RE: Vector programming

> Hmm.. Atari, the most successful company in writing entertaining
> games that really sucked quarters. Yeah, let's just shrug them off,
> what do they know about Arcade Games? ;^)
>
I won't argue that point, but it's an interesting side-note. Atari cranked
out a LOT of games and some of them were *huge* hits, but I wonder if you
added them all up and factored in the losers if their track-record is really
any better than others?

> Tempest -- Start on a level that you've currently played two.
> (Impossible to start past you're skill level if playing alone, and
> impossible to play past a level or two if you start at someone else's
> high level -- nothing like a twenty second game to make operators
> happy.)
>
Must resist... troll... to restart... Tempest... debate... ;-)

> Major Havoc -- Can't you warp ahead to a more difficult level (I've
> only played this game a couple of times.)
>
Maybe. I know you could fall through to a different level (a bug?) at some
point.

> Stargate (Defender also?) -- Can't you also grab enough men to warp to
> a higher level?
>
Stargate only methinks...

> At least of couple of these were major quarter suckers, and they all
> have cult followings.
>
> Games that allow you to skip the loser levels keep the *expert*
> players coming back again and again. Games that force you to play the
> "tick-tack-toe" levels before you start having any kind of fun are
> ones we always had a tendency to ignore.
>
Eh? I think history disagrees. Missile Command, Dig Dug, Pacman, Ms.
Pacman, Sinistar, Spy Hunter, Tron, Galaga, Defender, Joust, Robotron, Moon
Patrol, Asteroids, Spaceduel, Donkey Kong, Battlezone, Star Castle, Mappy,
Xevious, Pole Position, Gyruss, etc, etc, etc... No "start at higher level"
options there that I recall.

> >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.
>
> My friends would disagree with you there. Playing simple games just
> because they last longer was what you did when you were almost out of
> money, and the "fun" part of the evening was over.
>
Hmmmm. Nobody said the game has to be easy to attain mastery of. I'll
refer to the list above for games that people seem pretty fond of that don't
have "advanced" start capabilities... They seemed to do OK and remain
popular over the years.

> Owning the game would just make things a lot worse. Major burn-out
> problem there. If you have to play for 10 minutes before the *zone*
> kicks in, this is not a game your going to play when you have a little
> extra time.
>
Ditto argument above.

> But it wouldn't have worked unless it kept the interest up. Nobody
> said "Hey let's start at a higher level and die faster because it'll
> make the operator happy!". You started at a higher level because
> that's were the fun was, not because it made the game shorter. You
> always have the choice to start from a lower level.
>
Maybe it's a geographic thing. We were very much focused on getting the
high-score for bragging rights. Tempest was played at advanced starting
levels for the (disproportionately large 8^) starting bonus. Ditto for Star
Wars...

> Continues on games that don't get harder (just farther into the game)
> suck. What's the point, everybody knows the high score goes to the
> highest bidder.
>
Right, which is why I like the "score reset" for continued games...

> That's the attitude of most non-Tempest players. As you get better,
> nothing is more boring than hanging out in the low dark blue levels.
> You start doing things like: "Let's see how far I can get without ever
> moving the spinner, etc."
>
Yeah, I guess we just never equated the games with any sort of mystic
diety-like status for their own sake. They were played however we thought
was "fun" (like locking the thrust button down in Asteroids for the entire
game and see who could get the highest score); for entertainment purposes;
and for bragging rights.

> For me playing Arcades is not just a matter of finding the best way to
> waste the most amount of time (which *is* something a 10 or 11 year
> old might be looking for ;^), but a way to get into the *zone*. It's
> got to be fun, not time consuming. I don't have a lot of free time.
>
Interesting. I see your point, I just don't think it's a requirement of a
successful game.

> And "Killed by gameplay" (if you good enough to last) means losing
> your points? ;^)
>
I don't think so. If you lose all your lives on a hard level you would
retain your score unless you took a really long time to do it. The
implementation could easily be tuned to avoid dropping the score too fast.
Let's say you get 10,000 points for each level and it takes 1 minute to tick
down to 0. You start with three lives. The "beginner" will get at least
three minutes of game time even if they don't get past the first level.
(That's long enough that people feel they've gotten their quarter's worth.)
On the other hand if a good player can clear levels in maybe 15 seconds and
earn points while doing it, by the time he's up to a level that's really
hard he's probably not in immediate danger of spending 20 minutes on it and
reducing his score to zero. (And if he does, I'm not sure it's a bad thing--
it would certainly motivate me to beat it faster the next time so I could
keep my score...)

> Seems unlikely. More likely: "Geeze, this game's a rip off, in order
> to get high score you have to die fast!" Let's go play Defender.
>
That doesn't make any sense. Maybe you misunderstand the approach. The
idea is to start each level with points and count down, but unlike a bonus
or fuel limit your points can eat into what you've accumulated previously.
You still earn points for doing stuff in the game, so your score should
increase steadily. However, if you take exceedingly long or don't score
many points you can actually harm your score-- so there's motivation to work
quickly. (It's just a variation on other "hurry up" tactics in games-- the
Klingon's turning white in Star Trek, baiters appearing in Defender, the
beasties getting "mad" in Bubble Bobble, etc...

> I could be wrong, and maybe me and my family and friends are
> exceptions, but we always thought that the *longer* you played a game,
> the *better* you were. Now if you let the score go negative, then you
> might have something!!
>
That's an interesting idea! That might be pretty cool-- just let the player
die "normally" during game play, but allow the score to go as low as it
needs to. The reason I suggested a death at zero with the score resetting
on the next life would prevent someone from losing *everything* when they
hit a hard part. (You'd run out of lives first probably.) It's kind of a
"stop-limit order" for the game score... ;-)

> "That guy can play Centipede for more than an hour! Check it out,
> he's up to negative 500,000 points! Far as I ever made it was
> -200,000!" ;^)
>
Heh. :-) The part I like is that the "decreasing score" would actually
reward speed and efficiency of play with higher scores. It fits nicely into
the "I don't have a lot of time for games" play mode-- a good player
probably plays just as long as a beginner, but ends up with a higher score
and having played many more levels...

Counter example-- you can play Tetris up to level 20 and take 20 minutes
being cautious and slow, or you can play up to level 20 being agressive and
fast and do it in 5 minutes. I'd like to reward the guy that does it in 5,
but also give him a reason not to slow down and "relax" or else his previous
gains will be slowly eaten away. Keeps the pressure on...

> >> 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." ;-)
>
> If it leads to the good old days when we looked forward each week to
> the next great game, I'm for it!
>
Yeah, geez... I remember making the pilgrimage to the arcade at least twice
a week to scope out new games and get on the high-score lists before
everyone else gets good. :-) Seems like seldom a week would go by without
one or two new titles showing up!

> Today's arcades suck:
>
[snip]

Have to agree with you there. I am pretty fond of the new "shooting" games
though-- nice accurate guns and just enough physics to be interesting.
(Shoot 'em in the shoulder and they spin around! Woo-hoo! ;-)

-Clay
Received on Thu Oct 14 17:03:52 1999