As an aside, I've been getting other people's replies to Glenn's posts
hours before I get Glenn's original posts. Wierd.
>>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.
Oh no, don't get me wrong. Real supercharger tapes are 'real', and I
never said holding a Supercharger tape wasn't nastolgic. Holding a floppy
full of .BINs isn't (for me anyway). I _suppose_ releasing games on tape
would _almost_ be simmilar to releasing on cart. But again, unless you
take specific advantage of the Supercharger, might as well make it cart.
And if you take specific advantage of the Supercharger, then it
could be worthwhile releasing .BIN files rather than tape. So I'm
not trying to encourage "No .BIN files". Rather, I'm trying to discourage
".BIN files for everything", which is a subtle but important difference.
I've mentioned in a previous post I would consider making demos
available via .BIN. Thats good for getting interest up, and word out
of a new (impending) release.
>>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.
My point was that if you are going to spend the money (and more
importantly to most of us I'm sure, the time) to do a razzle dazzle
multimedia packaging, to "wrap around" a 2600 game, that sounds silly to
me. I would just as soon put the razzle dazzle into the game (by using
PC superVGA, sound blaster, etc) rather than make the packaging itself
the item the customer remembers.
>>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?
Did it really sound like I was implying that the non-game (packaging)
itself is not important at all? I didn't mean to. It certainly is, to some
extent. But it's a balance. As I mention above, I wouldn't try to
produce some big fancy multimedia presentation to "present" a game that
just shows big dots and goes "blip-blip-blip" :-) And as I say,
for me at least, the most imporant non-game aspect is the fact that
you can point to a cart and say "see this, I made it, just like they
did back in the 'good-old-days'". If you try to do that with a floppy
full of .BINs, most people will say "I don't remember 'Atari tapes' being
so flat".
>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
Exactally my point. If .BINs are the main way to distribute games, that
also implies that the customer has to print a manual if he wants the
"honest to goodness 2600 experience". There is an even smaller number
of people who have decent enough computers to take advantage of the .BINs
AND have a printer, than just have the computer, which is even less than
the number of people who don't have either. I say, just send them the
materials they need (cart and manual, and whatever else is required for
the game). There are of course a few people who don't mind the
do-it-yourself approach, but most people can't or don't have the facilities.
>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.
Don't forget, that was a mutual decision. And besides, SoundX really does
belong on the Supercharger CD as a usefull tool for developers. That
is why I wrote it in the first place. I was getting sick and tired of
reburning EPROMS to figure out the sound registers, and after it was done,
it seemed like (and my usenet poll confirmed) it was something other
people would be interested in. It is my hope that everyone here has
found it usefull in thier programming efforts, if for nothing more than
to save you some time coding something simmilar. Hopefully also the
commented source listing is helfull as yet another example to refer to.
As a game, "Edtris 2600" is not from the Supercharger era, nor is it a
lost or hard-to-find prototype, so it really doesn't fit in with the
theme of the CD.
EdF
--
To unsubscribe, send the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to
stella-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
