ledzep

Too busy with the ground textures but, I like the idea of the extended blue castle (or maybe more the orange castle). I can see some type of power-up or achievement where your castle is extended. Not to the degree in your concept art, but maybe a bit more, which means it takes longer to kill you off (knock out all your bricks) but at the same time it becomes harder for you to defend all that extra real estate. Double-edged sword, I guess. Definitely need a spinner controller to handle that extra Tempest type shape change. There could also be the addition of an inner keep bonus or power-up (the little central square room in the center) that could add extra bricks that now must be knocked down if/when the outer wall is completely gone. Sort of like an extra mini life? I don't see any Breakout type bricks or sections to be knocked out in that image, either.

At a certain point, too much detail and textures makes it harder to play a game like Warlords (or Asteroids or Centipede) because there's more visual noise getting in the way of trying to be accurate about seeing what is going on - the targetting pip, where exactly the enemies are, where their shots are, etc. Imagine a new Centipede that is the exact same game but now with realistic looking centipedes and other bugs, realistic mushrooms and realistic textured dirt/grass ground. I mean, have you ever looked at the ground where there are insects? You know how hard it is to recognize them all, keep track of them? They can hide in plain site depending on their coloration and shape. But the original games are very stark, even the ones with some detail like say Bosconian or Sinistar or Rally-X or whatever, the playfield is usually one solid color (black, mostly), the enemies are the same consistent shapes with the same basic colors, the shots are simple and easy to see, etc. The goal isn't to try to recreate reality, it's to try to make a fun simplified game that requires you to aim and shoot (or whatever, jump over things, grab things, etc.) accurately at things that you can easily pick out. They're the video equivalents of shooting galleries or ring toss games, they're skills games, not visual treats. Imagine being an air traffic controller with a radar display that had a bunch of high-rez textures for the ground and mountains and plants, of what use would that be when all you're supposed to care about is which planes are moving where? On the other hand sims can be detailed. Even something like Virtua Cop that is old, it looks like a (primitive) movie scene but you're not doing anything really precise, you're just targetting bad guys with a lightgun, so you can have textured bad guys, walls, streets, sky, whatever. Same goes for racing games because you're not doing anything on-screen like aiming/shooting, you're just using hand/eye coordination to avoid crashing into shit so having cars that really look like cars, sidewalks that look like sidewalks, etc., makes sense. This gets even more "useful" with PC 1st person shooter/adventure games, all the detail is needed because you spend half your time walking around nothing important in order to get to specific fun areas, or you're exploring dangerous areas. It would get boring if there was no detail, like those old video games where you're walking through a dungeon but it's just flat tile walls and ceilings that are all the same. You could even get lost because all the hallways look identical. Yes, video gaming, not visual gaming, not graphics gaming. "Video" just means a video display (I suppose as opposed to the previous electromechanical games that projected lights into actual physical cavities or onto molded shapes, or pinball) and we can all agree that original arcade CRTs weren't high-rez enough for detail we take for granted today. Are you telling me all the original games are not fun or entertaining because they're not realistic or don't have textures? Even something like Donkey Kong, are those realistic running/jumping animations? Does the fire look believable to you? Where are those platforms, anyways? What the hell is a Pac-Man? What are those maze walls made out of? Nobody cares, just make fun games that are challenging, simple obvious recognizable shapes, accurate collision detection. I'm not against better graphics, but they have to be there for a reason, otherwise you're wasting CPU cycles for bullshit. Again, PC gaming can have all sorts of eye candy and Easter eggs and gigs and gigs of rendering world to explore, sit on your ass for hours at home (or work, hahaaha) figuring out your next moves. An arcade game is something that should be making money and that means lots of relatively quick plays, right? Kind of simple and repetitive, sure, with increasing difficulty. So, gameplay first, gameplay second, eye candy after if there's time and it doesn't interfere with playing the game. Get the right controllers, too. The weirdness is these modern minimally interactive movies that many "gamers" want to spend money on, not much accuracy or challenge, just get to the bright colors and explosions and power-ups and goofy music. There, I agree, you need more detail to keep them engaged because the gameplay itself isn't going to do it. Shiny objects. But