RE: Vector programming

> If it's designed similar to Tempest, progressively harder for each
> level, then having to always play the low levels would become a major
> deterrent to making it to the high levels. You might have to play
> Tempest for 10 minutes to make it to a challenging level. Luckily
> when you die, you don't have to play it for *another* 10 minutes to
> get back where you were.
>
Ehhhh. I don't know about that. Very few classic games really let you
start from anywhere but the beginning. You can probably count the
exceptions on one hand and they're probably mostly Atari... ;-) Either way,
playing through easier levels probably isn't a deterrant, particularly since
anything someone writes now for a vector platform probably isn't fighting
for quarters. Starting from higher levels was largely an operator thing to
keep games shorter I think...

"Continue" buy-ins are still a possibility too, but I think your score
would have to start off at a lower level. (I always thought that was a good
way of doing continues-- you can continue, but your score starts over.
Keeps people from buying a high-score with tons of continues.)

> Which is exactly why Tempest was such a quarter eater! "I can't leave
> now! I just got it up to a level where it's challenging!" Which was
> also good for the operators, since once you played your 10 minute
> game, you were at a nice 1-3 minute level that you played over, and
> over again! (Damn I went through a lot of quarters!)
>
Yeah, I suppose. The only reason I ever played Tempest from a higher level
(when it was in the arcade) was just to get the points for the starting
bonus though. When I was 10 or 11 I was much more focused on playing for a
long time for my $$$...

> > and then hit the hard stuff and
> >get whacked.
>
> And "whacked" means losing you points?
>
"Whacked" = Killed by gameplay.

> >Instead of building up extra lives though you're building up
> >your score. I think it's just a variation on a theme, but kinda
> "different"
> >if nothing else...
>
> Ok, that makes sense, but what about "The games not over until you're
> out of points, or unless you commit suicide at a point where your
> score is high, and presumably where the challenge is low." dilemma?
>
I think it just assumes that difficulty continually increases on every level
as far as most people are concerned. If the game is "fair" and skill based
there will always be some super-human type that can play forever. For most
people though there will always be the "next level". Alternatively you can
have a finite ending, in which case once the players reach that the goal
will become to do it as *quickly* as possible to get the highest score.
(Operators would have loved that back in then! Players actually *TRYING* to
shave a minute off their play-time to get a better score!)

> >> Or is this more like: "You are a worthy opponent and for this I offer
> >> you a quick and painless death!" (Can I do the voice over? Please? ;^)
>
> If you write the game, and it's fun, I'm going to play it, after all
> I'll own it!! (No need to worry about quarter eaters).
>
(Ahhh, that's the dilemma isn't it? Have to write a game now! It is kinda
like the "good old days" of game design though-- "hey, that looks cool. I
should make a game around it." ;-)

> Even in Tempest, most people aren't interested in each others score.
> It's there for strangers to see how good you are. Between friends
> it's always "Did you make it through yellow?" or "Man 'inviso' always
> kicks my ass!".
>
Yep, very true. Maybe three "high-score" lists: best score, highest level,
best overall...

-Clay
Received on Thu Oct 14 13:32:24 1999