Adventure vs. Secret Quest

[almightytodd]

The game "Adventure" frequently scores very well as one of the "best Atari 2600 games". In fact, the latest "Top 100 2600 Games of all Time" list ranks it as number 2. In contrast, "Secret Quest" does not even make it into the top 100. My first exposure to either of these games was through their inclusion in the Flashback 2 Adventure Games section.

 

I can't help but wonder if the popularity that Adventure enjoys over Secret Quest has its basis in the chronology of the two games. It seems to me that Adventure was ground-breaking in its appearance, as one of the first video games that combined the puzzle-solving nature of role-playing games such as those available for TRS-80 and Apple II computers of that era, with the graphic nature of the then current crop of coin-op arcade games. Playing Adventure was certainly a far different experience from the typical reflex-action games of the time, such as Pong, Air-Sea-Battle, and Combat; games that if not direct ports of coin-op games, were certainly in the same spirit of "try to stay alive and get a higher score".

 

Secret Quest was one of the last games released for the 2600, and had very little new to offer in comparison to the numerous side-scroller action/adventure games being played on the NES at that time. While the "enter a code to restart where you left off" feature was innovative for a 2600 game, it's not as though there weren't any NES games doing something similar (Megaman comes to mind).

 

Still, from my perspective of evaluating each game strictly on its merits as "new to me", I feel that Secret Quest is getting a raw deal. I've tried to give Adventure a chance to become a game that I love to play, but as I direct the motions of my little colored square on the screen, and wind up-and-down along the maze section to try and reach the move-able bridge, I inevitably reach the point where I exclaim, "This is boring!" and instinctively open up the "Deluxe Invaders" hack in an emulator and try to clear a few screens.

 

This past weekend was the first time I gave Secret Quest a real chance. I played it on Stella, so I could stop and take screen-shots along the way to build a map. My joy in completing the first level reminded me of my first experience of playing the PC game, "Doom". I knew that the first level was intentionally simple, compared to the levels that were to come; provided as a "confidence builder" to prevent players from becoming frustrated and giving up before really giving the game a chance.

 

So far, the game seems to have a pretty good balance between puzzle-solving/navigation and fighting bad guys. If you can kill the bad guys quickly enough, you can actually increase your supply of energy/oxygen, as opposed to just trying to keep it from reducing. I get the feeling this will become important later on, as the enemies become harder to kill, and the size of the stations becomes larger.

 

I don't know if there is any context where Adventure and Secret Quest could be compared and evaluated objectively in such a way that SQ could end up rated as the superior game. The fact of the matter is that the history of these two games, and the nostalgic feelings we have when we play them does color our perception of whether we consider them "good" or "bad". The degree of actual participation (or lack thereof) by Nolan Bushnell in the design of the game seems to have an overall negative impact on people's feelings about the game. I'm just trying to give both games a chance, and rate my feelings about them objectively by my own experiences with them.

[supercat]

I can't help but wonder if the popularity that Adventure enjoys over Secret Quest has its basis in the chronology of the two games. It seems to me that Adventure was ground-breaking in its appearance, as one of the first video games that combined the puzzle-solving nature of role-playing games such as those available for TRS-80 and Apple II computers of that era, with the graphic nature of the then current crop of coin-op arcade games. Playing Adventure was certainly a far different experience from the typical reflex-action games of the time, such as Pong, Air-Sea-Battle, and Combat; games that if not direct ports of coin-op games, were certainly in the same spirit of "try to stay alive and get a higher score".

 

The mazes in Adventure are interesting and clever. Do any of the station layouts in SQII even remotely qualify as such?

 

Adventure required carrying keys to the things they operate--a challenge in and of itself. Secret Quest requires copying the codes you find onto a slip of paper--an exercise in pure drudgery. I am very puzzled as to why anyone would think that requiring a player to copy down such codes (as opposed to having the game remember that you'd found them) would make things more fun.

[accousticguitar]

You must get bored very fast. I find that I can explore the entire kingdom (minus the inside of the castles) in just a few minutes. In fact, I wish the kingdom were larger so it would be more challenging. BTW, level 3 is the only way to go.

[Robert M]

Secret Quest is okay. I would be interested to see how much you like it once you get deeper into it. It becomes highly repetitive. When I started playing it, I thought it was pretty neato. When I got to the 3rd level, I found myself thinking "Is that it?" . Its just a bigger maze with less oxygen and energy, over and over again. Get into level 3 or even beat the game (I got too bored to do it), and let us know what you think.

 

Cheers!

