› ›

Curious "Pud-Pud" screenshot

Neil ParsonsNeil Parsons
edited July 2010 in Games
You may notice of a curious screenshot made for this article appeared at Microhobby magazine (the one at the bottom left) from Jonathan "Joffa" Smith game. In fact, all we can find that image when playing Pud Pud.

http://microhobby.speccy.cz/mhf/040/MH040_14.jpg

How strange seems to me watching this screen now... :-(
Post edited by Neil Parsons on

Comments

  • fogfog
    edited July 2010
    it has been mentioned before, but well that was 1984..

    and the game is supposed to be a tad surreal..

    did ya find all 10 puddings?

    it made me think, is it possible to do an rzx of it , simply because the location of the puddings is random
  • Neil ParsonsNeil Parsons
    edited July 2010
    did ya find all 10 puddings?

    Nop. I'll have to do a try in minutes, or maybe before.
  • mermanmerman
    edited July 2010
    Is it completely random, or are there fixed positions on each screen where the puddings can be?
  • fogfog
    edited July 2010
    completely random, thats why I quizzed if an RZX off the game would work, or would it trip it up ?

    I kept meaning to ask to get his (joffa's) permission for a 64 port
  • WillyWilly
    edited July 2010
    fog wrote: »
    completely random, thats why I quizzed if an RZX off the game would work, or would it trip it up ?

    There's no reason an RZX wouldn't be possible - there's no such thing as "random".
  • fogfog
    edited July 2010
    Willy wrote: »
    There's no reason an RZX wouldn't be possible - there's no such thing as "random".

    well as you know , the locations of the "pudding" change every time you play? or load? so.. say the rzx isn't saving that specific "state" visiting them same screens = no puddings.
  • AndyCAndyC
    edited July 2010
    fog wrote: »
    well as you know , the locations of the "pudding" change every time you play? or load? so.. say the rzx isn't saving that specific "state" visiting them same screens = no puddings.

    It "looks" random, because computers can do a reasonable job of faking it. However they are ultimately entirely deterministic, so when you start from a fixed point and receive identical input it always behaves the same. That's why RZXs work. :)
  • WillyWilly
    edited July 2010
    AndyC wrote: »
    It "looks" random, because computers can do a reasonable job of faking it. However they are ultimately entirely deterministic, so when you start from a fixed point and receive identical input it always behaves the same. That's why RZXs work. :)

    This chap knows what he's on about. For any given system, if you can describe it's initial state perfectly[1] and know every single rule governing that system, then the state of that system can be predicted with 100% accuracy. RZXs work by storing the state of the entire speccy, and recording every input the user makes.

    There are two generally accepted methods of making random numbers - base them off a system clock of sufficient resolution (say, milliseconds) and base them off the time between user inputs. Combine the two, and you have a reasonably reliable random number generator.

    Because both of these are tightly controlled in an RZX (the only user input that can happen is that which has been recorded, and the system time is determined at startup and never changes) then any random numbers generated while the RZX is being recorded will be repeated exactly the same on subsequent run-throughs.

    [1] "Perfectly" in the scientific sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.