> That's very good information, but doesn't it mean that After Burner II should be
> marked as a clone of After Burner, not vice-versa as is the case in MAME sources?
>
> Or am I misunderstanding something still?
As I said in my message:
Quote:
Another rule about parent/clone sets is that the newest revision discovered (almost) always becomes the parent. While that doesn't _usually_ apply to sequels, After Burner II is a lot more like a newer revision than a sequel. Or at least that's how it was explained to me.
Ergo After Burner II would be newer than After Burner, and they currently consider it more like a revision, so After Burner II is the newest revision discovered, so it's the parent.
It is worth revisiting though: By that logic Ms. Pac-Man would almost be the parent of Pac-Man. Almost, though. (Different year, many more different levels, different enemy behavior, etc. etc.) What's the criteria: percentage of code changed? dunno...
- Stiletto
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Is After Burner a clone of After Burner II
Reply
