41 replies to this topic

[MayDay]

I have played around with the javascripts playfield generators and the sprite generators and such. I was just curious if anyone had ever considered writing a program that would take point and click to the level of writing an entire game, and not just segments?

I realize this may not even be possible, but was just wondering if it had been considered. I think this would be a great tool to the Atari community. I have not given up my dream of teaching it to myself and getting my game together, but have found it quite challenging thus far. I also know this probably would have very low optimization and a real programmer would have much more potential (on a machine that is severely limited to begin with).

If it was possible, I wonder what limitations there would be? I would think such things as 1 or 2 players choice, title screen, maybe a standardized music package (if someone were willing to write an original), and a multitude of options could be available. Maybe a simple menu of options upon collision detection, that sort of thing. It could be added to and updated as time went on. Is this topic of interest to anyone? I think a community-wide project that was updated and notated (much like DASM and Distella are now) would be a welcome gift to those of us that are hexidecimally challenged. Let me know what you guys think.

-Jason

[Random Terrain]

The "it can't be done" parade will be by shortly, so you'll probably get a bunch of replies like I got here:

http://www.atariage....showtopic=57543

I bet some talented programmer could make something like you are talking about, but if he is that talented, he already knows how to make games of his own for the Atari 2600 and that usually means he has a big reason not to make a program like that. He will no longer be 'special' if he makes a program that will allow the average person to make their own Atari 2600 games.

It will take a talented ego-free programmer who wants everyone to have a chance at creating games for the Atari 2600. Programmers shouldn't worry because having a great tool for making games doesn't mean that most people will be able to make fun games. That will still take some talent, but at least they will have a shot at it.

Someone will eventually make something like that for the PC, but it might take a while before we find someone who doesn't have a huge stake in preventing the unwashed masses from having their turn.

[George Gray]

Random Terrain, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:43 PM, said:

The "it can't be done" parade will be by shortly, so you'll probably get a bunch of replies like I got here:

http://www.atariage....showtopic=57543

I bet some talented programmer could make something like you are talking about, but if he is that talented, he already knows how to make games of his own for the Atari 2600 and that usually means he has a big reason not to make a program like that. He will no longer be 'special' if he makes a program that will allow the average person to make their own Atari 2600 games.

It will take a talented ego-free programmer who wants everyone to have a chance at creating games for the Atari 2600. Programmers shouldn't worry because having a great tool for making games doesn't mean that most people will be able to make fun games. That will still take some talent, but at least they will have a shot at it.

Someone will eventually make something like that for the PC, but it might take a while before we find someone who doesn't have a huge stake in preventing the unwashed masses from having their turn.

Hmm...First, there are 'point and click' tools available for the pc. They do a plethora of things-game making, for one. The problem with such tools is that they can only go so far. Inevitably, the user WILL hit the proverbial brick wall and the tool will cease to be useful for them. For most, that will end their foray into 'programming'. For other, more spirited souls, they will venture into the world of 'real' programming and take the time to actually LEARN something. The 'unwashed masses' do, indeed, 'have a turn', should they choose. There was one called 'Click and Play' that was pretty decent and had a little scripting language that did allow some degree of coding.

Secondly, as a programmer myself, I don't give a damn who else does it. I hope your comments were meant in jest.

[Random Terrain]

George Gray, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:07 PM, said:

Hmm...First, there are 'point and click' tools available for the pc.  They do a plethora of things-game making, for one.  The problem with such tools is that they can only go so far. . . There was one called 'Click and Play' that was pretty decent and had a little scripting language that did allow some degree of coding.

I guess you didn't notice that I was talking about a tool on the PC to make Atari 2600 games? Many people would love to make games that will work on an Atari 2600 or at least an Atari 2600 emulator (or the built-in emulator that the game making program might contain). Somebody might get the great idea to make this type of program and then offer to put people's games in a cartridge for a price. Nice little way to make a few bucks. "Now you too can be an Atari 2600 game programmer! Buy one for yourself and all of your friends!"

George Gray, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:07 PM, said:

For other, more spirited souls, they will venture into the world of 'real' programming and take the time to actually LEARN something.

You say with your nose high in the air. There are a lot of people out there who have a desire to create games for the Atari 2600, but do not have the mental capacity to LEARN what is necessary. In case you didn't know, not all people are alike.

George Gray, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:07 PM, said:

Secondly, as a programmer myself, I don't give a damn who else does it.  I hope your comments were meant in jest.

