#18089 - sajiimori - Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:34 am
Quote: |
Ok, criteria... 1) You have complete control over the hardware 2) The hardware doesn't change 3) You are working with the hardware, not an API 4) The hardware is designed for games, making it easier to make them 5) The community is very helpful 6) No Bill Gates to create a monopoly (unless Microsoft releases the X-Boy) 7) It's really easy to find source for a complete game/demo 8) You learn a variety of things that doesn't happen on a PC, like optimizing code, profiling it, etc. 9) It's actually possible to create a working engine suitable for games by yourself 10) The minimum requirement for playing a GBA game is a GBA and the game. |
The items in your list are more like supporting arguments than criteria. One example of a criterium that seems to fit some of your points would be "How much control the developer has (more is better)". The idea is to define the things that determine what "better" means, in a way that allows a direct (though possibly subjective) comparison.
I agree with all the things you listed except the point about optimization and profiling, as those are very relevant for PC development (and I'm using the term "PC" broadly). Also, about the monopoly thing, OpenGL is platform-independent so it only applies to D3D.
Essentially, all your comments about GBA development versus PC development could be summed up with: "When trying to make a game that will succeed in a competitive market, it's easier to develop for GBA than PC."
And I think that's true. Because PCs are more capable, and there are developers that are trying to exploit those capabilities, it can be hard to keep up. You have to be willing to accept the added complexity that is involved in a more powerful system, and then tame that complexity.
Still, none of that seems to justify using a generic term like "better".