This game _is_ my childhood. Spent countless hours one summer doing every scenario, learning all the little easter eggs (Michael Schumacher on the Go karts anyone?).
The spirit of this game lives on now in OpenRCT2 [1] - which brings the game into the modern age and is backwards compatible with all the scenarios from the original. It even features multiplayer park building.
Also Car Park Capital [1], an upcoming indie tycoon game in the style of RCT1/2 where you contribute to urban sprawl. It's being published by Microprose and runs on a custom engine [2] that makes it look incredibly similar to the original games.
I initially found his channel when he build a working calculator from roller coasters in RCT2.[1] It's been fun since then learning about how guests decide to enter a toilet or why guests will always get stuck in certain maze designs etc.
Speaking of which, I wonder what Chris would think of OpenRCT2 and OpenTTD, which reimplemented his games with different programming languages and outright different graphics (which allowed the latter to reach its 1.0 milestone not requiring the original Transport Tycoon assets).
The are no direct statements but one from his agency [1]
> The project has no blessing or support from Chris Sawyer and our view, it is both unethical and unlawful, involving infringements that may in some territories be criminal as well as a violation of Chris Sawyer's rights and those of his licensees - all of which remain reserved.
> RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic, distributed by Atari, contains RCT and RCT2 rebuilt for modern operating systems under Chris's own direction.
I was involved in the early days of OpenTTD and one of the big issues was the first version was basically just a decompiled version of the original TTD binaries. Giving any kind of blessing would basically relinquish control of IP - that due to publisher contracts he may or may not actually be able to do. Legally this is the only thing he can say.
I'm unfamiliar with OpenRCT2 but I can't imagine the RCTC rebuild has nearly as many features; them making the comparison just makes their project look worse.
It has feature parity, and more. It's an incredibly faithful recreation to the original - and the features they have added in my opinion are primarily QoL improvements and nothing stupid.
Why would implementing a compatible game engine be unlawful? The code he wrote is copyrighted but the concepts and functional elements embodied by his code shouldn't be protected.
OpenRCT2 and OpenTTD are, at best, derivative works, if not outright infringement (the line between infringement and derivative in computer code is quite muddy, and there is very little in the way of precedence to illuminate the difference). These projects are not like WINE or ReactOS, reimplementing something by carefully observing what it does and attempting to reproduce it, but rather built (originally) by decompiling the original and otherwise heavily reliant on outright reuse of parts of the original.
Snitching? Talk about making a tiny email a big deal. Atari already knowing about OpenRCT2 since before the email makes the forcible induced drama even more cringy.
I can't recall the source so take this with a grain of salt (I think some members of the OpenTTD forum managed to contact him), but I remember him not being happy about it.
He perfected the games according to his vision, so it makes sense for him not to like people rewriting his code and adding new features.
He doesn't like them. Basically the games were finished as in an art piece is finished (don't tell George Lucas!) and the later projects (OpenTTD/OpenRCT2) are "remixing" those.
Chris Sawyer is my hero. I spent countless hours on his games when I was a child, and maybe that's the reason why I've became a programmer.
I'm sad that Chris Sawyer is such a reserved person, his public appearances are super rare [1] and he has no internet presence, except for a website that hasn't been updated in ages [2].
I wish he had a blog where he shared how he made his games.
I get a different feeling from Sawyer being a reserved person, it actually gives me hope and joy, that he can enjoy something he's obviously great at, and doesn't need to compromise on "getting famous" or "being recognizable" in order to get there.
Sometimes you get the impression that you have to be on social media to have an impact on the world, or that if you don't share your development tips on a blog you aren't as good as someone who does. And it's not right, but it's a really easy trap to fall into.
But for me Sawyer proves that this is not needed at all. He's enjoying his relatively anonymous life (compared to what it could have been) yet have accomplished games that will probably always been remembered as long as there is humans alive.
> It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.
Is the most interesting quote IMO. I often feel like productivity has gone down significantly in recent years, despite tooling and computers being more numerous/sophisticated/fast.
It's possible that "it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++" because ⓐ those programmers were not as good as he was, and/or ⓑ they had to duplicate the behavior of an existing program exactly, rather than enjoying Bob Ross's happy little accidents, as long as the game was fun.
I'm pretty sure most programmers who are comfortable in both C++ and assembly language can add working functionality to a program faster in C++ than in assembly. Of course, certain C++ libraries will eliminate that advantage, but choosing to use those libraries isn't essentially different from many other bad decisions you might make about how to write a large program.
> it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++. It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.
Expanding the quote because the word "team" is probably relevant to why it took longer to rewrite. At a certain scale there just is a huge advantage in everything being inside one head...
Communication overhead is a big thing in teams. If you have a struggling team, halve the size. It's crazy how well that works. It's not the people but the number of them. Once your people are consumed by the day to day frustrations of having to communicate with everyone else and with all the infighting, posturing, etc. that comes with that, they'll get nothing done. Splitting teams is an easy to implement fix. Minimize the communication paths between the two (or more) teams and carve up what they work on and suddenly shit gets done.