No jest, many programmers do not want others to have an easier way to make games on various game systems. They had to do it the hard way, so others must too. If they're not bright enough to LEARN, screw 'em.

[kisrael]

Well, besides the fears of the "unwashed masses" "flooding the market" with games that fall in a certain tight range of play characteristics, there's also the fact that it would be a HELL of a lot of work, especially to debug when people are trying to do more "interesting" things with it, and seems like an invitation to an endless array of feature requests and hassles--not so much from well-meaning newbies but from truly clueless n00bs who just have NEVER undergone the practice of breaking a problem into a series of logical steps that's neccesary for almost any form of programming.

I've done a certain extent to lower the bar for fellow newcomers with my 2600 101 and hope to maybe some day get back to making 2600 cookbook a little more useful. And I would say at this stage I'm not a good enough 6502 coder to make a truly generic kernal, and not enough of a high level programmer to think about what the parser would be.

So I'm not saying that it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't. But it's definately a tough road to hoe.

[Random Terrain]

kisrael, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:31 PM, said:

So I'm not saying that it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't.  But it's definately a tough road to hoe.

No doubt, but I hope someone does it while I'm still young enough to care.

[supercat]

MayDay, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:49 PM, said:

I have played around with the javascripts playfield generators and the sprite generators and such.  I was just curious if anyone had ever considered writing a program that would take point and click to the level of writing an entire game, and not just segments?

It would probably be possible to come up with something that could produce an arbitrary collection of games which were limitted to Combat-style objects and playfields. Such games would tend to be regarded as not very interesting.

Trying to get graphics beyond the level of Combat or Adventure gets tricky. The games that manage the best graphics have very carefully-crafted restrictions about what objects can appear where, and then use clever tricks the programmer used to take advantage of those restrictions. Crafting a good game on the 2600 requires a good understanding of programming and of fun, to ensure that the restrictions in gameplay don't prevent the cartridge from being enjoyable.

[Random Terrain]

supercat, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:48 PM, said:

Trying to get graphics beyond the level of Combat or Adventure gets tricky.  The games that manage the best graphics have very carefully-crafted restrictions about what objects can appear where, and then use clever tricks the programmer used to take advantage of those restrictions.  Crafting a good game on the 2600 requires a good understanding of programming and of fun, to ensure that the restrictions in gameplay don't prevent the cartridge from being enjoyable.

If a programmer knew most of the tricks, couldn't he create a game making program that understood those tricks? If the game making program had some AI to it and you had a good manual, seems like more could be available to the average person.

[batari]

Random Terrain, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:43 PM, said:

The "it can't be done" parade will be by shortly

I think it CAN be done. There HAS been talk in the Stella list about making 2600 extensions to C. But it's not the best idea, because it would require generic kernels to be possible in our lifetime, and generic kernels = games that are all pretty much the same.

The problem here is the people who aren't going to figure out 6502 probably aren't going to figure out C either. But those who do know C could at least implement some sort of gameplay variations to the same tired kernel.

But with a point and click interface, you'd need to standardize some of the gameplay variations too. This would make the problem of similar games even worse.

Again, it can be done. But I think it's unlikely that anyone will.

By the way, there IS an Atari 2600 BASIC - and I wonder why nobody ever mentions it. It's not too great and only has about 2k of RAM, but it does exist, as the Spectravideo Compumate. Z26 emulates the Compumate is you have its ROM image, which is readily available. A little more effort on the part of emulator authors and hackers perhaps could make it into a viable language that could, in theory, produce ROM images that could run on an emulator.

Note, though, that as BASIC, you won't be able to do much with it, but you COULD do SOMETHING.

[Random Terrain]

batari, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:04 PM, said:

A little more effort on the part of emulator authors and hackers perhaps could make it into a viable language that could, in theory, produce ROM images that could run on an emulator.

Note, though, that as BASIC, you won't be able to do much with it, but you COULD do SOMETHING.

An expanded version of that would be better than nothing. Bring on the hackers.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Random Terrain, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:57 AM, said:

If a programmer knew most of the tricks, couldn't he create a game making program that understood those tricks?

Yes and no. He could program a tool that autocalculates some restrictions, but the results would be completely unpredictable for the user of that tool without having a basic understanding of the 2600. And there are so many tricks involved in 2600 programming, that it would take years to create something that at least utilizes the most important routines clever enough for a newbie to be useful at all.

