Jonathan
I am not a leet hax0r :(
Posts: 591
Registered: 05-00 |
myk said:
The port is replacing a component of the actual game, a piece that was made by id, while the emulator is only an added component that allows it to function on today's expected machine and OS. As it is (in the package), the game works on the systems that it was originally released for, plus modern or state of the art ones emulating it.
Yes, that's an explanation of the difference between a bundled source port and an emulator, but it doesn't actually address my actual question of how the latter is easier than the former does it?
myk said:
As far as a stable build of a port is concerned, that would be for now, supposedly, but how long that lasts also depends on it being supported so that it remains stable, something they can't guarantee without an effort (now and later).
Yes, and the situation is exactly the same with the DOSBox project as it is with a source port.
myk said:
I think that what he says at the end counts, as well. That they aren't going to make any of them official. Carmack knows there are many engines people use, with different features and aims, and (especially without putting work onto it) doesn't want to present one as backed by them. Otherwise some developers would be discouraged because people would say stuff like "uh, Port-A sucks, id sanctioned Port-B as the engine to use!"
Yeah, and just releasing the original Doom.exe will make people say "uh, all the ports suck, none of them are as good as the original engine". Except actually it won't, that's just me putting stupid words in peoples' mouths the same as you are.
And in any case, who cares even if it would give ammunition to a tiny minority of partisan Doom nerds. Or, for that matter, who cares if some port authors would start crying because they hadn't received id's blessing. Frankly, they shouldn't be such babies, and understand that including a no-frills native Windows port isn't conferring it some special status, it's just a way to deliver a better experience to their customers, which should always be the highest priority over and above the egos of port developers. Not that I actually think that would be the case, as I think most, if not all, port developers are eminently sensible people, not hysterical drama-weaving loons.
|
08-07-07 05:33 
