[1] https://github.com/spicyjpeg/ps1-bare-metal
[2] https://github.com/grumpycoders/pcsx-redux/tree/main/src/mip...
Until then, only arcades had already made the switch.
On PS2, PS2Linux, Dreamcast there was already C++ support, by the way.
- Physical logic gate era of gaming.
- Assembly era
- C era
- OOP era
- Interpreted languages and game logic living in scripts on top of c++ engines
- Fully Gen-AI era?
Yeah, no.
Your historic accounting is not to be trusted by any means if “gen-AI era” is something that you really believe is happening.
I bought a MiSTer for me and my son and we played the heck out of Mario Kart 64 and Mario Golf. I think he picked up my "gaming is dead now" outlook since he doesn't really have any interest in new systems or games anymore
One gets the impression that gaming is dead when one's only contact with modern gaming consists of reading headlines about a handful of AAA games.
In reality, the gaming landscape has never been better, as game production has expanded in several directions:
- The barrier to entry into game development has been lowered; People who are talented in design but not programming now have the opportunity to create games
- AAA budgets have increased; those who enjoy large-scale productions will find increasingly large games
- There is still a market for old-school games, so plenty of (especially smaller) companies produce retromodern games
Heck, they even still produce commercial Commodore 64 games o_O
Of course, there is less room for radical innovation, but people do not play only radically innovative games. And regardless, innovation still exists today, especially in smaller-scale productions.
AAA you know what you are getting, big brash but usually really polished cutting edge stuff but also designed by commitment.
Then you have indie games that are high ambition but also very limited in what they can achieve. So you get a lot of things with brilliant ideas but dont always stick the landing. Two recent ones I have been going through are Skate story and Gecko gods. Both have wonder ambition but you keep hitting those issues when you realise, yeah it is an indie title.
There is a middle ground but it is so hard to find in between those two extremes.
All we see out of mainstream AAA gaming is abused devs, private equity scalping, and mindless remaster regurgitation. Basically going through the same problems as Hollywood is with major films. You get a massive banger of a production every few years, and the rest is just endless money burning and developer harm.
Meanwhile the good indie devs are a dice roll on if they are gonna get recognized by the world at large and find success, just like small budget films.
My game library gets older by the day and I prefer it that way, but love it when an indie game bubbles to the surface and gets beloved by enough fans to break into the news cycle. Itch.io is the only place I look for games anymore unless something I need for the collection hits GoG finally.
> All we see out of mainstream AAA gaming is abused devs, private equity scalping, and mindless remaster regurgitation. Basically going through the same problems as Hollywood is with major films. You get a massive banger of a production every few years, and the rest is just endless money burning and developer harm.
The production ethics and the product are two distinct aspects.
Regarding the product itself, definitely the AAA gaming industry is, like Hollywood, a dysfunctional production model, but that doesn't mean that it's dead in terms of quality - some franchises do maintain high quality (Doom has been exceptional in this sense) but even in terms of new IP, in average, there at least couple of high quality entries in average, every year. Things could go better, but they're certainly far from "dead".
Go look up the development of Sonic Xtreme in the 90s. A brutal development process in the 90s that led to more thsn half the development team camping out in Redwood City Sega office building for months until they all got so sick half the team went on medical leave. Or Quake, where the game development process literally broke the team.
Going by interviews with the team over the decades, they had clashing personalities and poor leadership.
> AAA game development was far more brutal in the 90s.
Honestly it's probably always been brutal going back even to the early days of Atari. Companies like EA have spent three decades destroying beloved studios for profit, only to now be chewed up and spit out by PE/VC bastards themselves. A fitting end really.
That's what pisses off the mostly straight hetrosexual male crowd that make up most of the gaming market.
A big reason why many east asian game studios are doing so well by rejecting that tried and failed formula from the West.
Honestly, the hell kinda remark is that?
It’s nothing to do with sexuality or “companies telling you what you want” but everything to do with companies putting out complete and utter slop and people ACTUALLY buying it all. They wouldn’t waste all that time and investment money if they knew there wasn’t a market for it, but guess what? There is.
