🚀 go-pugleaf

pcellik@axion.bt.co.uk (Peter SPHINX Cellik) writes:
>exuhag@exu.ericsson.se (James Hague) writes:
>|> Daniel Reznick writes:
>|> >
>|> >But, this is all necessary in order to write games.
>|> >In fact, this is the hardest part of writing a game.  Once all of the
>|> >low level graphics work is done, the logical parts that link it together
>|> >is almost trivial by comparison
>|> 
>|> You're kidding, right?  
>|> 
>
>Why should he be.  What is more difficult than creating the low
>level graphics routines?  Movement?  Rotation?

Well, I for one have been postponing the actual gaming routines in my game
for about two years now, as they REALLY are much harder to code than the
low-level graphics, movement, rotation etc. routines. I am talking about
the artificial intelligence routines of the enemy ships, the goal of my
game, etc. I am having big problems in coding the routines to handle these
things, whereas the polygon filling etc. routines were just solutions to
very well-defined problems, and therefore quite easy to do. I think this
is what James Hague meant, and I must say I agree with him in this.

>The disscussions here are very important to define the limits
>on which a game can be designed.  Once you have defined those
>limits, you can then apply your pretty algorithms to make the 
>game, there is no use designing a game if you do not know what
>speed constraints you have.

Well, certainly this is true also. I have nothing against discussion 
about PC-specific things like VGA vertical retrace interrupt (which I
have disabled on purpose on my VGA card, by the way, so I hope no-one
makes a program that requires it, but this is just my opinion) etc,
but I also understand that a lot of people do not have PC-compatible
hardware, and therefore threads like these should probably be carried
on in the PC-specific groups.

Please, let's not let the flame war escalate here.

Patrick Aalto
ap@tukki.jyu.fi