Re: [stella] Dungeons

Subject: Re: [stella] Dungeons
From: Russ Perry Jr <slapdash@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:59:22 -0500
cybergoth@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >I'd never go that way. To me it's not the *real* thing. Doing something
>> >for the Supercharger is like cheating. 

>> That's like saying that Starpath was cheating.  Heck no, they made it
>> work in the VCS, so it's hardly cheating, right?

>But... it is cheating! :-)
>It's like putting the SuperCPU and a second SID into the C64. 
>Everybody can make a cool looking and brill sounding ultrafast 3D demo
>then. What counts is what you get out of the standard hardware.

I guess essentially, you're a purist.  I can understand that.

What seems to be missing is that there's no reason not to stretch the
new hardware to the limit too.  It's at least as much of a challenge.
That 3D demo may look cool compared to a bare C64, but does it look
like it shouldn't even be possible on the SuperCPU?  If not, it's a
lack of amibition or talent, not a cheat.  To me.

>Come on, you probably could put an 1 GHz pentium 4 processor and a
>sounblaster-on-a-chip into a device and connect it somehow to the VCS.

Still constrained, at the very least, to the resolution the VCS allows.

>The Coleco for example had a device for running VCS games, everybody
>knows it was cheating :-)

Wasn't cheating -- it was just a VCS clone that uses the Colecovision's
power bus and video out.

>> Would you also say that Pitfall II cheated for its extra chip?  Of
>> Mountain King for the RAM Plus?

>Yes & Yes.

Okay.  I'd say it's only cheating if they didn't admit the extra chips.
Hmm, not sure where that puts Pitfall II...

>I'd say Nintendo cheated with putting extra 3D chips into the early
>Super Nintendo games like 'Pilotwings', since they were pretending
>the SNES had higher abiltities than it actually had.

Again, they admitted that the FX chip was there.

>I really think it is cheating to simply shifting a game to the
>Supercharger that'd normally need 500 Bytes of RAM. Instead of
>solving the problem, you're sneaking away from it, in other words:
>cheating. The challenge is to make it run with 128 Bytes anyway.

I think I can see how we're approaching things...  You're seeing
the puzzle aspect -- what can I fit here?  I'm more arguing the
game aspect -- how can I do this?  All game design is a bit of
both, and we're arguing different sides of the spectrum I guess.

>If I were to do a game on the superchager, I'd probably go for a
>game that'd normally need an Amiga :-)

Hey, I'm behind you 100% on that one all the way -- good luck!

(Oh, and it wouldn't be TOO challenging in some ways, but what
about Lazer Chess?  Always liked that one...)

At 5:31 PM +0200 4/24/01, Thomas Jentzsch wrote:
>I agree with Manuel, to me it is some kind of cheating, too.
>It's a completely different challenge to *learn* how to program with
>a SuperCharger (or DirectX etc.) than to *solve* problems which come
>from the limitations of the hardware.

But that's ignoring the fact that the Supercharger has limits too.

>I can't exactly tell where this cheating starts for me(!) (bankswitching:
>maybe, Pitfall 2: yes, RAM-Plus: sure) but a SuperCharger which
>significantly enhances the capabilities of the VCS, well, that's
>not the plain VCS anymore. 

Who said it was?  It's the VCS with Supercharger.  So why don't more
people write for it?  (Oh, and I don't mean to really harangue here --
what have I written at all?  Oops...)

>But trying to squeeze as much as possible out of existing and very
>limited hardware, that's what makes 2600 programming fun. The
>limitations are obvious, everybody knows them, and many people have
>tried to find solutions. So that's some kind of brain contest for me.

Seems like you're not bad at it either.

>When I remembered the 'illegal' opcodes, to get some free cycles in the
>48 pixel routine for Thrust, that was ok for me, because I still used
>the same original hardware.

Heh, in some ways that's cheating too.  You just have to draw the line
even closer.  "But that's not what they intended it to do".  Of course,
think of how many games wouldn't have been made if people had
restricted themselves that way.

>Using an extension like the SuperCharger would have helped too, but
>that would have been too easy :)

Surely you would have added enough features to make it less easy after
all?  :-)

>> If I were to do a game on the superchager, I'd probably go for a game
>> that'd normally need an Amiga :-)

>Or a non-budget C64 game :)

Hmm, Street Fighter?
||  Russ Perry Jr   2175 S Tonne Dr #114   Arlington Hts IL 60005  ||
||  847-952-9729    slapdash@xxxxxxxxxxxx    VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR!  ||

Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread