Originally Posted by Harry
I have played it a lot, and hung it a lot until I learned not to try to roll out of an abyss, but use the parachute instead.
Do we mean the same thing? Just tried my original now, just a couple levels, and it just gives me the option to continue or restart level when I fall into an abyss, just like the cracked version I played back in the day. The disk says 'SLB65', if that's some sort of version code.
I believe you of course, and there's no question that 'hangs if you do this and then that and then crouch for too long if you qualify for a bonus level on level 21' (my poor attempt at describing hard-to-playtest bugs) or the Atomix example (which is hopefully not as intended, like cracker hiscore hogging
) is annoying as hell, but the thread is about clean code. A game can be very well-written and depending on the game's complexity the coder could have not been able to test every combination. He could even have made simple mistakes like the Atomix example, and the code would still be well-written, if you know what I mean. (Note however that I couldn't say the game code in Atomix wasn't utter shit or the ultimate perfection, see below for why.)
As opposed to the likes of misc. early arcade conversions like Soldier Of Light, 2.5D driving games that are not Vroom or Lotus, various horrible beat'em-ups and other tripe made in a couple months to cash in on some license.
Regarding bugs, I just don't think I could have been so lucky as to have virtually no problems playing mostly cracks from 1987-1990 and mostly originals from 1991-now on my A500 and never had any real trouble. A few games crashed of course, but it was always fixed with a proper crack or an error-free copy.
Most of the games passing by on my A500 were made before 1992, though. I can't say anything about AGA games, for example, since I've not really played them a lot.
I think there's been enough talk about bugs though.
If I were to give a go at recommending clean game code for coders to look at, I'm afraid it would just be another list of famous names; Braben, Crammond, MacLean, Braybrook, et al. Not Minter though. (So spank meh, I'm pretty sure it's the truth
I think it's more interesting to look at what games did something new.
Here, some interesting things pop up. Lemmings (Dave Jones), Worms, Silk Worm, Maggots, Lentils (just kidding), Nebulus (Phillips), Eliminator (Weber), Exile (Irvin/Reeve), Another World (one-man game creator hero Eric Chahi!) and so on.
Some games did something new by nearing performance limits:
Turrican II, X-Out, Mega Typhoon, Unreal. It's very likely that instead of clean, neatly ordered code you will see code that sells its own mother to gain 4 cycles (ahem, so to speak).
So, do you want to see *great* code or clean code?
Or do you want a flawless game, however trivial or boring, as long as you can complete the dorky game without seeing a single flaw?
A bit exaggerated, but I think it's a good viewpoint. You take the bad with the good, if it's crap you don't play it and if it's good but crashy/unplayable you ask the WHDLoad heros to please fix it for free for you