Author Topic: Original Sierra Source Code analysis  (Read 2854 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Collector

Re: Original Sierra Source Code analysis
« Reply #15 on: Yesterday at 11:58:47 PM »
Ken Williams can barely remember some of the key people that originally developed GAL/AGI and SCI. I doubt that anyone will manage to get much out of Jeff Stephenson, which is the one that I would be the most interested in hearing his thoughts of those times. Some developers are more open to talking, but as noted, time wears on memory. I found Robert Lindsey is more open than others, but he was not a systems guy. Cory Cole is more open and did do a little systems development, but he is still more of a game dev. Facebook is a good resource for contacting a lot of the old Sierra devs, but again, mostly game devs.
KQII Remake Pic

Offline lance.ewing

Re: Original Sierra Source Code analysis
« Reply #16 on: Today at 04:14:44 AM »
I'm sorry if I'm being na?ve for saying this, but, Lance, if you want to find out more about this topic, wouldn't it help if you raised the issue to Ken Williams himself? Or to programmer Jeff Stephenson? Or maybe Al Lowe, who seems to be more chatty and approachable? I'm asking from complete ignorance. I don't know if you've already tried to contact them about this subject.
@pabuslem: The thing is, when we're dealing with the earliest part of the timeline, people don't remember! That the earliest language was called GAL (not AGI), that Arthur Abraham was the lead creator of GAL, and so on. These are things that we (i.e. Lance) have had to dig up ourselves, because the Sierra alumni have forgotten.

@pabuslem, I have spoken to Jeff and Al multiple times over the past 15 years or so, and Collector is right, they don't remember specific details, such as dates. 40+ years ago is indeed a long time. They remember the big events but not exactly when they happened. Jeff wasn't one of those that was laid off mid-1984 (I think Jeff and Bob were two of the only programmers that were not laid off), but Al was laid off, but was hired back almost immediately as a contractor working on the Disney projects, across several of those Disney games. He remembers that kind of detail but not exactly when that happened. They usually remember the relative order of when things happened though.

I haven't spoken to Ken in the past, other than swapping a few comments in places like youtube. I know that I could easily do so, but I would probably prepare a set of questions that I think he would be more likely to remember. Ken admits himself (as he mentions in his recent book) that he can't remember the details, and that what he covers in his book is not guaranteed to be accurate (not sure he uses exactly those words, but words to that effect). I've also seen a number of video interviews with him where he mentions he struggles to remember the details. I am currently thinking that I will probably send the timeline to him when I have it ready.

My approach is to try to find as many dates that can't be disputed, things that can be set in stone. For example, I know that one of the programmers that worked on one of the Disney contracts in 1984 signed the contract on the 17th July 1984. I also know that Sierra and Disney announced their partnership and initial line up Disney educational games at the start of June 1984 (at the Summer CES show that year). I also know that a newspaper article from the Sierra Star dated 28th June 1984 mentions the same Disney/Sierra partnership, mentions the change in name from Sierra On-Line to simply Sierra, and mentions that the new building is still under construction. I found another article from towards the end of 1984 that states that Sierra got another $2 million in venture capital in July that year, i.e. July 1984.

These are the kinds of dates that everything else can be slotted between. If we know that some events happened after or before one of these fixed points in time, then we can narrow in more on a rough date.

Dates like the timestamps on original game disks, or like in this big source code archive, are also indisputable. I've been looking at the file timestamps from 1986 in the Donald Duck's Playground game in that archive. It is clear from that that Al was working on the first AGI version of that game in early 1986. Dev work began at the end of February 1986, the majority of the work happened in March 1986, with a bit more in April/May, finally finishing early June 1986. The AGI documentation in the DOCO folder have timestamps dated 29th May 1986. This happens to be just before the timestamp usually associated with AGI v2.001 (9th June 1986), which was the first AGI V2 interpreter version we know of, that was used in that first AGI version of Donald Duck's Playground. That all ties up then. Al was working on converting the original Donald Duck game (which came out on the C64 at the end of 1984) to AGI v2 over that first half of 1986. Jeff was most likely providing him with early cuts of the AGI v2 interpreter, with 2.001 being what ended up in the release.

Offline lance.ewing

Re: Original Sierra Source Code analysis
« Reply #17 on: Today at 04:36:36 AM »
Ken Williams can barely remember some of the key people that originally developed GAL/AGI and SCI.

No one can remember the GAL name. Jeff believes it was always called AGI, certainly that what was built as part of the original top-secret King's Quest game was the start of AGI. I actually tracked down the author of the 1985 magazine article that mentions the name GAL, to find out where it came from. He said that in the preparation of that article, he had only phone interviews, with John Williams, Ken Williams and Roberta Williams, no one else. He said the name came from one of them. - They almost certainly won't remember it. My guess is that it was a short lived name.

Jeff was interviewed a few years ago in a podcast. It was very interesting, if you haven't listened to it yet. He was actually "in the room" where the King's Quest team built the original interpreter, although he himself was not involved in the King's Quest project. He was working on other IBM PC JR software, such as Home Word, which was just as secret, because the secret was the IBM PC JR.

Offline pabuslem

Re: Original Sierra Source Code analysis
« Reply #18 on: Today at 10:17:31 AM »
Hey, Lance! Yesterday I replied to a post by @lskovlun thinking it was you. Sorry about that!

You've probably tried this, but have you looked in local newspapers from that time? Maybe one of them published a piece about the big Sierra layoff, which could help to narrow the dates.

I recently came upon this conversation with Jeff Stephenson on YouTube. This might be the podcast you mentioned. I still find it amusing how several of yesteryear's programmers such as Jeff, Al Lowe and Jordan Mechner, taught themselves how to program, or learned looking at codes on books or computer magazines.



Jeff's formal college education was in meteorology and physics! Anyway, best of luck on your quest!

Offline lance.ewing

Re: Original Sierra Source Code analysis
« Reply #19 on: Today at 11:22:11 AM »
You've probably tried this, but have you looked in local newspapers from that time? Maybe one of them published a piece about the big Sierra layoff, which could help to narrow the dates.

I would love to be able to do that, but the Sierra Star archives, which I think was the main one in Oakhurst, is not available online. Apparently the archives can be searched physically if you visit the area, so if I ever do at some point in my life make a visit to Oakhurst, that will be one of the things on my todo list. As you say, there would surely be news articles in the local newspapers from that time. It was a big local event, given how many people lost their jobs. I think I'd be spending days with those archives, searching for any little news snippet of relevance.

I recently came upon this conversation with Jeff Stephenson on YouTube. This might be the podcast you mentioned.

Yeah, that is the one.


SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 22 queries.