From: rock@lakes.trenton.sc.us (Rockerboy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: NComm 2.0 at last!
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:51:45 GMT
Organization: The Veronica Lake Fan Club

boberg@lysator.liu.se (Stefan Boberg) writes:

>   When making games, you can pretty much use the same old code over and
> over again in new projects (scrolling, BOB's, sound effects, music,
> colour fading etc.), while in `real' applications you will basically
> have to start from scratch every time. You have to design structures
> and user interface, detect and handle errors, and program by somebody
> else's rules (and not just make up your own).  The program also should
> be easy to use and actually *do* something. When making games you can
> simply kick out the system if you don't want it, and then the only
> error checking you will ever need to make is for disk errors (some games
> doesn't even do this), and you don't even have to handle these smoothly -
> display a red screen or - if you're ambitious - show a little message on
> the screen and lock up.

Yes, and no.  Consider, most "useful" tasks require little more knowledge 
that basic IO (_machine specific knowledge_, not knowledge of general 
programming.  While, admittedly, I have never written software 
professionally, I've been a hack for years, so I don't think I'm exactly 
speaking from the bottom of a well of ignorance.  ;)

> 
>   Of course the above isn't true for *all* games, but about 75%. There
> are some really complex games out there, like simulators and strategy
> games - and I admire those who make these (though I would personally
> never put so much time and effort into a piece of `unproductive'
> software).
> 
>   You also say that there is nothing more challenging than making high-
> speed graphics routines. Well that may be true, but it's not much more
> than tweaking/optimizing of code - the necessary algorithms and
> mathematics are well-known and easy to find in any book about computer
> graphics. Of course, most people are more impressed by fast 3D-graphics 
> than, say, fast compression/decompression routines. So you could 
> probably say that making fast 3D routines is more rewarding.

And data manipulation/compression methods are _not_ easily looked up in a 
book somewhere?  Be honest.  Patience, a basic knowledge of programming, 
and understanding simple machine IO are all you need to at least _begin_ 
to make a "useful" piece of software.  You need a lot more to make a 
decent game, especially if you intend to do something other than the 
typical side scrolling shoot-em-up type thing...
> 
>   Of course, if you mean creativity as in *artistic* creativity you're
> right. The most difficult part of making an action game is probably to
> get good-looking graphics (and to get a good, reliable graphics artist).
> You don't usually need a lot of fancy graphics in a word-processor.
> Hardly any sound effects, either :).
> 
>   All of the above is of course IMHO, I haven't made a word processor
> (at least not yet :-) ), nor have I made a flight simulator, so I can't
> really compare. I *have* made action games, and simpler `application'
> software however.
> 
> >                                          Rockerboy
> --
> Stefan Boberg - AP & EE student at Linkoping Institute of Technology, Sweden
> Author of LhA, ArjA and LhArcA. Co-author of Alien Breed, Project X, Full
> Contact and Miami Chase.
>     EMail: boberg@lysator.liu.se, lha@augs.se       FidoNet: 2:204/404

BTW, if your lha is the one I'm thinking about, congrats.  It's very 
speedy.


"Sometimes what you say is going to fly right in the faces of the 
powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care...you know 
it's your place to challenge authority..."

                                          Rockerboy