Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!jarthur!ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!well!farren From: farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Mike Farren Tutorial. Message-ID: <23907@well.sf.ca.us> Date: 28 Mar 91 22:26:40 GMT References: <1991Mar24.204206.11145@starnet.uucp> <23835@well.sf.ca.us> <1991Mar27.012555.11450@starnet.uucp> Distribution: comp Lines: 106 sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) writes: >If those point are easy rebuted, please DO IT!. It was not my intention to rebut your points - I was asking you to rebut mine. So far, you haven't. I don't think that you can. >No, time is not the question! You haven't done the right type of >development that's all! You can SAY whatever you want. I will alway >say: making a GOOD action game multitasking is HARD when possible. I never said it wasn't hard. I just said it was most often possible. Refusing to do something because it's hard is whining and sloth, and I cannot respect any programmer who whines. >Also do you know what you can do with those 80K used by the system!?... >What about system revision.... if you got 80K on 1.0 you might have more >or less next system revision! The 80K was measured on a standard A500 running 1.3. Since 2.0 will not run in 512K, it's not a problem. There aren't likely to be any more significant additions to 1.3. Also, one point I didn't mention - that's 80K if you leave the OS completely alone. You can do better than that. >Please name the AMIGA one that you have done... >F18 interceptor, Feary Tale, TurricanII, Battle-Squadron ... Oh, you did those games? If you didn't, then you can't use them as ammunition to support your competence. Why don't YOU name the games you've published? I suspect that it's simply because you cannot. >are exeptional and you put down the developers of those games, Where did I ever say a word about the developers of those games? Do you always act this paranoid? Those games ARE exceptional - much better than the ones I've done (Crystal Quest, Storm Across Europe, Quink, others). So what? F-18 could have multitasked, and IS HD installable with a simple patch. TurricanII is silly, lightweight, and not much of a game - although it is pretty. Faery Tale is nice, but no big thing, and I believe could have been HD installable and multitasking with no problem. This is only a putdown of the original developers in the sense that they didn't go quite far enough - with a little more effort, they could have given us everything. But you don't believe in giving the user anything, do you? Unless it's something YOU feel is necessary. >saying they done it wrong and should learn for there next amiga project, >everything is easy why dont they do it if they are not LAZY developers! >When a software house say, 6 month project... you dont start to get >FANCY. It isn't fanciness - it's fundamental. Besides, aren't you the one who's advocating 18-month projects, up there? That's enough time to write an entire OS, let alone a silly game. >You are credible on what you do! (well you must, since you are the only >one that do perfect things :-). I don't do perfection. >XENONII is a jewels of programing! programing is an ART! You get into >the ART with assembly language. What crap. XenonII is a nice piece of work, but it's hardly a piece of art. And I do assembly programming when I feel like it, so what's your point? >I beleive you could have done Lemings user freindly, but not every games >are of the type of lemings... Never said they were. >Even if you labeled you tes lemings tutorial, it was clearly directed to >Amiga game programer in general! >No, NOT MY personal hours!But a SINGLE 15,000 hours AMIGA GAME project! >4 peoples worked on the project full time.(And we are not beginers.) >And 22*4*365=32120, Yoave done 2 of our project! No, I've probably done about 5 or ten of your project - I just did them a lot more efficiently. 15,000 hours for a game project is ridiculous. >On the 30 games you have published have you done 1 that is TRUE >multitasking >, use all the AMIGA capability to its fullest, use assembly to use >the less CPU possible so the system can run faster (OS SIDE), HD >instalable >, and is actually a serious project, and run a a stock 1.0 512K amiga >and >Amiga 3000? What a crock. "Have you stopped beating your wife?". The answer, by the way, is yes. ALL of my games use the Amiga capability to the fullest extent required by the game. All of them use assembly language glue where speed is required. All of them are HD installable. All of them run on stock Amigas - although there is one bug in Storm Across Europe which causes it to malfunction under 2.0. >If you think I said stupid things, please prove it to me! >I can learn from my mistake, you know:-) You haven't shown that in the three years I've been watching you post. Your arrogance is unbelievable, and always has been. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us