Gamers seem to have the memory span of a goldfish. Horse armour? Bad. GTA VI at 80 bucks and no physical release on consoles? OMG YAAAAAASSSS GIVE ME MORE OF THE SAME HOOKER-SEX SIMULATOR WITH CRIMINAL ACTS SPRINKLED ON TOP!!!
Don’t complain about gaming companies’ behaviour if you keep giving your money to them.
I hope it works out. I can see it working in the reverse: I play n64/ps1/ps2/gamecube games with my kid, they go to school and their friends are playing fortnight or valorant, and then you become the bad guy for trying to be an obstacle in that.
I was surprised that children that didn't grow up with the graphic revolution, does not seem to care about graphics. They don't seem to care they are playing 40-30 year old games.
I think as adults we get locked into a few things. I remember as a kid I would play anything I had access to and liked. Now it's more of one or two games at a time.
Pop in a game on N64/Gamecube and you're controlling the character within 10 seconds every time.
The modern upgrades for those generations really make them great - the 8BitDo kit to make an N64 controller wireless, N64 Summercarts, replacing the optical drive in Gamecubes with a memory card reader...
My oldest is 7, and my youngest almost 5, and they came into gaming in a round-about way. My sister was visiting when the oldest was 3 or 4, and asked to play "an old Sonic 3D game". So, I pulled the Dreamcast out of storage, hooked everything up, and she played for all of 15 minutes before getting bored. However, my daughter was enamored. Immediately asked to play and even knowing how janky old Sonic was, I obliged.
Honestly, the rest is history. I'm not exaggerating when I say that our living room TV currently has a Dreamcast, a Gamecube, an Xbox One, PS3, PS4, and Switch hooked up to it. Both girls are huge Sonic fans, and play everything from rereleases of the Genesis games, to every brand new Sonic game that comes out, along with a whole mix of other age appropriate games (3D Marios, Animal Crossing, Smash Bros, and Mario Kart all being staples in our household).
My point in all of this is that if you expose them to the older stuff at a young age and it clicks, they'll explore the gaming landscape in their own way. I've also got an 11 year old brother that plays Fortnite with his friends every day, but also is trying to collect every single Lego game that's come out since they started the Lego Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. series of games. Kids will like what they're going to like, but having parents that are enthusiastic about the breadth of what the medium has to offer will encourage them to dig being the modern offerings.
This is interesting, as I was about to say that gaming has never been more alive than it is now - but it's true that at least the developments in hardware are not nearly as exciting as they used to be in the past. Maybe that's what he's feeling?
Now come on. The greybeard act was never believable nor interesting.
I always felt the same about the look of PS2 games
Of course, getting working code that actually does anything useful is a much different story (it's taking multiple days just to write the wrappers for RDP commands, for example; lots of cross-referencing between N64Brew wiki pages v. official SGI docs v. libdragon source code v. Peter Lemon's assembly code to figure out what all the different bitpacked fields really mean and how to best represent them), but it still feels magical that I can just use an ordinary toolchain and not some ancient proprietary monstrosity.
Sony however decided to provide a full C toolchain based on GCC as well as a set of very high level libraries that abstracted away basically all aspects of the PS1 [1], all the way up to implementing a ready-to-go 3D engine and MIDI sequencer. This was an unpopular move as the libraries were slow, inefficient and most game developers were used to having full control over the hardware, but it also allowed inexperienced devs to get started quickly (as proven by the thousands of low budget PS1 titles that used the high level APIs) and eventually contributed to the popularity of the console over its peers with worse tooling.
Sony would eventually go on to release some slightly lower level documentation for certain aspects of the console as well as APIs that better mapped to how the hardware actually worked under the hood. It wasn't however until years later that the hardware would be fully reverse engineered at the register level [2], and it took even longer for most homebrew to move away from the official SDK (which only really started happening a few years ago as accurate emulators and homebrew SDKs started popping up).
Come to think of it, it must have, because the bit-perfect recompilation projects are using the exact compilers from the SDK.
They provide the devkit hardware, the specification technical documentation and the tool chain to compile the binary.