Thanks! Yes, this was not possible last year, and probably even a few months ago. Amazing times to revive forgotten games and software. Let me know if you have questions on my process.

Which game are you planning to do? We all should coordinate so we're not doing the same games repeatedly.

There are a few instructions that are functionally equivalent. It is possible that one of the assemblers has the ability to auto convert equivalent behaviour instructions into smaller instructions that do the exactly the same thing. That is fairly common in assemblers. If one of the assemblers had a normalisation phase where they treat multiple forms of the same instruction as the same thing prior to checking if a more compact encoding is possible then that normalisation phase could be generating a same size instruction with same behaviour but with a different encoding. A small number of bytes different with same behaviour is what I would expect from a reassembly like this.

The proof of the pudding would be to have a look at what the differing bytes were encoding.

You mean run them side by side ? No, I did not do that. I played the ported game on my Mac only. The movement feels right based on my thousands of hours playing the original. There was only small tweak I had to make the trampoline jump, but everything else ported so smooth. I think the decision that Claude made not to use Godot physics and just port everything as as, made the gameplay feels right without much tweaks.

Are you interested in comparing the 2010 remake (C++) to the original (Assembly)? They are quite different games, so hard to compare, but both run at peak frame rate for their respective platforms (60fps vs 50fps).

I have not compared the 2010 port to the current Godot port. However, I felt the Godot port was smoother. I think that was because Godot uses the latest graphics frameworks (e.g Metal) vs old Opengl ES 1. It would also be interesting to compare the godot port of the original game vs the original in assembly. Curious how I can achieve that. A good question to ask Claude.

Thanks. I know the Amiga version took a long time. It was very hard to even look at the assembly code I wrote after so many years. AI was the hero that explained everything and helped me to package it for releasee. Enjoy!

Thanks for sharing. It is truly an amazing feeling when AI helps us excavate the past. I never thought I would be able to do so. I'm so glad I kept all my files over the past 33 years.

> ... confused about why I would talk to the human that prompted the AI, rather than the AI that did the work.

One reason is because you can't talk to the AI that did the work, not unless the human who prompted it is able to hand you a file with the complete session and/or context data. (And I'm not at all certain whether Anthropic would allow users to obtain that kind of thing, since it would probably be extremely useful to people trying to distill their models. It's possible they might allow user A to say "Hey, allow user B" (or anyone with the link) "to access my session with GUID ba5eba11-1234-5678-abcd-0decafc0ffee", but I doubt they'd ever allow context data to be downloaded and passed around).

Without the context, you're talking to a different instance of the AI that doesn't have the memory of the instance that ported the code, so the answers you get won't be nearly as useful.

This is actually what I did to understand what happened during the port. I did analysis weeks after the game was ready.

While doing the analysis, I came to know about this 108 byte delta. I didn't quite understand the explanation Claude gave me. I added more details about this in the post above. It could be the difference in the assembler used, the environment used (Amiga 500 vs M5 Macbook), or how the binary was saved from memory 33 years ago