well i like the script syntax in SCI Studio . It makes a strange feeling... :)|
I'm afraid that when i cover in-depth sci studio i will forget my C++ knowledge ..:-)
My hope :
In next version , SCI Studio VGA can be edit script from original game ..
And hope that SCI Studio VGA will support all SCI1 games include King Quest 6... :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
As long as KQ6 is an SCI1 game it should support it... but if it is SCI11 or something else it will not support it.|
Nope editing scripts from Sierra games and games that don't release their souce will not be possible, this is for a few reasons, one we can keep our sources private(unlike AGI where anyone can steal your souce and use it). Plus using their scripts doesn't help us learn anything. So editing scripts in the original games and games that don't distribute their source won't be possible in SCI EGA or VGA ever.
You're right about not being able to edit sierra's script, but you're wrong about the reason.|
The reason is that the scripts that are inside the games are compiled, and you can only see their byte code.
In the same way, you can't open an EXE file and see it's source code in C language. You can only see it in assembly language which is not easily readable, but that's what Brian did when he made his template game: He read lots and lots of byte code from sierra's scripts and slowly reveresed engineered it into script language.
So - to sum it up: it's not really feasable.
|AGI1122||I know that they are compiled, but I do not think that there should be a "uncompiler" to put it back into the SCI script language. Brian apparently thinks this as well because he hasn't made one(even though it is possible) he said he wouldn't either.|
|HwM||Well, other peoples source (when not ripping the entire contents) could learn you a lot... Atleast, that's my experience... And has it been a problem with AGI that you could see the entire source? AFAIK, things that got ripped we're other people's/Sierra's graphics/sound, and that's still possible in SCIStudio... But there's probably a good reason for not releasing it though...|
Well here are some things I don't like about it:|
1) Ruin the game and ending by cheating and viewing the code.
2) You see all the suprises and easter eggs even if you didn't really find them in the game.
3) People steal your code completly and use it as theirs and take credit for it.
4) With thiis there is no such thing as closed source which makes it so anyone could see/use your code if you do not want them to.
The only time I think someone should be able to see your source is if you open source the game, or if the maker is distributing it to help others with their coding.
I've never understood this arguement with SCI Studio. The AGI community seems much larger than the SCI community, and I don't think it's just because it's been around for so long. Being able to view other peoples source code would personally help me a lot. Having access to the original Sierra code alone would solve so many problems. The thing that makes this arguement silly to me is that if I could decipher byte code it would be just the same as using a prebuilt decompiler/recompiler. The only thing the lack of a recompiler does is leave people that aren't good at programming out of making a game. I've been poking around AGS and I've noticed that there are a LOT more artists there than programmers. Making a game with AGS appears to be very simple. Now this would be great except, I would REALLY rather use SCI Studio. The learning curve is just too steep. I do understand the arguement about people stealing a fan made games code. That sucks. Not giving someone credit like that is just outright stealing. Would Brian consider building something into SCI Studio that only allows you to open original Sierra scripts? Some kind of protection on fan made scripts? I truly believe that doing this would cause the SCI community to grow a great deal. ;D |
just some opinions,
This whole argument is useless because building such a decompiler is almost an impossible task. it's very difficult, and I believe the reason Brian won't do it is because of it's difficulty. Do you really think Brian enjoys decompiling by hand the entire class framework if he could build a utility that does it for him automatically?|
So until some genius here builds a decent or even a semi-decent decompiler, there's no point in arguing.
AGI is a different story - there the decompiling process is very different from the SCI one because the language there is much simpler. It's closer to assembler, and it's not a high-level object oriented language like SCI.
So the reason AGI source can be viewed is not because of different mentality there. It's not something like an open-source AGI community vs. evil close-minded SCI community...
And btw - Chris: I understand your frustration, but cheating exists in closed games too: every game I know has a walkthrough avaliable, and easter eggs can be found easily too at www.eeggs.com .
Yes, SCI scripts are much like EXEs, and just like you can't just convert an EXE back to C, you can't simply convert an SCI script to full source code.|
SCI scripts are stored in an assembly language (byte code), which is completely different from the syntax you write SCI scripts in.
The task of writing a decompiler is possible, but it would be a HUGE amount of work, and I'd rather spend my time creating the whole SCI Studio VGA than a simple decomipler.
All the scripts are linked together, which is why the disassembler dumps all scripts at once. In order to properly disassemble one script, it needs to scan all the others. So, if you were going through a game like AGI Studio and clicked on a script without a source, it would need to go through up to 1000 scripts then disassemble and do complex decompiling before it would show up.
Finally, It would be FAR more complex than just v0 and o5. There would be things like (procedure 321_32230()) and (var temp0,temp1,temp2) and (local local_0012,local_2333), etc. Unless you knew a fair amount of the insides of SCI, you'd be boggled anyways.