[dark-aleph]

Secret Quest is getting a bit of a raw deal not making the top 100, but I think Adventure is by far the superior game. It's not nostalgia that leads me to this conclusion, but the game dynamics.

 

The Flashback 2 wasn't released here in Australia, so can I ask whether it has a select button? As acousticguitar points out, game 3 on Adventure is where the joy is - but if the FB2 just defaults to game 1 or 2, Adventure would seem very simple-minded. On game 3, item location is randomised and the ability of the dragons and the bat to roam freely over the worldmap further randomises the layout as the game continues. This frequently leads to bizarre sequences of events which can require the strategic use of 3 or 4 items to resolve. Contrarily, Secret Quest always requires a single item to be used in a single way. Unexpected things simply don't happen! Furthermore, every time you play, the maps and items are the same so replayability is low. Once I finished it, it sat unplayed for years... but even after twenty years I still play Adventure every time I switch on the Atari, and I'm still discovering things that have never happened before.

 

So the difference for me is that Secret Quest is linear - you must do specific things in a certain order to complete it (though it is fun to do so). Adventure though is decidedly non-linear - and there are always different options for how to proceed. Adventure remains fun long after the satisfied glow of finishing Secret Quest fades away.

[supercat]

Secret Quest is okay. I would be interested to see how much you like it once you get deeper into it. It becomes highly repetitive. When I started playing it, I thought it was pretty neato. When I got to the 3rd level, I found myself thinking "Is that it?" . Its just a bigger maze with less oxygen and energy, over and over again. Get into level 3 or even beat the game (I got too bored to do it), and let us know what you think.

 

How is Adventure, which has sixteen completely-different screens of mazes in addition to the castles and the connecting rooms and has objects that move intelligently from room to room, somehow more "boring" than Secret Quest, a game which seems to contain nothing that couldn't have been done just as well in 4K with no SuperChip. Indeed, aside from some of the code-display stuff that adds nothing to the game, what is there in Secret Quest that couldn't be handled entirely in bB?

[supercat]

Secret Quest is getting a bit of a raw deal not making the top 100, but I think Adventure is by far the superior game. It's not nostalgia that leads me to this conclusion, but the game dynamics.

 

I'm not sure I could readily come up with 100 games that would beat Secret Quest, but what's interesting about it? Walk into room. Kill monster. Repeat as needed. Pick up item. Walk into next room, ad nauseum.

 

A level with 64 rooms in an 8x8 grid should require 16 bytes of ROM to store the walls plus four bytes to store the locations of the player, the code, the bomb, and the exit, and 8 bytes of RAM to keep track of which rooms have monsters left. Why on earth does that game need 16K plus a SuperChip?

[Lord Thag]

I'll still go with Adventure as well, and here is why. First, Secret Quest (which I like quite a bit) does get pretty repetetive, as all the rooms are pretty much the same and you just run around killing the same baddies. It's also the same every time, unlike Adventure. Still, I do agree with you that Secret Quest gets a raw deal. It is fun to explore the later levels, which are huge and very confusing. I did like the 'secret self destruct code' mechanic, and the password feature is amazing for a 2600 game. I dislike the oxygen/time limit, which is my only real gripe (I hate time limits of any sort). Regardless of the fact that most people don't like it much, I do enjoy the game quite a bit. I played it a lot as a kid.

 

I like 'em both (and had both back in the day), but Adventure is definately a more replayable game, due to the random item placement. Secret quest would have benefitted from having more variety to the rooms like new layouts, little computer consoles and other scenery, or something to break up the sameness a bit. It is fun, though.

 

Another fun game in this vein that nobody ever seems to play is Dark Chambers. It has over twenty levels, 2 player co-op, and is pretty fun as well.

[Robert M]

Secret Quest is okay. I would be interested to see how much you like it once you get deeper into it. It becomes highly repetitive. When I started playing it, I thought it was pretty neato. When I got to the 3rd level, I found myself thinking "Is that it?" . Its just a bigger maze with less oxygen and energy, over and over again. Get into level 3 or even beat the game (I got too bored to do it), and let us know what you think.

 

How is Adventure, which has sixteen completely-different screens of mazes in addition to the castles and the connecting rooms and has objects that move intelligently from room to room, somehow more "boring" than Secret Quest, a game which seems to contain nothing that couldn't have been done just as well in 4K with no SuperChip. Indeed, aside from some of the code-display stuff that adds nothing to the game, what is there in Secret Quest that couldn't be handled entirely in bB?

 

 

I wasn't talking about Adventure. My entire post is about Secret Quest.

