The man who made 'the worst video game in history'

Main > Everything Else

<< < (5/8) > >>

Howard_Casto:
The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty. It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder. Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's? That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day.

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

Grasshopper:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on February 28, 2016, 01:01:48 pm ---The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty. It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder. Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's? That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day.

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

--- End quote ---

I'm sorry Howard, but you're talking nonsense. It is vastly more difficult to program in assembly than any high level language, and that's particularly true of the early 8 bit processors that were incredibly primitive by today's standards.

It's been a long time since I've coded in 6502 assembly language but, from memory, it only had three 8 bit registers, and all the processor could really do is add and subtract 8 bit numbers from one another. If you wanted to do something as complex as multiplying two numbers together, or just adding up two 16 bit numbers, you had to write your own code to do it. And forget about local variables, passing parameters to a function, automatic garbage collection, etc. You had to manage the tiny stack and heap all on your own.

leapinlew:

--- Quote from: Grasshopper on February 28, 2016, 01:33:46 pm ---
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on February 28, 2016, 01:01:48 pm ---The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty. It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder. Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's? That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day.

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

--- End quote ---

I'm sorry Howard, but you're talking nonsense. It is vastly more difficult to program in assembly than any high level language, and that's particularly true of the early 8 bit processors that were incredibly primitive by today's standards.

It's been a long time since I've coded in 6502 assembly language but, from memory, it only had three 8 bit registers, and all the processor could really do is add and subtract 8 bit numbers from one another. If you wanted to do something as complex as multiplying two numbers together, or just adding up two 16 bit numbers, you had to write your own code to do it. And forget about local variables, passing parameters to a function, automatic garbage collection, etc. You had to manage the tiny stack and heap all on your own.

--- End quote ---

Pretty sure Howard wasn't comparing it to any other language. He was saying since it was the mainstream language of the time, the language used to create the game doesn't factor in. PBJ makes a good point too.

What exactly is Grasshopper and Arks points here anyhow. The game was good? The game gets bashed more than it should?

Howard_Casto:

--- Quote from: leapinlew on February 28, 2016, 04:25:52 pm ---
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on February 28, 2016, 01:33:46 pm ---
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on February 28, 2016, 01:01:48 pm ---The programming language doesn't really have anything to do with difficulty. It's hard to code in assembly these days because nearly no one does it.... if you are unfamiliar with a language of course it seems harder. Guess what everyone was using to code games in the 70's? That's right, assembly.... so it didn't seem hard at all to the programmers of the day.

Now if he has been picked off the street and expected to learn assembly and make a game in 5 weeks your point would have been valid, but since he already knew it, the point you are trying to make falls apart like loose sand.

--- End quote ---

I'm sorry Howard, but you're talking nonsense. It is vastly more difficult to program in assembly than any high level language, and that's particularly true of the early 8 bit processors that were incredibly primitive by today's standards.

It's been a long time since I've coded in 6502 assembly language but, from memory, it only had three 8 bit registers, and all the processor could really do is add and subtract 8 bit numbers from one another. If you wanted to do something as complex as multiplying two numbers together, or just adding up two 16 bit numbers, you had to write your own code to do it. And forget about local variables, passing parameters to a function, automatic garbage collection, etc. You had to manage the tiny stack and heap all on your own.

--- End quote ---

Pretty sure Howard wasn't comparing it to any other language. He was saying since it was the mainstream language of the time, the language used to create the game doesn't factor in.

--- End quote ---

Well at least I don't have to over-explain my point to one person. Common sense high-five! ;)

We are spoiled by modern, high-level languages, but if all you ever knew was assembly and everyone, not just in your company, but the entire industry, was using assembly then you can't use the excuse "assembly is hard and that's why ET sucked".

Grasshopper:

--- Quote from: leapinlew on February 28, 2016, 04:25:52 pm ---
What exactly is Grasshopper and Arks points here anyhow. The game was good? The game gets bashed more than it should?

--- End quote ---

I don't really have an opinion on the game. I agree it looks pretty bad from the screenshots, but I've never actually played it.

I was simply responding to Howard's assertion (which he's now backtracked on) that programming in assembly language is essentially the same as programming in any other computer language, once you're familiar with it. It was such a ludicrous thing to say that I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

I think Arks point was in response to someone saying that Kids are pumping out better iPhone games today, in less time. However, for the reasons already given, it's simply not a fair comparison.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version