is that Warlords? No. The only way you could "modernize" Warlords and make those clowns happy would be... a 1st person version where you are moving a warrior along a platform at the edge of the castle tower blocking fireballs that are coming down at you from the dragon flying above. Could be fun, who knows, but it wouldn't be Warlords, not even close. Guilty as charged. My form of "purism" is insisting that the thing you present is the thing you say it is. Period. Otherwise, call it something else. How hard is that? This applies to movies/TV shows as well, especially adapted from known books. Also to specific car models as well, usually. The point being that, yes, you can change some things to the particular game, add this and that, so long as the core gameplay remains, if you're going to keep the same name but add Recharged or Super to it. I think Marble Madness II is horrible because they removed the trak-ball control. Heresy. Space Duel is basically Super Asteroids in terms of gameplay but since the actual asteroids are gone (replaced with geometric shapes) and there are new bits of gameplay added (those dual saucers, the tethered ships, the bonus levels) they changed the name, right? Galaga is very similar to Galaxian but different enough to change the name. There's no hard rule there, of course, but you get the idea after seeing enough examples. True. A giant screen, 8K or whatever, could allow for more players on a bigger playing field with more options, more castles or different shapes, more dragons that can be in more areas etc. Much like that Mega Pac-Man game, bigger/more of everything. Ya, Pong and Breakout combined. I was thinking Pong more because of the bounce the shot at the other players aspect but of course there is the brick breaking aspect, too. Keep the core, of course. But most of these Recharged games don't. Either they use joysticks instead of the correct controller (more heresy) or they slow down the gameplay in service of having more power-ups to deal with, they sometimes change how the enemies move (for the worse, usually), at some point, it's a similar game but not what the name said it was going to be (think really bad old 8-bit home ports of arcade games that really missed the mark). You say without changing the core but "the core" aspect is a challenging game (if we're talking about updating an old arcade game), not a casual game for hoarding power-ups. So long as you are not willing to acknowledge that, you will keep getting into arguments with people who are trying to explain to you why that game isn't the game it claims to be even though it's called that game and has some familiar shapes and sounds in it. You are forgetting one of the key aspects, which is an analog controller. Paddle or spinner. Without that, forget it. But, ya, there are many possible additions. That is the challenge, isn't it. Go too far, it's not that game anymore. Go not far enough, why did you even bother? "Needs"? Why? What's wrong with the originals? I think that some of the games do lend themselves to "recharged" versions that would be fun in a modern arcade, bigger screens, more players (co-op) for those games that were only ever single player at a time, more levels. But then there's the argument of keeping the controllers/gameplay and adding on top, or changing the gameplay to that lazy power-up recharged mess that ruins so many of these older games. My view of this is trying to imagine what a sequel game would have looked like if the early '80s never ended, we never got the newer CPUs and shaded textures and all that. But that's not what the average arcade "gamer" wants today, apparently. Where are my redemption tickets? Where's the droning music? Agreed. The really good arcade games I think are timeless. So long as it's a video monitor, it's shooting pixels with other pixels. Just more of them and more detailed shapes/colors/textures. The question is do you want to play a skills game that isn't very deep (because it's in an arcade) or do you want to immerse yourself in some type of adventure game with a wide open world? You cannot have both. I'm not much of a chess player but I don't think I've ever cared what the pieces looked like or were made of so long as they were distinguishable. My strategy and skill were never affected by the pieces or the board materials. Do you think that would even matter? Sure, to brag, look at my amazing chess set, but otherwise, chess is chess. This the solid gold bathroom fixtures problem. So what. Exactly, though I have no idea what most chess players prioritize in terms of game pieces. Now, if you want to update the game, that would be cool but it wouldn't be chess anymore. Chess is a simple analog of warfare, I always wondered how adding off-board artillery would change the game, hahaaha. Or, something like Archon, which was like halfway between chess and dejarik. I think I could make many "new" arcade games or updates to existing arcade games that would be fun/challenging, but they would always be arcade games, not these recharged, sleepy, over-rendered, slow animated messes. Which is to say, probably not very successful in modern arcades. But my friends who grew up going to arcades would probably love them.

