Re: Vector programming

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:03:27 -0700, you wrote:

>> 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... ;-)

I didn't want that to happen either, but to do something similar to
Tempest you would have to understand the appeal of "skipping levels".
Atari programmers did, and used it again in Major Havoc.

>> 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.

I believe it was well thought out.

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

Once again, not by accident.
>
>> 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.

True, but either difference between easy and hard was not great enough
to justify it (Most of the "memorization games" like Pac-man, Donky
Kong, etc). Or the amount of time needed to get to a hard level was
very short (Sinistar, Star Castle, Missile Command, etc).

Skipping is only effective when you have a game that is hard for
beginners at the lower levels, yet bores the hell out of master
players at those same levels. It's a way to keep good players coming
back.

I have a Tempest here at work and by simply setting it to start on any
level, that last two weeks has found the game in near constant use --
before was only once or twice a week. Everyone jumps to the level
that is difficult for them and plays from there. Atari new what they
were doing..

>> >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.

Yes, that's true. If the game progresses very quickly to difficult
levels (like Sinistar), then there's no advantage to skipping.

>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...

Yet you had to be able to handle those higher levels, so the score
certainly reflected the skill levels. It's back to give me a $2, and
you can have $20, and lets see who gets the higher Tempest score (and
you may start at any level I take the machine up to.)

If you notice, Atari did something clever on the higher levels. The
higher up you go, the larger the skip. This prevents *accidental*
high scores. A beginner that starts a very high level might make it
through the bonus point level, but he/she's not going to last long.

A good player (the one that got the machine to the level the beginner
started at) will be able to play 10 levels or so from that starting
position. But at restart time, unless you made 12 levels, you both
start back at the same place. Giving the good player a big point
advantage.

It's a pretty clever game design. Too bad Dave Theuer (sp?) doesn't
like being complemented on it!

>> 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...

Yup, damn Jamma games missed the whole point! Can't agree with you
more!!!

>> 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...)

I see your point here also. It would keep you from hanging out in an
easy level and racking up points by killing the simple "baddies". Oh
like maybe "Saucer hunting" like someone earlier suggested.

>> 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...

No I think I finally *GOT* your point. That could work! I guess it
matters what game your working with.

For games like Tempest it would be worthless (in Tempest you run out
of bad guys and are *forced* to go to a higher level, where thing are
just a little meaner.)

But for games where *you* control when you go to the next level, a
point penalty could be a very good motivator!

-Zonn
Received on Thu Oct 14 18:01:11 1999