Maybe everyone should agree to never be angry again!
On Mar 10, 2012 7:37 PM, "Brian Brown" <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How is what I said not true?
> Technically, a video game physically consists of:
>
>  IMAGES and SOUNDS
>
>  Get those to move and play the way you want along with the controller
> input and that's ALL WE PHYSICALLY NEED FOR A COMPUTER GAME.
>
> We don't smell the game.
> We don't taste the screen.
> We don't jump into the screen.
> We ONLY PRESS BUTTONS to make the character (or other variables) move.
>
> We SEE the screen. Each frame has only ONE IMAGE per frame.
> We HEAR the speakers. Each speaker executes only ONE SAMPLE at a time.
>
> With no image or sound-- There is NO COMPUTER GAME AT ALL. Because
> that is ALL IT PHYSICALLY CONSISTS OF.
>
> (1)  image-output.
> (2)  sound-output.
> (3)  player-input. (controller)
> (4)  program [sending out images(1) and sound(2) according to
> current-game-status] and [manipulating current-game-status according
> to current-game-status along with current-player-input(3) ].
>
> initialize_games_variables()
> start_games_main_loop()
> end_game()
>
>
>
> All computer games work this way just as they all have a "MAIN LOOP."
> If you don't like it, I'm fine with that. But it is the truth.
> As for anyone else who is actually willing to learn something new,
> I'd love to share my knowledge. : )
>
> Now about my question. Please answer it only if you know the answer.
> (I'm not asking anyone to do any serious research.)
> If you don't know the answer-- Then just please don't answer it.
> Thanks guys. : )
> I appreciate   all   your replies. ; )
> Sincerely, Matthew
>
> (Thanks Chris, for letting me know that my somewhat unclear messages
> were causing you frustration. I hope this clears things up.)
>
> On 3/10/12, Christopher Arndt <ch...@chrisarndt.de> wrote:
> > On 11.03.2012 01:15, Brian Brown wrote:
> >> Haven't I just given you one of the most profound statements of
> >> efficient game programming?
> >> Shouldn't you be grateful?
> >
> > That's not true, Matt.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>

Reply via email to