Re: [stella] parallel efforts / Invaders

Subject: Re: [stella] parallel efforts / Invaders
From: Erik Mooney <emooney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:33:20 -0500
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:49:04 -0800, you wrote:

>At 04:44 PM 3/14/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>>That's exactly my problem.  Doing a seemingly-impossible kernel is fun,
>>especially when it's something even an NES couldn't do.  Writing joystick
>>code, missile movement, collision detection, score display is boring and
>>why I never finished either version of INV.
>I for one was really disappointed that INV was abandoned.  In the waning 
>days there was talk of how to deviate from the formal Space Invaders play 
>pattern, like coming up with innovative 2-player competitive options.
>It could have turned into something more than just a straight port.

And that's where I lost interest.  Instead of being an exploration to see
what I could do on the 2600, I had to choose to either try to make it a
perfect port, or to make it its own game with different options.  Either
would have entailed a lot of playtesting, criticism, and revising - like
Qb is still going through - and I really didn't (and still don't) have the
heart.  Congratulations to all here who have pushed a game through those
steps; I wish I had the fortitude to do it.

>And I rather liked the idea of playfield being used like sprites.  I 
>remember pushing you to do the color changes and the "shapes" using the two 
>horizontal blocks of resolution you had available for each invader.  I 
>thought the look was quite acceptable, really, and very unique for a 2600 game.
>It certainly appears as if the list has gotten about as active if not 
>moreso now than it was in the heyday of 97.  Maybe someone would be willing 
>to either finish off INV...

or finish off your sentence?

>>I thought I actually had the pixel shifting solved, or at least reasonably
>>minimized.  Also, it's only a one pixel shift, and it happens because
>>there are nine pixels between successive RESPx hits, but only 8 pixels
>Is there a way to fix the timing by using illegal opcodes or the "sta.w" 
>addressing mode trick?  I suppose the problem is not enough time rather 
>than not wasting enough time...

That's how I thought, although Eckhard says there's time..

Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread