Re: Vector programming

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:31:53 -0700, you wrote:

>> 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... ;-)

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? ;^)

But hey, let's look at some of those games:

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.)

Major Havoc -- Can't you warp ahead to a more difficult level (I've
only played this game a couple of times.)

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

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.

>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. ("I only have one
quarter left, I'm going to go play Pac-Man for a half hour, let me
know when you're ready to go") For me it was Pleadeis (sp?). I could
play it for ever, and what do you know, I've never bothered to buy one
of those.

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.

>Starting from higher levels was largely an operator thing to
>keep games shorter I think...

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.

>"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.)

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.

>> 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 $$$...

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."

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.

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

And "Killed by gameplay" (if you good enough to last) means losing
your points? ;^)

>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!)

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.

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 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!" ;^)

>> 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!

Today's arcades suck:

"Check out the cool driving game. The rain drops slowly evaporate
while you drive."

"So what's the point of the game?"

"You drive."

"Yeah, and how is that different from that game?"

"The rain drops didn't stick to the window in that game."

"Ok, cool, wanna to get something to eat?"

"I'm there."

-Zonn
Received on Thu Oct 14 14:47:09 1999