this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
1009 points (99.0% liked)

RetroGaming

19338 readers
1642 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 103 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Roller coaster Tycoon is one of a lifetime game.

Now everything is electron or react shit. Gone are the times of downloading fully featured software under 10mb.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 56 minutes ago* (last edited 56 minutes ago) (1 children)

I don't think old=good is a good mentality though, lot of people seem to have it

All the old software I know and use is exceptionally good, however I've heard about and chosen to use it because it's survived the test of time (also because it's still actively maintained and has had thousands of bug fixes over the years)

Vscode and obsidian are pretty good and they're electron, discord's alright, pretty sure steam uses some kind of web wrapper as well.

Real issue is electron is very accessible to inexperienced developers and easy to do badly, but I imagine people back in the old Unix days got an equal amount of shit bloated software

[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 minutes ago

Discord is garbage software lmao. Has been from the beginning. I can't stand using it.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Fun quote from an interview with Chris Sawyer:

Latterly the machine code came back to haunt us when the decision was made to re-launch the original game on mobile platforms as RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic a few years ago, and it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++. It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago

Well worth it. The mobile version is amazing, that is to say, almost exactly the same as the original.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 minutes ago

It's probably not because it's sucks. It's because they're trying to perfectly replicate an existing target. They have to read the assembly, digest it, then create the identical solution in C++. If they were just creating a new game, it likely would be much faster.

[–] BigDanishGuy 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

#include <iostream> // because writing to the console is not included by default.
int main()
{
std::cout << "C++ is simple and fun ... you cretin";
return 0;
}

I had a machine language course in uni, parallel with a C++ course. Not a fun semester to be my wife, or a relative of any of my classmates. Best case our brains were in C++ mode, worst case you needed an assembler to understand us.

And yes I know my code format will piss people off, I don't care, it's the way I write when other less informed people don't force me to conform to their BS "Teh oPeNiNg bracket shouwd bwee on teh sam line ass teh declawation"

[–] [email protected] 24 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

But the modern OpenRCT, written in an actual language, is better in every way.

[–] otp 37 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Probably not as optimized though.

RCT could run on a toaster from the 90's (ok, maybe early 2000's) and looked amazing for the time.

OpenRCT can run on a toaster from the 2010's and looks great because of the timeless art style of the original.

It's still an incredible feat, though!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You are very unlikely to write assembly that is more optimized than what a modern compiler could produce for anything longer than a trivial program. I don't know if it made sense at the time of the original RCT, but OpenRCT would definitely not benefit from being written in assembly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I feel like that's only true if I was asked to "write the assembly for this c++ program." If I'm actually implementing something big in assembly, I'm not going to do 90% of the craziness someone might be tempted to do in c++. Something that is super easy in c++ doesn't mean it's easy for the CPU. Writing assembly, I'm going to do what's easy for the CPU (and efficient) because, now, I'm in the same domain.

The bottom line is cranking up the optimization level can get you a 2-5x win. Using memory efficiently can give you a 10-100x win.