Article View: rec.games.programmer
Article #265Re: Game libraries...
From: David M. Baggett
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:18
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:18
157 lines
8868 bytes
8868 bytes
In article <1992Jul29.103211.57607@cc.usu.edu> sl859@cc.usu.edu writes: > Just because it is not feasible in your mind that these things >are possible, doesn't mean they aren't. Throughout the years bright >people have been ridiculed and told they couldn't do something just >because of the jealousy of others. What are your credentials? What are Josh's? Throughout the years people with no real experience have claimed all sorts of ridiculous things that professionals have discounted. I base my opinions on the experience I've had co-writing a graphics game design system for the Atari since around 1986, and on my extensive use of TADS to produce full-length text adventures. These things don't make me an end-all be-all authority, but I do feel that working on them has given me a fairly good understanding of game programming, as well as programming in general. I'm not going to claim that people with little real experience shouldn't contribute in this forum -- that's obviously wrong since beginners and hobbyists often do have good ideas. But don't expect me to believe things you say without any proof or credentials to back them up. (And *yes*, I would certainly listen to explanations (and substatiations) of new techniques from people with even *no* real experience. If you work something out that's innovative I don't care whether you've been working for Atari Games for the past 20 years or whether you just sat down at a computer for the first time today. Josh has neither credentials (as far as we know) nor evidence to suggest that he knows what he's talking about w.r.t. TADS or any other substantial text adventure development system.) And really, should anyone expect to come into an international forum and make an incredible claim without being taken to task? I'm still waiting to see any evidence that Josh's claims are true -- it's easy to toot your own horn without ever substantiating anything. Furthermore, I *really* don't see why you think I'm "jealous." I'm perfectly happy with what I've accomplished and my capabilities in general. Just because I don't go spouting off about how smart I am or how wonderful the things I've done are (or how young or old I am) doesn't mean I don't have anything to back my claims up with. For all you know I could be 16 years old too. For all you know I could have written the texture mapping code for Ultima Underworld. (No, neither is true.) Don't assume that just because you think someone's incredibly talented that no one else could be as well. What you eventually find is that *lots* of people are incredibly talented. On a net with an estimated 5 million readers it should come as no surprise that lots of incredibly talented people read rec.games.programmer. For God's sake, the person who wrote Marble Madness for the Sega posts here, and I'm sure he's not alone here in making substantial contributions to the computer gaming world. So jealous, no. Skeptical, yes. Very skeptical. Anyone can post a message saying they've writen Ultima Undeworld in 18K, but don't expect me to believe it without some kind of evidence; writing a system similar to TADS in 18K and two weeks is equally ridiculous. That's something that I hope would be immediately obvious to anyone who's even taken a cursory glance at TADS. Which is *exactly* the point I was making before: that people have totally outdated notions of what a game design system is. If you say "I can write an adventure in 100 lines" and you're talking about a two-word parser and 10 rooms, we're not speaking the same language. Similarly, if you tell me you've written a game design system like TADS in two weeks, I *know* we're not talking about the same thing when we say "game design system." That was the *entire* point of my followup to Josh. >Stop your whining and bitching and just listen. MAYBE you will learn >something. Isn't that what these news groups are about? My, my, but aren't we getting personal. I've been contributing to and learning from the net for many years. I have a good understanding of what news groups are all about. You're entitled to do whatever you want in a newsgroup, but you're also entitled to get cheered, flamed, or whatever other reaction your posts may provoke. >I told Josh posting his ideas here would cause someone to freak out, >and I was right. Perhaps a second witness to the things he has done >can help you believe that he is a credible programmer and has some >valid points. Or it could just be that you don't know what you're talking about either. All I said was that a) I don't believe his claims, b) I'd love to be convinced otherwise by seeing some real code and executables to back the claims up, and c) I don't think Josh and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to what we're talking about. BTW, I'll gladly believe he's a credible programmer. I never said he wasn't, and wheter he is or isn't isn't ever relevant. > Josh is a really interesting person. He tends to make things >sound simpler than what they are because to him they are. >etc. etc. etc. ad nausuem. It's great that you respect Josh so much and that you're such good friends. But guess what? There are plenty of smart, hard-working people in the world. The fact remains that you won't convince anyone of anything just on the basis of your intelligence. Show me what you've *done*, don't just talk about it. I still don't see why I should accept anything as truth without any evidence, particularly when the claims in question seem patently absurd to me. (Note: I never claimed he couldn't do a texture mapping algorithm -- that was merely an example which he used as another opportunity to toot his own horn. I claimed that his adventure game system could nowhere near approach what TADS is capable of if he only spent two weeks on it. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.) Remember that the only reason I ever challenged Josh's claims in the first place was because I sincerely thought he was using a much simpler notion of "a game system" than I think should be the norm these days. (Just as I think he was using a much simpler notion of "compiler" when he said "compiler's aren't that hard to write.") >I am amazed at the stuff he puts out and the speed with which he does it. Again, there are plenty of great programmers. In _Accidental Empires_ Robert Cringely observes that some programmers are *orders of magnitude* faster than others. In my experience this does seem to be true. When I say that I don't believe anyone could write a TADS-like system in two weeks (or months), *believe me* I'm taking the orders of magnitude into account. Josh is *not* 10,000 times faster or more clever than Mike Roberts. >He is completely self- taught and so at times he uses words which in >the business are not the actual denotation. He also is only 16 (as of >August) years old! Ah, well now we're getting down to it, aren't we? These revelations are no surprise, frankly. > Now in all honesty, some of the things Josh claims to have done may >seem fanciful dreams but for the most part are pretty good assessments of >what he is doing. ...to someone who has a similar lack of experience. Have you looked at TADS either? Really, that's what we're talking about. >I know that my posting this may hamper your opinions to sharing >material on the net, but I hope it doesn't. I've shared information on the net for a long time, and I'll continue to do so. My original post was an attempt to get people thinking in more modern terms about game design systems, or at least to challenge the claims I'd made. Unfortunately it seems to have done neither. Too bad, too; I thought it would make for a good discussion. >I hope we can exchange ideas and have less flaming, although sometimes >we just get into one of those flame war moods, and its so fun to flame! Flaming is overtly attacking someone. That's different from asking them to support their claims. Really, if I told you that I'd written a game that uses real-time ray-tracing, wouldn't you demand to see the code before you believed me? Computer programming isn't magic! Dave Baggett dmb@wam.umd.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jul29.181856.28995@wam.umd.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!dmbReferences:
<1992Jul29.001213.57596@cc.usu.edu> <1992Jul29.150156.19665@wam.umd.edu> <1992Jul29.103211.57607@cc.usu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: rec.games.programmer Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!dmb From: dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) Subject: Re: Game libraries... Message-ID: <1992Jul29.181856.28995@wam.umd.edu> Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system) Nntp-Posting-Host: rac2.wam.umd.edu Organization: University of Maryland, College Park References: <1992Jul29.001213.57596@cc.usu.edu> <1992Jul29.150156.19665@wam.umd.edu> <1992Jul29.103211.57607@cc.usu.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:18:56 GMT Lines: 157