[Cybergoth]

Adventure has entertainment value for ~5 minutes, I guess all the hype surrounding it is plain nostalgia. When you are only 6 years old and playing it, it gets enhanced by your imagination or so

 

Not saying that Secret Quest is any better though. I only recently started playing it, giving it a second chance after reading the manual

[DracIsBack]

First off, I have to say that I thought Secret Quest was ambitious at the time. In a world of NES adventure games, it was cool to see a 2600 game with multiple levels, many mazes, background music and saved game codes.

 

But I also agree with the criticisms listed. It did (IMO) get boring after a while. I hated that the codes were weird symbols (a pain for capturing) and it ultimately didn't captivate me the way Adventure had.

[Gregory DG]

If I may parrot some other comments, SQ is very repetitive. All the rooms look the same. There's no randomness like the bat. There are no monsters that chase you through the rooms like the dragons. It's confusing because there are so many map layouts.

 

When I ran a "poll" for the best Atari games ever, Adventure was #1. I contacted Warren Robinett and asked for some words about why, and he sent me this write up.

 

http://www.ataritimes.com/article.php?showarticle=273

[godzillajoe]

Adventure is just more "fun"

 

The pesky bat, the duck-like dragons.

 

Game 3 with both switches on 'A' is a fun little experience in frustration

[almightytodd]

So the difference for me is that Secret Quest is linear - you must do specific things in a certain order to complete it (though it is fun to do so). Adventure though is decidedly non-linear - and there are always different options for how to proceed. Adventure remains fun long after the satisfied glow of finishing Secret Quest fades away.

A very good, objective analysis. Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for in this post.

 

I'll still go with Adventure as well... Still, I do agree with you that Secret Quest gets a raw deal. It is fun to explore the later levels, which are huge and very confusing.

 

Another fun game in this vein that nobody ever seems to play is Dark Chambers. It has over twenty levels, 2 player co-op, and is pretty fun as well.

I was playing Dark Chambers last weekend with my 17 year-old daughter. She exclaimed, "Hey, this is like Gauntlet". I was impressed with the level of graphic detail, the cooperative play, and the programming to get a scroller-type action game ported to a 2600.

 

...Not saying that Secret Quest is any better though. I only recently started playing it, giving it a second chance after reading the manual

It is significant to me that an Atarian of your stature would take this position. Thanks for your reply.

 

If I may parrot some other comments, SQ is very repetitive. All the rooms look the same. There's no randomness like the bat. There are no monsters that chase you through the rooms like the dragons. It's confusing because there are so many map layouts.

 

When I ran a "poll" for the best Atari games ever, Adventure was #1. I contacted Warren Robinett and asked for some words about why, and he sent me this write up.

 

http://www.ataritimes.com/article.php?showarticle=273

Warren's article was very informative and brought up a lot of issues I hadn't really given thought to. Thank's for posting the link. I think I'll give Adventure another chance... ...after I've spent some more time with SQ.

 

Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful replies to this thread. I was hoping that this wasn't a rehash of a previous discussion. I did a search of the forum for Secret Quest and didn't find anything exactly like this topic, so I hope you found this discussion "fresh".

 

Thanks again.

[128bytes]

If I may parrot some other comments, SQ is very repetitive. All the rooms look the same. There's no randomness like the bat. There are no monsters that chase you through the rooms like the dragons. It's confusing because there are so many map layouts.

 

When I ran a "poll" for the best Atari games ever, Adventure was #1. I contacted Warren Robinett and asked for some words about why, and he sent me this write up.

 

http://www.ataritimes.com/article.php?showarticle=273

 

Thanks for the link to that great writeup on your site about Adventure. Another great article is here, on Warren Robinett's own site

 

 

I think Adventure is more gratifying than Secret Quest, and certainly historically more significant. You can even figure out Adventure without reading the manual - I have seen kids do exactly that on my system without any prompting.

[Cybergoth]

...Not saying that Secret Quest is any better though. I only recently started playing it, giving it a second chance after reading the manual

It is significant to me that an Atarian of your stature would take this position. Thanks for your reply.

 

I fear you got me wrong, basically I was trying to say that I can't take a position, because I need to play it some more first

 

BTW: What do you know about my stature? Did you somewhere find a photo from me?

[Chris++]

SQ is boring as hell. So is Dark Chambers, because your guy walks far too slowly.

Adventure rules. It`s obviously gotten terribly easy for all of us by now, so I recommend Indenture by Greg Pell (if your PC or Mac will run it! It`s about fifteen years old).

