>>3176369

Currently trying to make a ROM hack of an SNES game, which requires assembly programming. Might try an to make an NES game from scratch if I get the time though.

Also, you might want to check out >>3163930

I tried making an Atari 2600 game where you played as General Lee shooting waves of Union soldiers. Development stopped indefinitely when I realized I didn't know what the fuck I was doing.

>>3176369
Well I want to get a job as a game developer eventually so I might someday...

>>3176528
>General Lee shooting waves of Union soldiers. Development stopped indefinitely when I realized I didn't know what the fuck I was doing.
Flash news:
Inbred redneck sore loser can't into programming

>>3176369
Not NES but I've written games for other systems, consoles and computers.

>>3176528
Have a look at batari basic. If you can't make a game with that just give up and never try again.

>>3176991
I'm from California. Not a drop of Southern blood in me.

I programmed and completed an Atari 2600 game. The source is barely legible because of how primitive 6502 ASM is, but I completed it, posted it on AtariAge and it was well recieved.

I want to see if they'll put it on their store to be sold as a homebrew cart, but I have no idea how. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to send a message to someone or what, but it would be a dream come true if it made its way there.

yeah. I wouldn't really recommend it though, maybe if you want to see how it works. But remember that the devs back then had a lot of tools, they didn't write from assembler scratch anymore than devs of today do. I think you're better off just focusing on the design. If I wanted to make a game today I would use java or something easier and use the "cheapest" higher level methods to do it. If you think about it... all programming is about interfacing with the person, if higher level tools can let you do that just use them. Programming can be frustrating and a ridiculous time hog, don't feel like you have to have complicated code to feel smart or better is all I'm saying.

>>3179520
No reason 65xx code can't be legible. Maybe you aren't primitive enough to have learned how to structure, format and document assembly well?

>>3179624
I commented what each chunk of code does, and layed it out so that you could tell what part of the game each chunk is for, but it takes a lot of staring at to really comprehend what's going on.

borb

>>3179629
There are very few of us left who can just pick up some 65xx code and understand it. If you want assembly to be understandable by someone who isn't fluent you'll want to comment nearly line. At the very least you'll want to use lots of descriptive names for routines and variables. Just look at how others do it for an idea of what's involved.