In this case, they probably were trying to not just rewrite but improve the engine at the same time. That's a much more complicated thing to achieve. Especially when the original is a heavily optimized and probably somewhat hard to reason about blob of assembly. I'm guessing that even wrapping your head around that would be a significant job.
Amazingly enjoyable game btw. Killed quite a few hours with that one around 2000.
>Communication overhead is a big thing in teams. If you have a struggling team, halve the size. It's crazy how well that works.
I wish my managers would get this. Currently our product shit the fan due to us being understaffed and badly managed due to clueless managers, and what they did was add two more managers to the team to create more meetings and micromanage everrying.
Chris Sawyer lived and breathed assembly, earlier in the article he states that he just felt more efficient writing it than higher level languages. Then you've got the modern team of devs who probably haven't worked with asm since university, and it becomes difficult for them to review the original source code. Also Chris probably wasn't doing a lot of the actual programming, so instead of one guy working on a passion project, you have a team of devs doing a job.
Found this part strange because in other interviews he seemed to imply (for RCT classic) that there was almost some kind of VM-like structure that was running the original code underneath as-is
I think the real constraint must be market timing - as much work as people can do to meet the market (eg. Have the thing done by Christmas), that much will end up being done.
I print RCT 'rollercoaster coasters' out of my kitchen for Etsy. Free Dynamite Dunes candles this year because we ordered too many (write in that you want one).
> it just sort of grew gradually and I felt it was better spending my time working on something that was fun to work on even if at the time it looked like there was no possibility of it becoming commercially worthwhile.
The indie ethos, before it was even a thing (or in the very early stages).
This game _is_ my childhood. Spent countless hours one summer doing every scenario, learning all the little easter eggs (Michael Schumacher on the Go karts anyone?).
The spirit of this game lives on now in OpenRCT2 [1] - which brings the game into the modern age and is backwards compatible with all the scenarios from the original. It even features multiplayer park building.
[1] https://openrct2.io/
Also Car Park Capital [1], an upcoming indie tycoon game in the style of RCT1/2 where you contribute to urban sprawl. It's being published by Microprose and runs on a custom engine [2] that makes it look incredibly similar to the original games.
[1] https://hilkojj.nl/
[2] https://hilkojj.nl/projects
I can wholeheartedly recommend Marcel Vos' YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlXovStrlQkVA2xJEROUNg
He is basically reverse engineering and explaining RCT's logic and design, but does it via entertaining videos.
I initially found his channel when he build a working calculator from roller coasters in RCT2.[1] It's been fun since then learning about how guests decide to enter a toilet or why guests will always get stuck in certain maze designs etc.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQGa0DPwes0
Speaking of which, I wonder what Chris would think of OpenRCT2 and OpenTTD, which reimplemented his games with different programming languages and outright different graphics (which allowed the latter to reach its 1.0 milestone not requiring the original Transport Tycoon assets).
The are no direct statements but one from his agency [1]
> The project has no blessing or support from Chris Sawyer and our view, it is both unethical and unlawful, involving infringements that may in some territories be criminal as well as a violation of Chris Sawyer's rights and those of his licensees - all of which remain reserved.
> RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic, distributed by Atari, contains RCT and RCT2 rebuilt for modern operating systems under Chris's own direction.
[1] https://forums.openrct2.org/topic/5646-how-is-openrct2-legal...
I was involved in the early days of OpenTTD and one of the big issues was the first version was basically just a decompiled version of the original TTD binaries. Giving any kind of blessing would basically relinquish control of IP - that due to publisher contracts he may or may not actually be able to do. Legally this is the only thing he can say.
I'm unfamiliar with OpenRCT2 but I can't imagine the RCTC rebuild has nearly as many features; them making the comparison just makes their project look worse.
It has feature parity, and more. It's an incredibly faithful recreation to the original - and the features they have added in my opinion are primarily QoL improvements and nothing stupid.
Why would implementing a compatible game engine be unlawful? The code he wrote is copyrighted but the concepts and functional elements embodied by his code shouldn't be protected.
OpenRCT2 and OpenTTD are, at best, derivative works, if not outright infringement (the line between infringement and derivative in computer code is quite muddy, and there is very little in the way of precedence to illuminate the difference). These projects are not like WINE or ReactOS, reimplementing something by carefully observing what it does and attempting to reproduce it, but rather built (originally) by decompiling the original and otherwise heavily reliant on outright reuse of parts of the original.
OpenRCT2 was a direct derivative of RCT2 at first, to the point it would just directly call into the game executable everywhere.
See e.g: https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/commit/643db7ae017e04d1...
I see. Yeah it's hard to defend that. The correct way to do it would be to reverse engineer the game and produce a clean room implementation.
A user naively snitching on the project between their 2nd and 3rd posts is a really great bit.
Snitching? Talk about making a tiny email a big deal. Atari already knowing about OpenRCT2 since before the email makes the forcible induced drama even more cringy.
I can't recall the source so take this with a grain of salt (I think some members of the OpenTTD forum managed to contact him), but I remember him not being happy about it.
