• 5 Posts
  • 240 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle


  • Some extra info about Sierra’s game engines…

    AGI was indeed first used in KQ1, though earlier Sierra adventure games (even going back to Mystery House in 1980) used something extremely similar. AGI was just formalizing what they’d done before and setting it as a common platform for all future games.

    In those days, it was, of course, not possible to write an entire adventure game in machine code because there wasn’t even memory to hold more than a handful of screens. The use of bytecode was as much a compression scheme as anything else. So AGI was just a bytecode interpreter. Vector graphics primitives (e.g., draw line, flood fill) could be written in just a few bytes, much better than machine code.

    Ken Williams made a splash with early Sierra games because he had an extremely simple insight that most others at the time didn’t seem to have: for graphics operations, allow points to be on even-numbered x coordinates only. Most platforms had a horizontal resolution of 320, too much for 1 byte. Ken Williams had his early game engines divide every x coordinate by 2 so that it could fit into a single bit (essentially getting only 160 horizontal pixels). A silly trick, but it got big memory savings, and allowed him to pack more graphics into RAM than many other people could at the time.

    After AGI (KQ3 was the last King’s Quest to use AGI), Sierra switched over to their new game engine/bytecode interpreter: SCI. SCI was rolled out in two stages, though.

    SCI0 (e.g., KQ4) was 16 colours and still revolved around the text parser. SCI1 (e.g., KQ5) was 256 colours and was point-and-click. (SCI2 and later were full multimedia)

    For the game player, the major differences you’ll notice between AGI and SCI0 (both 16 colours, both text-based) are that SCI0 renders using dithering, gets full horizontal precision (x coordinates stored in 2 bytes), multiple fonts, support for real sound devices (MT32, Adlib). For the programmer, though, AGI and SCI0 were pretty radically different. SCI0 as a programming language was an object-oriented vaguely Scheme-inspired sort of language, and was actually pretty radically different from AGI.







  • duncesplayed@lemmy.onetoAnarchyChess@sopuli.xyzDecisions
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Let’s do the CBA.

    Keep playing:

    • Gain playing-from-a-losing-position XP
    • Gain end-game XP
    • Gain playing-without-a-queen XP
    • Allow your opponent the satisfaction of a mate
    • Bestow honour onto the name of your family

    Resign:

    • Save 1 minute of your time
    • Feel like a stupid pansy bitch

    Tough choice.


  • It is, but it probably shouldn’t be any more. WebP has good support everywhere now and is slightly better than JPEG and PNG combined. (Better lossy compression than JPEG, plus transparency support, and better lossless compression than PNG). But even WebP is considered lame these days compared to the new crop.

    E.g., JXL (JPEG XL) is much better WebP and is supported by everyone except Google (which is ironic since Google helped create it). Google seems to want AVIF to be the winner for the new image format, but not many others do.

    Anyway, until the Google JXL AVIF hissy fit is dealt with, at least we’ve still got WebP. It’s not super great, but it’s at least better than JPEG and PNG. A lot of web developers are stuck in their old JPEG PNG mindset and are being slow to adapt, so JPEG is still hanging around.