.
Working around RAM limitations are a big PART of why it's difficult, which
the Supercharger fixes.
>The game making aspect of it I could get from programming a PC game.
>Nastolgia is the key factor here. Carts are nastolgic, .BINs are not.
That's where we differ. Seeing an honest to goodness 2600 generate a
display is the beginning and end of the nostalgia for me. According to
your logic even the Supercharger tapes themselves aren't "real" 2600 games
because they aren't on carts.
Besides, all BINs are carts if you think about it, they are just leasing
out space on the same cart--the Supercharger itself.
>Yes, but if your going to do that, its probably better to just go
>the whole route and do a PC game to begin with. A super-VGA game +
>multimedia packaging like your thinking would be far more attractive
>than a "clunky-graphics 2600" game + dazzling multimedia.
It would also take 100 times as much money to develop.
>The packaging would overshadow the 2600 game, so why bother with the
>2600 part at all? Its not nastolgic at all. And as a media, the 2600
>has far better alternatives these days.
You were just telling me the importance of holding a cartridge in your hand
and when I showed you that other non-game aspects of game production could
be just as pleasing as the cartridge itself, you tell me that the non-game
aspects are not important compared to the game itself? Huh?
My point is that if you want an honest to goodness 2600 experience, you do
need the whole package, which includes at least a nice manual. (Certain
videogames for some systems like Quest for the Rings for the O^2 relied
heavily on the peripheral material..., and games like Space Shuttle need a
HEFTY manual to be able to play correctly...) The problems with electronic
distribution are just that, it's electronic, not physical. Either
producing standalone manuals or embedding those files in the archive are a
way to fix that so the end result is something that would be identical to a
game during the golden 2600 era--just without the physical cartridge.
(Heck, include a 3D model of one or a cutout or something.) Releasing
games as BINs with ASCII manuals would be pretty boring. Bill Heineman is
working on an integrated filetype and readers that would embed a lot of
this information in a file that would make it easier to create
distributions much nicer than a .BIN and an ASCII manual.
>I've thought about it quite a bit. (Since the fist glimmering of the
>Supercharger project, and all it's implications.) I've pretty much
>come to the conclusion that if I do another 2600 game, it will in fact
>be on ROM cart only, as long as the collector community doesn't come to
>expect all future 2600 games to be free .BIN files. I might make a
>demo available via .BIN, but not the whole game. Thats probably
>the best way to go, and the closest to the successful products in
>the PC "shareware" market.
That's too bad, although you did refuse us when we asked for EdTris (only
letting us have SoundX) so I guess it shouldn't surprise me.
I hate to say this, but I have to give Bob Colbert some praise for not
going your route. It may not be better for you, but it's better for the
end user to get full games on .BINs.
--
To unsubscribe, send the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to
stella-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