I don't care how you call me, but I rather program a few of my own games in that time. Especially because there are too many really stupid persons regularily showing up with "great ideas" and no interest into learning anything. Why should I care for programming something for them? Which then would start annyoing me with stupid questions because they are too lazy to RTFM.

And I can only think of a handful of persons (e.g. salstadt) with no programming background who really took the time to at least understand the basic limitations of the 2600 and then came with a good well thought concept, willing to go through several steps of iteration until it finally fits to the those limitations.

[s0c7]

I know it's a dirty word to some around here, but if you have a programming background (or maybe I should say scripting - my asm instructor back in college used to tell us "You can't call yourself a programmer if you can't do asm." I've spent too long in high-level land, and am unable to claim to be one. ) , then maybe you'd be better served starting off doing hacks. That's the route I took.

I'd still like to maybe do a from scratch Phantom II or Star Hawk one day. But with real life and whatnot, I can only devote so much time to learning the ins and outs of the 2600.

The 2600 has a huge library filled with many themes. With imagination, you can do a lot. I'm not claiming to be any good at it, but I learn a little with each one I do. A simple strategy is:
do a graphic-only hack
do a graphic hack with color changes
do a graphic hack with color changes and either audio or gamplay changes
etc.
You can find various threads on how to do each piece if you look hard enough.

Not that it's easy (I usually start looking at a disassembly with 4 or 5 reference documents open in other windows), but you can produce something in weeks instead of a year or more.

As long as you learn something new each time, it's a good thing. If somebody else likes the hack, that's an added bonus.

[maibock]

Although on the surface this seems like a fun idea, I can't help but think it would bastardize the homebrew market similarly in how the video game "crash" presented itself in the latter stages of the 2600. Companies flooding the market with crappy games drowning out the decent games, thus frustrating the consumer into apathy.

The way it is now, it's something special when a new homebrew game is released and there's a bit of romanticism when a new game does come out that can rival original games. Even though I'd be all over a simple way to program a 2600 game, I'd prefer to have it this way..

[Tom]

Random Terrain, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:43 PM, said:

He will no longer be 'special' if he makes a program that will allow the average person to make their own Atari 2600 games.

Yeah, right. And for the very same reason homebrewers usually don't release source code, because they don't want to give away their knowledge.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Tom, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:07 PM, said:

Yeah, right. And for the very same reason homebrewers usually don't release source code, because they don't want to give away their knowledge.

Huh?

AFAIK by far the most homebrew source codes have been released. With only a few exceptions.

[vdub_bobby]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:50 AM, said:

Tom, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:07 PM, said:

Yeah, right. And for the very same reason homebrewers usually don't release source code, because they don't want to give away their knowledge.

Huh?

AFAIK by far the most homebrew source codes have been released. With only a few exceptions.

I think Tom was being sarcastic.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

vdub_bobby, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:51 PM, said:

I think Tom was being sarcastic.

Sorry, my English is not good enough for those little nuances.

[batari]

Tom, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:07 AM, said:

Random Terrain, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:43 PM, said:

He will no longer be 'special' if he makes a program that will allow the average person to make their own Atari 2600 games.

Yeah, right. And for the very same reason homebrewers usually don't release source code, because they don't want to give away their knowledge.

Actually, I have a good reason why I haven't released any of my source code yet. Take a look at this snippet from one of my games:

;       SEC
;       SBC missilepos
;       sbc #minefield
        TAY
;       DEX
;       DEX
;       DEX
           
;       DEX
        SEC;NEEDED?
rept3
        ROR $FA
        ROL $FB 
        ROR $FC
        ROL $FD
        DEX
        BNE rept3
        LDX TEMPVAR
        LDA $F9,X
        EOR #$FF
; brk
;here
; A=PFreg mul by 14
;       SEC;needed?
hithere

        DEY
;       STA TEMPVAR
;find   AND $0,Y
;       BNE findblock
;       INY
;       LDA TEMPVAR
;       JMP find
findblock  
;       LDA TEMPVAR
        LDX minefield+1,Y
        SAX minefield+1,Y
 jsr stopfire  

I think you get the picture...

[Thomas Jentzsch]

batari, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:21 PM, said:

Actually, I have a good reason why I haven't released any of my source code yet.  Take a look at this snippet from one of my games:
...
I think you get the picture...

Don't be shy, my code often doesn't look any better.

[vdub_bobby]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:28 PM, said:

batari, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:21 PM, said:

Actually, I have a good reason why I haven't released any of my source code yet.  Take a look at this snippet from one of my games:
...
I think you get the picture...

