No, it's not what I said. It is just what you hear or feel, for whatever reason.
I've just said, based on my real-life experience, that you should solve problems in a pragmatic way and not to prove anything.
Sorry, you're right, I did bend what you said a little bit.
Talking to the truth, I'm getting angry that you guys encourage kids to make pointless and futile efforts, which quickly leads to frustration.
This however, I agree with, but I'm coming from a different angle.
You're thinking that we should continue on the shoulders of giants, but all I'm saying is those giants don't exist in the way you think they do and Unity and Unreal are definitely not the right choices anyway.
So, I picked those games because aside from 1942, I played them all. I was thinking of 1943, the sequel that made it down to australia in the 90's. I did see 1942 cabinets, but I was specifically thinking of 1943 and the animation of the player plane doing an extremely smoothly animated dive bomb in the attract reel, something you couldn't actually DO in game, but that's why it was on the attract reel, because I still specifically remember that animation lol.
Aside from the joke (and in-joke) about Max Payne, strictly because I really can't think of any third person ray-caster tile engine games. All the examples I recall are using primitive 3D and that is currently beyond snap!'s scope. Currently.
All of them, even Mario, were written by kids/young men experimenting with limited hardware, most of which was purely guesswork in the first place. PC's in 1992 were meant to be for businesses, wholely and solely mathematic logic, they weren't designed for Wolf3D and yet, a kid figured it out and did it, and that kid, John Carmack, proceeded to shape and drive way computers were made for around 15 years, the reason we have the machines we do at the moment isn't solely because of John, but our general purpose devices are general purpose because of that.
The problem is, when Carmack left games, a lot of companies jumped into the space and started selling 3rd party tool kits, like Unity and Unreal (Ok, Unreal was already there, but they flourished without John in their way) and the underlying assumption that making games is hard and that they do the work for you.
Which is what I've been saying for a long time, we treat programming as a whole, as if it's still the 80's and no-one knows what they're doing, which isn't even remotely true and hasn't been for a while.
Kids have access to godot/scratch/snap/unity/unreal and yet, where is this generation's John C? They have these toolkits around and yet... nothing? Why?
Because they're being told it's too hard. They're being told to use unity, they're being told that digging further is unnecessary because those are solved problems.
Which means that no-one's exploring anymore and we're teaching kids the wrong lessons.
The reason we need to teach people the underlying mechanics is because they'll learn more doing it, and you can use snap! to demonstrate these things visually as well. You can get them to think about it themselves and teach them that way, instead of assuming Unity is a good idea. (It is not)
Like, I'd do this myself, but I'm all talk, because the one thing John Carmack did right, is leave all his work open source, so you can (If you can read text code) see how john went from tiles and rays to BSP Geometry and beyond...
Except, as I keep saying, the code he wrote is written for toasters and arguing with those toasters to produce things they weren't designed for, so you can't really implement those in snap because snap doesn't use or understand 486 logic, because at a minimum it doesn't NEED to, kids aren't using 486's any more so we don't need to understand DOS and memory management.
Which isn't to say that's a bad idea, that kind of baseline is still a very good idea, but it isn't EXPLAINED in modern terms, because it gets handwaved away as a solved problem. Which is endemic to computation as a whole.
