View Single Post
Old 10 October 2012, 18:22   #63
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: london/england
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag View Post
This is not the fault of the language. Amos is perfectly capable in the right hands.

The "problem" is that Amos is easier than Blitz, so the bar for making something is lower. But if you think that choosing a more difficult language is going to improve your coding, I suspect you are going to disappoint yourself. But I never tried Blitz.

Game kits can be fun. I'm just starting work on "Beanbag Creator", essentially the Mr Beanbag developer suite packaged for consumer use. So that could be fun for somebody I guess. What I've got at the moment is pretty esoteric and not suitable for release, but if I can turn it into something nice for anybody to use I don't see why not. (I want to make it nicer just for my own sake, in any case.)
All BASIC dialects aimed at producing graphically/sonically rich games are underpinned by their own machine code/object libraries to achieve things like moving BOBs around the screen etc and the back end of Blitz is much more powerful in terms of % of total chipset ability/bandwidth you can use.

I could draw the best graphics in the world, neigh arcade quality sprite rips even, but AMOS doesn't have the underlying power to move all that stuff around the screen to NOT make it look like a PD game in terms of amount of action on screen. Still it's better than SEUCK Plus Cinemaware used a high level language to create their games too, like a bespoke game maker, so for me it makes it tantalisingly plausible to do high quality Cinemaware style games that ape the commercial originals.
ImmortalA1000 is offline  
Page generated in 0.05178 seconds with 9 queries