Don't be shy, my code often doesn't look any better.

Mine either. I'll release the Go Fish! source sometime soon and then you'll all see...

[supercat]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:28 PM, said:

batari, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:21 PM, said:

Actually, I have a good reason why I haven't released any of my source code yet.  Take a look at this snippet from one of my games:
...
I think you get the picture...

Don't be shy, my code often doesn't look any better.

I recall reading an interview of (IIRC) John Carmack and he was reluctant to release the QuakeC source code for ID's new game not because of fears people would do unauthorized ports, but rather because people would see how sloppy he was. Some parts were sorta cute, though. IIRC...

  if (player.inwater)
     cprint(" sleeps with the fishes.");
  else if (enemy.classtype==ENEMY_DOG)
     cprint(" was mauled by a rotweiler.");
  else if (enemy.classtype==ENEMY_ARMY)
     cprint(" was shot by a grunt.");
  ...
  else /* Hell if I know--he's just dead */
    cprint("died.");

Been ages since I looked at the code, but I still remember that comment.

[Random Terrain]

Tom, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:07 AM, said:

Random Terrain, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:43 PM, said:

He will no longer be 'special' if he makes a program that will allow the average person to make their own Atari 2600 games.

Yeah, right. And for the very same reason homebrewers usually don't release source code, because they don't want to give away their knowledge.

There is no danger in giving source code to people who wouldn't know what to do with it. It's for other programmers and fledgling programmers. They belong to the holy brotherhood, they have been through the hazing rituals and have feasted on the raw flesh of the sacrificed.

[George Gray]

Random Terrain, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:28 PM, said:

George Gray, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:07 PM, said:

Hmm...First, there are 'point and click' tools available for the pc.  They do a plethora of things-game making, for one.  The problem with such tools is that they can only go so far. . . There was one called 'Click and Play' that was pretty decent and had a little scripting language that did allow some degree of coding.

I guess you didn't notice that I was talking about a tool on the PC to make Atari 2600 games? Many people would love to make games that will work on an Atari 2600 or at least an Atari 2600 emulator (or the built-in emulator that the game making program might contain). Somebody might get the great idea to make this type of program and then offer to put people's games in a cartridge for a price. Nice little way to make a few bucks. "Now you too can be an Atari 2600 game programmer! Buy one for yourself and all of your friends!"

George Gray, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:07 PM, said:

For other, more spirited souls, they will venture into the world of 'real' programming and take the time to actually LEARN something.

You say with your nose high in the air. There are a lot of people out there who have a desire to create games for the Atari 2600, but do not have the mental capacity to LEARN what is necessary. In case you didn't know, not all people are alike.

George Gray, on Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:07 PM, said:

Secondly, as a programmer myself, I don't give a damn who else does it.  I hope your comments were meant in jest.

No jest, many programmers do not want others to have an easier way to make games on various game systems. They had to do it the hard way, so others must too. If they're not bright enough to LEARN, screw 'em.

Uh....right.
"There are a lot of people out there who have a desire to create games for the Atari 2600, but do not have the mental capacity to LEARN what is necessary. "
Well, you got me. I guess I was just giving folks too much credit. Oh well. I'll go off 'with my nose in the air' now.

[kisrael]

It is a good point that a lot of the people who can and have coded 2600 games often have life experience that make it more possible for them. I'm a professional programmer, but never did much low-level, so I'm only so-so, but I try to use my high-level skills to make tools. But a lot of the true vets have been doing 6502 on various platforms for YEARS, and that's a significant advantage.

So it's less "mental capacity", more "programming experience".(Except, with NO programming experience, you're going to be coding like a total moron, so it's tough to tell the difference.)

I still stand by my belief that someone should at least be able to write passable games in a modern version of BASIC or Javascript before taking on the 2600. Even a "click and create" style 2600-game creator wouldn't lower the bar of entry that much...it would just make it easier to make games in that mold.

[Jacob Rose]

s0c7, on Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:15 AM, said:

I'd still like to maybe do a from scratch Phantom II or Star Hawk one day.  But with real life and whatnot, I can only devote so much time to learning the ins and outs of the 2600.

I solved this problem by "borrowing" a laptop (from my S.O.) so I get about 2 hours of tinkering with my homebrew on the metro per weekday.

Even Andrew Davie says that his work is just a matter of persistence, which is quite inspiring (can't find the post, so maybe I'm misremembering and he actually said that you have to be a genius or else no matter how long and hard you work at it you'll only be able to write Pong clones...*grin*)