[almightytodd]

I fear you got me wrong, basically I was trying to say that I can't take a position, because I need to play it some more first

 

BTW: What do you know about my stature? Did you somewhere find a photo from me?

Basically, I'm saying I admire you for not feeling like you need to go along with the apparent consensus that Adventure is the greatest game ever made, and that you're willing to give Secret Quest a chance. So far as "stature" goes, I was referring to your Moderator status, and over 5,000 forum posts.

 

I'M NOT WORTHY! I'M NOT WORTHY!

[accousticguitar]

Adventure IS the greatest game ever made. I only say that because...Adventure is the greatest game ever made!

[stop_rebel_scum]

secret quest is impressively put together and has a lot of things going on in it, it's more of a PC shareware era type of computer game. It reminds me of commander keen and such.

 

Adventure is one of those atari games that, because of the limits of the system, simplicity, or whatever, doesn't fit readily into a defined genre, and is thus more interesting and fun.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Historical relevance aside, IMO Secret Quest is the better one by far.

 

I never understood the hype about Adventure, most likely because I never played and enjoyed it back then.

[vdub_bobby]

Why on earth does that game need 16K plus a SuperChip?

Because you don't completely understand the game?

A level with 64 rooms in an 8x8 grid should require 16 bytes of ROM to store the walls

First, level 8, which I assume is the final level, has 128 rooms, arranged in 8 4x4 floors.

plus four bytes to store the locations of the player, the code, the bomb, and the exit,

Well, each level has an additional floor, and each floor has a code. So level 8, with 8 floors, has 8 codes that you must collect, one from each floor.

 

Plus there are stairs, sonic keys, sonic doors, the sonic blaster, laser gates, teleporters, plus I believe each room has a specific monster (and item?) associated with it. And if you kill all the monsters in a room but leave the reward, it will still be there when you come back.

 

All that said, IMO Secret Quest looks awesome on paper but completely fails to deliver - why oh why is there only ever a single enemy on the screen? Even allowing two, vertically separated, would have made the game ten times better. As it is, the endless identical-looking rooms of one-on-one, not-very-challenging fights are booooring. And it is a serious design flaw to give you a timer while also requiring you to make and refer to a map! Either make it self-mapping (or, even better, give the rooms some visual variety so that it is possible without a map) or make it timed, but not both!

[supercat]

Plus there are stairs, sonic keys, sonic doors, the sonic blaster, laser gates, teleporters, plus I believe each room has a specific monster (and item?) associated with it. And if you kill all the monsters in a room but leave the reward, it will still be there when you come back.

 

Hmm... maybe two bits of RAM per room instead of one, so that would be 64 bytes to hold 128 rooms. Even if the ROM uses a byte per room, if each level is 4x4 that would be a whopping 576 bytes.

 

All that said, IMO Secret Quest looks awesome on paper but completely fails to deliver - why oh why is there only ever a single enemy on the screen? Even allowing two, vertically separated, would have made the game ten times better. As it is, the endless identical-looking rooms of one-on-one, not-very-challenging fights are booooring. And it is a serious design flaw to give you a timer while also requiring you to make and refer to a map! Either make it self-mapping (or, even better, give the rooms some visual variety so that it is possible without a map) or make it timed, but not both!

 

Skeleton+ and Hero have more visual variety than Secret Quest. Even Pitfall is more interesting (pits, vines, gators, ladders, walls, etc.) SQ has all the visual interest of "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike," though fortunately without the "twisty" part.

[vdub_bobby]

Plus there are stairs, sonic keys, sonic doors, the sonic blaster, laser gates, teleporters, plus I believe each room has a specific monster (and item?) associated with it. And if you kill all the monsters in a room but leave the reward, it will still be there when you come back.

 

Hmm... maybe two bits of RAM per room instead of one, so that would be 64 bytes to hold 128 rooms. Even if the ROM uses a byte per room, if each level is 4x4 that would be a whopping 576 bytes.

True. My guess: the reason for 16K are the sprites. You had to really squeeze to get Toyshop Trouble in 8K (well, ~7K ), with 15 different, unanimated toys; Secret Quest has about 13 different animated monsters plus all the other sprites (the player and all the objects). Add the sound effects and the music plus, while the kernel is very very simple compared to TT's, the game logic is undoubtedly much more complex.

 

16K sounds about right; maybe it could fit in 12K but it surely couldn't fit in 8K.

[Cybergoth]

16K sounds about right; maybe it could fit in 12K but it surely couldn't fit in 8K.

 

It's over 8K zipped, so I'd agree with that.