That makes the most sense. I think I listed a few ideas similar to yours, there's just not a lot of space to add things without fundamentally changing the game into something else. Changing to a spinner would allow the castles to wind up in different locations per level, including not being crammed into the corners so that the shield might need to protect 3 walls or all 4, or the castles could have other shapes like an L or U or triangle shape, that would affect rebounds towards other players. This is exactly what I was talking about with '90s+ arcade games design priorities. Ooooh, detailed graphics! Wow, a little CG guy moving around randomly! Textured shield wall sections! The castles look like they're made of stone! The moving shield changes to a hand or a giant pizza!! So what? The game mechanics are unchanged and, if anything, the game itself has been slowed down to accommodate those new, snazzy fireball streaks. To what end? The game is more boring than the original. Yes, there are a few power-ups, oh joy, power-ups. But otherwise? It's nowhere near as engaging as the arcade original (a friend of mine has the cocktail 4-player version, that is very popular with visitors) even though the original has lesser graphics. Part of that is also switching from the paddle controller to the PC mouse. I'm glad they maintained the analog control but a mouse is less accurate than a paddle (or spinner) in terms of stopping movement to bounce the fireball. Do younger players really prefer better graphics over better gameplay? That's nuts. No way I would pay money for this version, I'd rather fire up the 2600 version (or Castle Crisis, of course).

All of my views and opinions are based on gameplay, just to be clear. Great gameplay beats great graphics any day (assuming a minimum level of graphics which the 2600 many times failed to reach). So, if your textured 3D update doesn't play any different or plays worse, who cares? Not picking on your idea, this is the reason I gave up on arcade games after the mid-'80s, they all started being the same games with updated graphics (and boring controls). But most people accepted them as new or better so they were popular which spawned more of them, all I was seeing was similar simple games but with a lot of eye candy. Not all games, Silent Scope was legit great to my eyes, because of how well it simulated being a sniper, I loved Cyber Sled, too. But the rest? Joysticks moving things around other things but now prioritizing fancy graphics. In some ways the games got simpler. Or, of course, they were driving/fighting sims which were legit better than before, but I could only play so many of those. So, from your still image, I can't tell what would change with your Warlords Recharged idea. If all it's going to do is add a bunch of power-ups and explosions, no thanks. If the core gameplay is going to suffer (using a paddle to defend 2 sides of a castle from being hit by something bouncing around is required), no thanks. It should still be hard to master and it should be analog. That means paddles. Warlords is just a variation of Pong, but if you have the dragon stay in the playfield and it shoots fireballs that bounce around 4-8 times and then they disappear, meaning the dragon is constantly flying around shooting new fireballs to keep the action going, multiple fireballs bouncing around the playfield at the same time, maybe have cliff/mountain walls around the screen edge so that the fireballs bounce back towards the players' castles, that could add a level of hard to the whole thing. I'm not sure how I would "recharge" it. Assuming you keep the basic paddle moving shield gameplay, all that could change would be the enemies or the effects of the shots. Or, you change the paddle to a spinner, now you can have those castles be in different places in higher levels, maybe have them closer to the center so that you have to cover all 360 degrees of castle walls? That would open up new strategies for surviving attacks from new directions, especially if there's a co-op option. For power-ups I might add wider shields that can cover more area, swap the shield for a gun to shoot the fireball or whatever off-course and also maybe shoot the dragon itself, weaken it, or there are multiple dragons so then this gun could get rid of a few of them before the power-up runs out of time. Also, I like the fog/cloud idea, you can have random fog banks float through camouflaging the dragon's position for a few seconds. Otherwise, I don't think this is the type of game that can be recharged much, it's not designed for it. As far as that A.I. image goes, you can't have any kind of angled view that obscures what can be seen, it has to be completely top down view, otherwise the dragon(s) can hide behind/below those lower castles and nobody can see where they are.