He perfected the games according to his vision, so it makes sense for him not to like people rewriting his code and adding new features.
He doesn't like them. Basically the games were finished as in an art piece is finished (don't tell George Lucas!) and the later projects (OpenTTD/OpenRCT2) are "remixing" those.
You just made my day. Today is going to be really productive.
Beware that you still need a copy of the original RCT2 game in order to play OpenRCT2. You can still buy it on GOG [1] though.
[1] https://www.gog.com/en/game/rollercoaster_tycoon_2
Chris Sawyer is my hero. I spent countless hours on his games when I was a child, and maybe that's the reason why I've became a programmer.
I'm sad that Chris Sawyer is such a reserved person, his public appearances are super rare [1] and he has no internet presence, except for a website that hasn't been updated in ages [2].
I wish he had a blog where he shared how he made his games.
[1] One of the few: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU73g72NTHc [2] https://chrissawyergames.com/
I get a different feeling from Sawyer being a reserved person, it actually gives me hope and joy, that he can enjoy something he's obviously great at, and doesn't need to compromise on "getting famous" or "being recognizable" in order to get there.
Sometimes you get the impression that you have to be on social media to have an impact on the world, or that if you don't share your development tips on a blog you aren't as good as someone who does. And it's not right, but it's a really easy trap to fall into.
But for me Sawyer proves that this is not needed at all. He's enjoying his relatively anonymous life (compared to what it could have been) yet have accomplished games that will probably always been remembered as long as there is humans alive.
> It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.
Is the most interesting quote IMO. I often feel like productivity has gone down significantly in recent years, despite tooling and computers being more numerous/sophisticated/fast.
It's possible that "it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++" because ⓐ those programmers were not as good as he was, and/or ⓑ they had to duplicate the behavior of an existing program exactly, rather than enjoying Bob Ross's happy little accidents, as long as the game was fun.
I'm pretty sure most programmers who are comfortable in both C++ and assembly language can add working functionality to a program faster in C++ than in assembly. Of course, certain C++ libraries will eliminate that advantage, but choosing to use those libraries isn't essentially different from many other bad decisions you might make about how to write a large program.
> it took several years and a small team of programmers to re-write the entire game in C++. It actually took a lot longer to re-write the game in C++ than it took me to write the original machine code version 20 years earlier.
Expanding the quote because the word "team" is probably relevant to why it took longer to rewrite. At a certain scale there just is a huge advantage in everything being inside one head...
Communication overhead is a big thing in teams. If you have a struggling team, halve the size. It's crazy how well that works. It's not the people but the number of them. Once your people are consumed by the day to day frustrations of having to communicate with everyone else and with all the infighting, posturing, etc. that comes with that, they'll get nothing done. Splitting teams is an easy to implement fix. Minimize the communication paths between the two (or more) teams and carve up what they work on and suddenly shit gets done.
In this case, they probably were trying to not just rewrite but improve the engine at the same time. That's a much more complicated thing to achieve. Especially when the original is a heavily optimized and probably somewhat hard to reason about blob of assembly. I'm guessing that even wrapping your head around that would be a significant job.
Amazingly enjoyable game btw. Killed quite a few hours with that one around 2000.
>Communication overhead is a big thing in teams. If you have a struggling team, halve the size. It's crazy how well that works.
I wish my managers would get this. Currently our product shit the fan due to us being understaffed and badly managed due to clueless managers, and what they did was add two more managers to the team to create more meetings and micromanage everrying.
I'm sorry you have to deal with that. "The Mythical Man Month" should have been required reading for your managers.
I would be so extremely out of there.
I think it’s just unique for Christ, who obviously a genius who can think in assembly code.
Chris Sawyer lived and breathed assembly, earlier in the article he states that he just felt more efficient writing it than higher level languages. Then you've got the modern team of devs who probably haven't worked with asm since university, and it becomes difficult for them to review the original source code. Also Chris probably wasn't doing a lot of the actual programming, so instead of one guy working on a passion project, you have a team of devs doing a job.
Found this part strange because in other interviews he seemed to imply (for RCT classic) that there was almost some kind of VM-like structure that was running the original code underneath as-is
Expectations have gone up accordingly.
I think the real constraint must be market timing - as much work as people can do to meet the market (eg. Have the thing done by Christmas), that much will end up being done.
I print RCT 'rollercoaster coasters' out of my kitchen for Etsy. Free Dynamite Dunes candles this year because we ordered too many (write in that you want one).
https://bansostudio.etsy.com
That page just says "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker". I have JS enabled and this browser doesn't have an ad blocker...
Do you use PiHole as your DNS server by any chance?
> it just sort of grew gradually and I felt it was better spending my time working on something that was fun to work on even if at the time it looked like there was no possibility of it becoming commercially worthwhile.
The indie ethos, before it was even a thing (or in the very early stages).
If you enjoy these types of stories from video game industry veterans, I recommend the My Perfect Console podcast.
https://www.myperfectconsole.com/
I also recommend about RCT reading/watching:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44758842
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39792034
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42346463
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts4BD8AqD9g