pouët.net

Playstation 1 era Software development methodologies?

category: general [glöplog]
Does anybody know anything about Playstation 1 era software development methodologies? What type of practices etc ps1 game programmers would use. My guess would be oop, but my guess is no good because I'm not sure if they were using C, or C++ , or maybe even ASM (in some places).

Also, besides here of course, any ideas where this question might get some good answers?

I'm just doing a little bit of research and any info would be helpful.

Thanks!
added on the 2009-03-23 03:14:49 by xteraco xteraco
C++, basic OOP (really little amount of memory and the compilers weren't that good back then), lots of ASM inner loops because the thing had the one or other nice coprocessor. Also, code cache was something you really had to consider.
added on the 2009-03-23 03:27:02 by kb_ kb_
Pretty much what kb said...

I just have one use-case of assembler to add: Group together writes to memory. That was the fastest way to get things into main-memory because that increased the chance to get a burst write. Unfortunately the compiler knew nothing about that, so you had do to it by hand.

added on the 2009-03-23 04:28:33 by torus torus
asm & c (not much ++ yet as far as i have heard), more lut/math tricks and all that what was said already.

what kind of research are you doing, exactly?
added on the 2009-03-23 13:55:57 by superplek superplek
Back in the day games didn't have the luxury of internet updates and patches. It seems like the norm these days that a game is released with bugs, and then you have to download an update or patch. I'm trying to learn how dev teams were able to ship games without critical bugs.

What type of development processes and testing went on to ensure a game was top quality. What is the difference between console development today, and development as it was back then.
added on the 2009-03-23 14:29:54 by xteraco xteraco
guys, you should open and fill a wiki about all the fun facts and technical exploits behind the making of all the past games you have been part of, i'm sure many fanboys around the net would be interested :D

(i remember i had read a book by Daniel Ichbiah about the saga of id software back in the 90s with a lot of interest!)

you could even print the best bits (many bookstore hits are blog prints currently) and share free beers at parties ;D

and it would definitely set up the videogames (and demoscene) culture as a main pop culture :)
added on the 2009-03-23 14:49:48 by aftu aftu
Quote:
It seems like the norm these days that a game is released with bugs, and then you have to download an update or patch. I'm trying to learn how dev teams were able to ship games without critical bugs.


First of all, games are and were rarely shipped without bugs. The amount of bugs naturally grows along with the complexity of the projects (which for a given PS1 game is much less than a PS3 title today). Stringent testing is and was done by QA teams (a combination of checking pre-defined compatibility / consistency rule check and all sorts of context-specific/crash bugs).

I don't know about the NES/SNES-era, but I guess you can sort of scale back the process described and there's your answer.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:00:50 by superplek superplek
And the ability to patch a game these days generally does not imply that the games are buggier. They always had bugs, just now there's a possibility to fix them afterwards. Which is a good thing.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:02:14 by superplek superplek
or they just made the game so damn hard to beat noone noticed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_screen
added on the 2009-03-23 15:12:26 by Gargaj Gargaj
For the PS1 stuff that I worked on: fairly heavy use of C++ (don't think we ever went as far as templates) and bespoke scripting systems for the higher level/gameplay stuff, and C/ASM for for the lower level stuff. How did we make games that didn't require patching? BECAUSE WE WERE JUST THAT GOOD! ;P

Ok.. actually I think it was just much more possible to catch all major bugs in games back in those days because the games were smaller and less complex and created by smaller teams. It was also "the done thing" to release games without bugs back then, and had been for a decade or two before that - remember that carts and tape software had been around for a while already. Finally, if your game *had* made it to the shelves with serious bugs in then, without any way to patch, the cost of a recall would have been high

So... *part* of the reason why games ship with bugs in today is... because they can
added on the 2009-03-23 15:16:48 by evilpaul evilpaul
I knew this would come up. I never said that ps1/old games didn't have bugs. I did not imply that the ability to patch games makes games buggier.

Even games of the ps1 era are fairly complex. Take metal gear solid for example. I would not call metal gear solid a simple game. Sure it may not have graphics compared to today's games.

