Re: Nintendo ports (Was Re: A89: Re: Re: ASM to C and vice versa)

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Nintendo ports (Was Re: A89: Re: Re: ASM to C and vice versa)


>From: "Michael Cowart" <freakonaleash881@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
>To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
>Subject: Re: Nintendo ports (Was Re: A89: Re: Re: ASM to C and vice versa)
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:47:23 CDT
>
>
>
>Ok, that's one person. Anyone else?
>
>Mike
>
>>i'm there. sign me up. to do the webpages, i think i can work with that.
>>check out my current site at
>>
>>http://teraflop.cjb.net/
>>
>>it would be better except that it's on geocities so i don't have any 
>>access
>>to running perl scripts or php or any of the neats things that make some
>>webpages so much fun.
>>
>>also sign me up for c coding and piecing together some of the graphics
>>(IMO,
>>everyone in the group should have to do some of this in order to get it 
>>all
>>done. everyone has a job, and in any spare time rip some graphics or
>>something of the sort...)
>>
>>/brian
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Michael Cowart" <freakonaleash881@hotmail.com>
>>To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:34 PM
>>Subject: Re: Nintendo ports (Was Re: A89: Re: Re: ASM to C and vice versa)
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike smacks himself for his clumsy language gaff. Remakes, not ports.
>> >
>> > I do agree, SMQ doesn't feel like the original, but I think a game like
>> > Zelda would be better suited to a calculator. Look at the (sadly
>>unfinished)
>> > Zelda 89. It was amazing.
>> >
>> > Since I (note the inflated ego) started this madness, I need to make
>>some
>> > important points on why this would be pretty hard (but not impossible)
>>to
>> > do:
>> >
>> > 1. Screen Size - I think the old nintendo ran at something like 300x200
>>(or
>> > something similar), so ripping tiles would not work. Also, it would
>>probably
>> > piss Nintendo off if we ripped off their artwork.
>> >
>> > 2. Artwork - due to the problems above, someone would have to redraw a
>>LOT
>> > of sprites and tiles.
>> >
>> > 3. Speed - Some of the screens (like the dungeons where there are about
>>10
>> > Knights on at the same time), would have to be toned down. But 
>>actually,
>>the
>> > processor in the 89 whips the NES like <expletive>an angry
>> > dominatrix</expletive>. It 16 bit, for one thing, compared to the NES's
>>8
>> > bit. It also runs faster. It doesn't have the extra hardware support,
>>but
>>I
>> > still think it could be done.
>> >
>> > 4. Sound - It's a big part of the game. And let's face it, sound on the
>>89
>> > bites. Also, that would be another thing that would be sucking clock
>>cycles.
>> >
>> > I would still like to get together and try it... but know what you are
>> > getting into.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > >From: "Olle Hedman" <oh@hem.passagen.se>
>> > >Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
>> > >To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>> > >Subject: Re: Nintendo ports (Was Re: A89: Re: Re: ASM to C and vice
>>versa)
>> > >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:49:09 +0200
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Just one comment to this whole thread. It wouldn't be ports of games,
>>it
>> > >would be remakes of them. The only thing you could rip is the 
>>graphics.
>> > >It is not much easier to make a game just because you have another 
>>game
>> > >like
>> > >it too look at.
>> > >One of the bigger problems will be to recreate the "feeling" in the
>>games
>> > >too. Like how keys respond and a lot of stuff like that. (I think the
>>game
>> > >feeling in SMQ really sucks for an example, sure it's nice too look 
>>at,
>>but
>> > >not much more. Bomberman rule though :) )
>> > >I don't want to put you down or anything, just that you realize that 
>>it
>>is
>> > >a
>> > >heck of a lot of work.
>> > >Hmm. I guess my main reason was to bitch about the terminology. NOT
>>ports
>> > >:)
>> > >(Isn't it a z80 in the NES btw? z80s rule :) they should have put a
>>z380
>>or
>> > >something in the 89 instead of a 68k :)
>> > >
>> > >///Olle
>> > >
>> > >----- Original Message -----
>> > >From: "Brian Taylor" <jodokaast@hotmail.com>
>> > >[bla bla, yada yada, to much qouted, etc, etc]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>>http://www.hotmail.com.
>> >
>> > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>> > http://profiles.msn.com.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
Sign me up too. I'm in dire need of a project to hone my programming skills 
and perhaps learn a smigeon of technique. :-) Anyways, I I know jack dill 
about C, but I'm pretty alright with 68k, and could write the tile mappers 
and sprite blitting routines for games.

     BTW, I hear you guys talking about how cool and good C is on the 
89/92+, and I've been considering taking it up. Before I do, though, could 
anyone tell me the advantages to programming C as opposed to 68k ASM? (I 
already know that it's much easier to program) How much different is TI-C 
from ANSI-C? And just out of curiosity, how long did it take any of you guys 
to learn TI-C?

Pizza Of Hut's Infinite Wisdom #28: "Life is anything that dies when you 
stomp on it."

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.
Follow-Ups: