|
|
Post by VectorX on Sept 19, 2012 13:40:37 GMT -5
Awesome! Frank looks like a badass  |
|
|
|
Post by Mayhem on Sept 19, 2012 15:24:00 GMT -5
In the Kristof Tuts interview that was just posted and linked in the Vectrex forums, he talks about a bank-switched game in his future plans. Both Vectrexians and Vector Pilot are bank switched... just the second 32k bank is dedicated to indirect gameplay elements such as animations and presentation. |
|
|
|
Post by gliptitude on Sept 19, 2012 16:03:33 GMT -5
Both Vectrexians and Vector Pilot are bank switched... just the second 32k bank is dedicated to indirect gameplay elements such as animations and presentation. Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying. Maybe I confused two different things he said in the interview, and the other one was something new. Not that I fully understand this stuff or know what I'm talking about though. I do remember reading that his games have 2 x 32K, with one dedicated to animations etc. I guess I thought there was potentially more involved in bank switching. I thought I had heard from other programmers that they found bank switching undesirable, that it would make the game less playable somehow. I suppose everybody loves Vector Pilot, and the game is not prohibitively expensive or anything, so there is no issue with bank switching in this instance. |
|
|
|
Post by VectorX on Sept 19, 2012 16:05:40 GMT -5
I thought I had heard from other programmers that they found bank switching undesirable George/FURY does. Don't know about the others. Maybe Ville, who made Thrust, since there were a few more things he wanted to add onto ZSB (the hidden game on the cart) but couldn't since it was full at 32K. |
|
|
|
Post by fury on Sept 19, 2012 16:24:13 GMT -5
If it was an issue of storing extra resources, I'd do it. Just have never needed to. Also, if you're doing a multi-cart, like some of John's games, it also makes sense. I think it came up before in a discussion about making some giant bank-switched game, and I just wouldn't do it. A part of the fun of programming these games are the limitations, believe it or not. Limitation spawns creativity.
|
|
|
|
Post by gliptitude on Sept 19, 2012 16:49:05 GMT -5
A part of the fun of programming these games are the limitations, believe it or not. Limitation spawns creativity. Easy for me to believe this. Though I suppose some would also revel in pushing the limits, perhaps even in unnecessary ways - just to do it. ... But I would think that many of the inherent limitations are irrevocable, and that it would be an environment with many constrictions in every case. I think it's super awesome that the Star Sling(?) game was made to be as small as the originals, 4K or whatever. It'd be fun to work that way, approaching it as a challenge, perhaps the ultimate re-enactment of 1982 technology. - Not just what is now possible, or what 'could have been', but actually what 'would have been'. |
|
|
|
Post by fury on Sept 19, 2012 17:05:21 GMT -5
Yeah I guess so, but I look at some of the original outstanding games like Cosmic Chasm which is just 4k and I'm blown away. Great, great game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayhem on Sept 20, 2012 5:35:56 GMT -5
Just to clarify, bank switching does open up the potential size of a game, but banks are independent sandboxed units. When you utilise one bank the console cannot see any information in any other bank. So if you have common assets across a game, and say store level information and design in different banks, you would need to store all the common assets in every bank to make them available. That is the limitation with bank switching.
|
|
|
|
Post by fury on Sept 20, 2012 13:56:04 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. With Warrior, for example, someone asked why I didn't bank-switch and make the 1 and 2 player modes completely separate games (the assumption was that I could have added more numerous enemies in the 1-player game by bank-switching).
The reason is because it is one game. The amount of shared code between the 1 and 2 player modes is probably 90%. Bank-switching wouldn't really open up a lot of additional coding space.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekMD on Sept 20, 2012 15:39:16 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. With Warrior, for example, someone asked why I didn't bank-switch and make the 1 and 2 player modes completely separate games (the assumption was that I could have added more numerous enemies in the 1-player game by bank-switching). The reason is because it is one game. The amount of shared code between the 1 and 2 player modes is probably 90%. Bank-switching wouldn't really open up a lot of additional coding space. Makes sense. So it wouldn't really add much to the game. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, bankswitching is best for games that will have different playing fields in each level with a limited number of shared elements. |
|
|
|
Post by fury on Sept 20, 2012 15:45:19 GMT -5
Exactly, and the term "different playing fields" can mean a lot of different things depending upon what game we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekMD on Sept 20, 2012 16:29:43 GMT -5
Exactly, and the term "different playing fields" can mean a lot of different things depending upon what game we're talking about. Absolutely. It all depends on the type of game. |
|
|
|
Post by gliptitude on Sept 21, 2012 11:21:15 GMT -5
Do the (2) independent (ROMs ?) direct the switching? Or what controls the bank switch, if all the program is on the two independent modules? I'm guessing there is code on both sides with instructions to 'leave and go to the other'. How quickly and frequently can this be done?
... Seems like in some sense a bankswitched cart is potentially something like 2 (or more?) carts squeezed into one, in instances where there is some reason to package the two together.
Would be cool for an adventure game where there are multiple gameplay mechanics, one for traveling around the map, and then a separate one for battle encounters, even a third one for dungeons etc. - Exactly like in Dark Tower, if maybe this setup enabled the map to be bigger and the battles to be more complex and diverse. ... Reminds me of the Dark Tower sequels they were dreaming about with multiple modular cartridges, which I think George told us about in one of these forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by gliptitude on Sept 23, 2012 16:28:42 GMT -5
edited above. eh, BUMP.
|
|
|
|
Post by fury on Sept 23, 2012 16:58:17 GMT -5
Here is a general explanation of bank-switching: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_switchingNot sure how they were going to handle the Dark Tower add-ons, but maybe you're right. Saw your email by the way, will respond soon. |
|
