the-pi-guy said:
Just wanted to point out that technically, you can combine C++ with in-line Assembly (which is essentially readable machine code), this link has an example of what that'd look like: https://www.cs.uaf.edu/2012/fall/cs301/lecture/10_01_link_with_cpp.html It's still not something that most developers would want to do, because the compiler is usually going to write better optimized code. But, Ferrari's link here actually purports that Naughty Dog did use assembly with C++: "instead dedicated their efforts to rebuilding the tools, engine, and game in C++ and assembly language."
It also mentions in there that they used Assembly and C++. |
Yep it does.
Pemalite said:
They optimized their workload for the Cells SPE's more effectively than any other developer.
Assembly isn't machine code, there is still a conversion that takes place by using an "Assembler". - If the original argument was about Assembly, then my original statements would indeed be false. |
Nope, my argument was that ND used a closer to the metal language than other devs as a reason their game where over the others. They had to go closer to the metal exactly to make sure they were using the HW as best as possible.
As far as I know Assembly is "as close as possible" without really writting 0 and 1.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."