As far as logic, file handling, level layout, triggers, and everything non graphics related, there are ps1 games that are on par with the complexity of today's games.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:18:01 by xteraco xteraco
fixing bugs with patches may be awesome for the consumers, but it's not very fun for the devs who thought they were finally done with the damn thing. :p

And as already said, there have always been bugs, but off course the amount increases drastically with the scale. Also, developers were much better at turning bugs into features in the old days (especially in the NES/SNES era, in games such as Metroid).
added on the 2009-03-23 15:20:19 by wb wb
{quote]As far as logic, file handling, level layout, triggers, and everything non graphics related, there are some ps1 games that are on par with the complexity of some today's games.[/quote]

There, I fixed it for you.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:22:34 by Preacher Preacher
Damn. An another try:

Quote:
As far as logic, file handling, level layout, triggers, and everything non graphics related, there are some ps1 games that are on par with the complexity of some today's games.


There, I fixed it for you. Also, I'd like to add that modern stuff like online multiplayer alone makes a lot of games of today a shitload more complicated.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:23:38 by Preacher Preacher
So then I guess I should rephrase my question. Why do games like MGS for ps1 (a fairly complex game) ship without major bugs when modern games (even more simple ones) ship with bugs.

I want to know what went on back then, not now. What did they do then to ensure high quality. What were the dev practices, what were the techniques they used to find bugs.

"PS1 games are a lot more simple than todays games" doesn't feel like the right answer. Any other ideas on this?
added on the 2009-03-23 15:31:39 by xteraco xteraco
A question: Are you either doing game development for living or do you have experience working on larger software projects?
added on the 2009-03-23 15:34:40 by Preacher Preacher
I'm not doing game dev for a living. I do have experience working on large software projects. Why?
added on the 2009-03-23 15:36:45 by xteraco xteraco
Because then it would be obvious to you that by having more complicated development environments and more complicated software you're working on would lead to more complicated bugs and other issues. Combine that with increasing bureaucracy, increasing budgets and tighter deadlines and there you go.

That's also the reason why Word has more bugs than Notepad, even if both can be used to write text.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:40:55 by Preacher Preacher
Quote:
Even games of the ps1 era are fairly complex. Take metal gear solid for example. I would not call metal gear solid a simple game. Sure it may not have graphics compared to today's games.


Though I wouldn't dare to compare it to the fourth installment in terms of code, content and overall project size. It's just right. What Preacher said.

Quote:
What did they do then to ensure high quality. What were the dev practices


The freaking same ones used now, just scaled back to the timeframe at hand.

If you've done large software projects then why do you keep repeating the same question and getting the same answers and still don't want to accept it?
added on the 2009-03-23 15:47:55 by superplek superplek
some 'bugs' make things better : http://wiibrew.org/wiki/Twilight_Hack ;)
added on the 2009-03-23 15:53:54 by aftu aftu
Quote:
Why do games like MGS for ps1 (a fairly complex game) ship without major bugs when modern games (even more simple ones) ship with bugs.

I want to know what went on back then, not now. What did they do then to ensure high quality. What were the dev practices, what were the techniques they used to find bugs.


Nothing went wrong since those days, it's just that videogames have become increasingly complex along with the hardware they run on. The cost of a so called "next gen" games is also much much higher.

In big studios you can find armies of testers, QA teams dedicated to each project etc...

Problem is, those games have become so complex that it would virtually take an infinite amount of time to debug them almost entirely, especially when you have big open worlds with systemic AI and stuff like that.

At some point, you have to accept to ship a game with a few acceptable bugs if you want it to get ship at all, especially considering how the budget for PS3/360 games exploded.


Quote:
"PS1 games are a lot more simple than todays games" doesn't feel like the right answer. Any other ideas on this?


Yet it's true.

And what Preacher said.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:54:46 by keops keops
if you want it to get *shipped* at all.
added on the 2009-03-23 15:56:05 by keops keops
i think the following (admittedly somewhat artifical but still rather significant) comparison is a very good, mathematical representation of the answer:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/grand-theft-auto/credits
vs
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/grand-theft-auto-iv/credits
added on the 2009-03-23 15:58:09 by Gargaj Gargaj
heh good point, gta4 credits screens/scenes are endless :D
added on the 2009-03-23 16:00:18 by aftu aftu
There is NO way they used the same methodologies that we have today with PS1 games. It is not the same. ExtreamProgramming, agile, lean, RAD, This stuff is all pretty new.

I want to know what their practices were back then.

Also, because I disagree doesn't mean that I haven't been involved in large software projects. I've been involved in multiple projects, and seen products ship with bugs for multiple reasons. Some of which are not applicable to game development.

Not all software ships with bugs for the same reason.
added on the 2009-03-23 16:09:02 by xteraco xteraco

login