|
Pages: 1 [2]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Port Star Control to GBA? (Read 11912 times)
|
Casey
Guest
|
Ur-Quan Masters as it stands right now is a 3D0 emulator and the SC2 3D0 rom, slightly modified, in one self-installing package, am I correct?
Who knows? Maybe a GBA rom would be cleaner.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
marcuslycus
Zebranky food
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 5
Quack!
|
Gah! 
You all seem to be thinking wrong... I WAS thinking of a commercial release. Why would we take the trouble porting it to a console (or portable) system, trying to save money, only to lose a lot of time trying to come up with ways around the hardware limitations??
I am going to have to research the way to do this, but if I can find the right team, it would be rather simple to port Star Control over to the GBA. The problem would arise on how to get acceptance from whoever owns the program? The name change to the Ur-Quan Masters would be easy, to get around the rights to the Star Control name. But I would still need some acceptance from the true owners on commercial release of the game. Does anyone know who I would contace? Toys for Bob?
Thank you,
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Black Monk
Guest
|
Yeah, I think that's who you'd contact.
As for UQM being run in a 3DO emulator, I don't think that's accurate? Aren't they just using the game logic and file formats from the 3DO port which I'd think would be the same as the PC port? If it was straight C then it shouldn't be too machine-specific, right? Rip out the 3DO-specific sound and rendering sections and pop something more modern in--that would probably have been done for the PC version as well?
I don't see this being practical to create a 3DO emulator and then somehow extend the 3DO emulator to support OpenGL and SDL and various graphics modes? Wouldn't that be what would be modified if UQM were only just a 3DO ROM being run in an emulator?
I could be wrong, I mean, maybe it is. It just wouldn't seem to make sense.
...unless you consider the original platform of something to be the only TRUE platform and everything else--no matter how recoded it may be, to just be running in an emulator. That's like saying any Mac-specific application that gets ported to Windows is running in an emulator rather than being ported to a new platform. I just don't buy that perspective on things and I think that's the case with UQM--it is being ported from one platform (3DO) to several others (*nix, OS X, BeOS, Win32). An emulator would assume the original game were unchanged in abilities--does running StarCraft in WINE somehow make it an OpenGL-accelerated application? Or running MacOS 6.0 in Basilisk under WinXP somehow change MacOS 6.0 in any way? No, that's emulation. What UQM is, in my mind, is a port and improvement/modification of the original code.
An emulated game wouldn't have any improvements and wouldn't be as portable--since emulation is based on precompiled binaries, not recompiled source code. Emulation would only go as far as a platform that had a 3DO emulator whereas a port can be brought to platforms without the emulator.
I guess that's the main reason I don't see it as a simple emulated 3DO game. Emulators take precompiled code and recreate the hardware/environment that the precompiled code expects. This is a recompile and therefore a port.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chax
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 4
|
People, if you want to talk about this stuff, tell it to the devs. Toys for bob has made games for other systems then PC, i see no reason why they would not want to make for GB, besides, nintendo would give them plenty of money to do it. the days of n64 are over now that nintendo has huge competition from xbox and ps2. i think they would go for it
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
there is way around having to pay nintendo for rights and all that junk.
the real money is in the logo you know the little thing saying gameboy when it loads. all you need to do is design a cartidge that would have a other cartridge in it so it could borrow the boot sequence. so the liscence is payed by the other game and uqm whould not have to pay nitendo a cent. but there is the cost of developing the special cartidge.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 12, 2003, 12:25:12 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
... Wouldn't that be, um, illegal?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
NO
AT LEAST NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE
there is a prodoct that runs like that its the tv adapter for GBA
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LordJim
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 4
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
This is a bad idea. Converting a game made at 320x240 or 320x200 to 240x160 is suicide and lame. Wait for a handheld to be released that displays this resolution and higher.
-Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LordJim
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 4
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
oh by the way there are MOD players for the GBA
-Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
all you list is easyer that you make it sound. accolade is gone toys for bob own the rights to the code but not the name. so make it uqm instead of sc2. nitendo could not sue if you did not break any patents or copyrights. if you made a diferent cartridge (its been done) they could not sue. the programing language is not that big of a challenge. it would most likely cost more money then just pay nintedo its dues but it can be done LEGALY.
the rez is not realy the problenm its the screen size the game would most likely be a less fun on that screen. may have to redue the GUI.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 13, 2003, 05:53:25 am by BioSlayer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2]
|
|
|
|
|
