Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Bish96048420

Member
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

90 Neutral

About Bish96048420

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. @Telastyn Then we now know who the one being the troll is here. ;) [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]What? [/font] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]What is your point? [/font][/quote] It's a view from a philosophical and in-depth standing point about computer systems and complications that can be eased through more simplified instructions and interfaces.
  2. Please read the post thoroughly with an open mind before hurtfully making accusations of another. Thank you.
  3. [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]Make a program that emulates such a system then. [/font][/quote] That's a very great idea! I'll look in to it.
  4. But your suggestions are a perfect example as to why I was struck to write this post: http://www.gamedev.n...-say-otherwise/ I disagree with you, and that post above will open your mind.
  5. **NOTE BEFORE READING: This is an opinion, and a strongly philosophical rant. Every vote down I get is coming from someone who has not held their own and self-control to logically analyze and interpret what I'm getting across in this post. Read before down-voting. You hold no rights to bar me from expressing freedom of speech in a public site whereas I am not breaking terms. Thank you.** Just think about it. Let's take Microsoft's Windows for example. An operating system is a bunch of files that interact with the hardware to get what needs to be done right, right? From executing the cards on your 16-bit game of Solitaire on your mother's Windows 95 to playing Halo Trial on your Windows 7 Pro, it's all the same ... or is it? It boils down to the conclusion that computers, computer programming, software development, and creation from pure computer parsing and strict fundamental assets of reality to implement a functioning machine are not easy at all. For example, let's imagine a small 16-bit program on Windows 7. Windows 7 doesn't carry support for 16-bit applications(sadly), but a wide-array of downloads and set-ups can do it. Why should these set-ups have to be incorporated? People want things easy, and as theoretically specific to every goddamn detail as possible. Parsing instructions, low-level coding, etc. is all easy to explain easy, but harder to explain and rationalize in the sense that we don't know what's behind it all. There's no instructions anywhere that give theoretical and perfectly 100% concrete explanations of every single exact aspect and detail involved in instructing a computer what to do and how to do it, and WHY this way we're doing it is HOW it will be done, and WHY this is the ONLY way it can be done. You don't get this philosophy elsewhere, but I sure have come to the times and realization that even in 2012 software development and programming is too misconstrued by daily people and disorganized to concretely interpret from every imaginable angle 100%. For another example, for all you debaters and naysayers, let's say I decide to make a game RIGHT NOW that clones, say, Final Fantasy VII, a classic game. I need to take in to consideration: 1.Emulation of an older game, which features low-poly models(less bits), lower bits of the totality of the set of code(compatibility issues once again, more emulation necessary, more files, clutter, and more misconstrued information to the masses). 2.Graphics. This means I need a program, or set of instructions, for a literal-compatible machine hardware controlling OS which can interpret these array of bits in sequences that match its support files(software). However, given that the game was programmed in 1995 beyond 1996, we can't rely on dinosaur code in lesser bits to execute on our modern machines, so we must concatenate more bullshit to our modern machines to emulator older versions that are killed, changed, moved around, usually requiring more modernizing tools, files, etc. to run and be compatible, causing a larger array of complication to masses. Also, aging in theory will kill and end. This means that with time modern machine developers leave old things hanging and push us to more modern and massive data, which requires more and more storage capacity on our drives, causing us more money with less comprehensible understanding of our wallet-devotion to their technological advancements. Plus, nowadays and such, you'll have a harder time rendering low-poly models because every these days is "new-age" garbage that has no option of being retro. The reason things become newer is to incorporate the older, or at least it should be. Why would anyone want a new thing that ends the old "thing", then forces people to adapt to the new "thing?" 3.Coding variances, as this is the number one issue. To blatantly sit there in 1995 writing that game would be prime. There in C, there with whatever API software components they implemented in to their game engine, their coding, their arrangement of data to represent one of the greatest RPG games ever - Final Fantasy VII. But that arrangement of theirs is comprehensible by those who worked around it. It's a pity to know and realize that technology keeps growing and changing, and you're forced to continually adapt to new things whereas you can't just grip the same set of rules with minor tweaks to minor changes. All computers make one simple change that affects one thousand more adaptations to things that aren't simplified enough for the masses to fully understand. Computer-literature should be indoctrinated, and programming needs to be arranged, and computer systems, manufacturers and designers need to entail a functioning and easily understanding system that all the masses can understand easier, implementing smarter set APIs, better arranged tutorials to push development and show it in a lighter sense(because most people see computer programming as a big mess of nerds with glasses hunched over typing like incessant chimpanzees), and, lastly, we need better organized, detailed and improvised coding rules, languages, parsing infrastructure, low-level interaction, and manipulation of all ranges of bit rates, bit levels, ranges, and development of wide-arrays of bit sizes, rearrangeable settings in our programming environments, operating system settings, and we also need graphical properties further advanced to suit not only beginners, but in depth, 3-D programming. This systematic approach to differentiate the versions and optimization, limiting more things, complicating more things, and giving less things, is the pure reason for this post to be seen and heard by all. Why must we live on with scattered information, diverse selections of multiple files that do the same thing, and RAM cluttering operating systems? This is 2012 - we live in a time and age for us to get up and SAY something about it. I dislike Windows 7 - I believe its interface could be better, have more features, more options, and I believe that the Windows API could have better instructed tutorials that go more in-depth with the hardware, arrangement of bits, and entailing of multimedia services and compatibility issues. It's just all the little things you keep your minds in from every day programming and life that turns you away from the truth that computers are getting more and more incomprehensible by the masses, and less and less changeable and optimizable. If a 64-bit operating system can't create a 1-bit application and run it straight up a computer isn't the future yet.
  6. Because programming is supposed to be straightforward. But it's not straightforward when you take in to example the complication involved with compiling, how many bits a program is, how to know how many bits a program is, what the amount of bits even change, and how much RAM program's use. I'm starting to wonder if it's a programmer's job to incorporate this, or if a whole system basically bricks the walls while they glue it. Also, game engines for one. They didn't even use engines back when they made DOS games in the early 90s and so. The highly complex background of classification, set of coding rules, organizing of code and memory allocation back in the 90s is just a step backwards from the even more complicated 64-bit and 128-bit architecture used today. With so many mix-ups and variances of possible bit differences, execution, compatibility, and overall understanding of the whole process involved in such dramatic differences and confusing knowledge required in variables of logic and implementation of changes through retro DOS 16-bit support systems and high-level advanced 3-D mathematics and game engines like Ogre and such nowadays, how would anyone rationally and realistically believe that one can possibly comprehend all of these things 100% accurately and program as an expert, while excluding all of the behind the scenes nightmares like library files(.lib), other .h header files, define rules, and ability to link altogether? Why can't I program 1 bit programs in 64-bit operating systems? Why can't I program 64-bit operating systems in 16-bit Window's executable files(.exe)? Why should I believe that programming as a whole is intrinsically worth the effort when I'm limited to a range of development access, file incorporation to a system, a set of rules followed by an operating system's API, and system functionality in of itself? I should feel obligated to write my 1-bit masterpieces strictly independent from 1-bit architecture. Isn't the whole point of computers and logical machines to allow the unimaginable? Well, I'm not unimagining, and I'm imaging things that aren't happening. So I guess programming fails when you add this all up. This is excluding the fact that so many Window's OS versions are not compatible with 16-bit applications, when the system itself is four times that range. E-Fail. If I'm not unimagining I'm not impressed by computers lackluster incorporation of functionality in this day and age. Once I can create 1-bit applications in 64-bit OS, let me know! Otherwise, debate against me and try to prove what I'm saying to be wrong 100%. [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif]Please read this as well, as it follows this post on: [/font]http://www.gamedev.n...-say-otherwise/
  7. What if I want to write 2, 4, and 8-bit code for 8-bit games? Could I download an 8 or 16-bit OS, and boot a separate partition of the hard drive where I store the OS, and, when capable, program from that OS in the lower bit system support? Like Windows 95 for example. Are there any downloads of it available? And does coding style strictly change within different bits? Because I notice that in DOS you have to add a whole bunch of code that is specific to DOS's 16-bit system.
  8. Thanks! I'll make sure to get Turbo C++. But ... I have a 64-bit version of Windows 7. What do you mean by an emulator of 32-bits? There are emulators for Windows 7 32-bit? O.o
  9. Ok, so I thought it would be kind of cool & retro to make a classic 16-bit style game using the C programming language, which can be used from C++, right? However, I'm kind of lost. How do I specifically code a program to execute like one would in DOS back in Windows 95/98? Windows 7 has DOS, right? Isn't it still a 16-bit OS? But is there a specific way you program for it? I want to make a graphical game obviously, even though DOS works in a one-bit per-pixel style. I'm sorry, but I'm kind of confused ... any pointers?
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!