Sorry for the bump, but I missed out on this first run of overlays, mostly because I have the games with overlays already. Even so, I was very interested at the time for the next upcoming set of overlays that would hopefully include Tempest. So I guess I will put it out there, have you gotten around to doing another set of 5200 overlays that would include other homebrew/prototype games? So, like Tempest RealSports Curling Blaster Xari Arena Scramble Asteroids Xevious Sinistar Adventure II Stargate Combat II Advanced Millipede Castle Crisis Haunted House Ratcatcher The Last Starfighter Necromancer Final Legacy I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of (some have been created since the time of the first set of overlays). If any of the programmers here who made those games could offer "official" design input, that would be even cooler to tie it all together.

That's understandable though, to my mind, if the game had been teased let's say only 3 years before (which has happened with a few homebrews) and showed up now, now is still now so I don't see a difference. Once a game takes like a year or more after it's announced, I forget about it so in that sense I welcome pre-paying so that I don't lose out on a game because I missed a buy now announcement (happened more than once, very frustrating). It's very rare that the wait is this long, of course, so can't blame people for losing patience. So far I haven't been ripped off, meaning my money is gone and I will forever get nothing from that person. Again, Tempest from what I remember took longer if you count the official Atari tease of the boxed game ('83), less if you count from the dumping of the unfinished ROM ('99?) and the announcement later that work might/would start on finishing it (the game manual says '02 was when initial attempts were started). Even so, I still had as much interest in it even with that long stretch of time, same as if it had only taken 6 months to be completed (it was released in 2013 but was originally going for a 2010 release?). I don't remember any bellyaching about that amount of time but then nobody was pre-paying that early for it, either. Took me a long time to get 5200 Asteroids as well, still interested in playing it. I'm a sucker for custom/different controllers so most of my interest in Hellhole was for the Vectrex Spinner controller that comes with the game (I also have his Overdrive controller). Certainly I could cobble together my own versions if I was in the mood but I like collecting official physical games and peripherals for my systems vs. just ROMs. For example, the Wico Command Control joystick and keypad for the 5200, they're stupid expensive now. The Vectrex had so much less 3rd party support that anything extra catches my attention. I just hate those plastic clam shell boxes.

Well well well. Something - ALGO - 'Nuf said, indeed. I was emailed a tracking number and everything. Well, Jeff31, it still took less time than Tempest for the 5200 did yet I'm glad I got both regardless of the journey. And what was gained by all your bitching about it? I'm not sure. Certainly I think most people would prefer that homebrew games take less time to be conceived of/programmed/produced/shipped but then I'm not the one making them so I don't see the need to complain. I will complain about artificial limited editions for standard games that could easily be sold through a 3rd party (like Sean Kelly or AtariAge) if the original programmer isn't in the mood to sit in his living room gluing together cart boxes but this was decidedly more involved with the controller and special box. It will sit nicely next to my Warrior game. Which reminds me, I need to re-up my subscription to Vectorbolt.

Mmm hmm, You stated "I think you can significantly change a game and many aspects from gameplay to graphics, while still being inspired by the original, so much so that a stranger walking by who never saw it before would say "hey, this cool new game really reminds me of Asteroids"." That happened many times back in the late '70s/early '80s already, games like Galaga, Space Firebird, Phoenix and Moon Cresta being inspired by Galaxian yet having many aspects from gameplay to graphics being changed. But they weren't called Galaxian Recharged and gamers played them even with new names. Same with maze games inspired by Pac-Man and platformers inspired by Donkey Kong. Asteroids Deluxe was so close to Asteroids that, of course, keep the "Asteroids" name. Space Duel had enough significant changes that it got a whole new name. Even Blasteroids had enough changes to it (clear levels, power-ups, raster graphics) that they at least modified the name. Once a game is changed significantly enough, the name gets changed. There are also games with clever names like Millipede (for a Centipede sequel) so that not everything is [game name] Deluxe or Super [game name], that gets old. Gravitar, while obviously related to Lunar Lander, was so different that it got a new name. Super Mario Brothers clearly is related to Donkey Kong but since it's such a different game, it gets a new name. Yes you did, you are insisting that Alan-1 should significantly change Asteroids Recharged from the original Asteroids game. "For me, as long as its reminiscent of the original, I would prefer to see radical changes if someone is going to spend the time, energy, and massive financial investment to make a new version." Why? If you want a game so different why still attach "Asteroids" to it like they are? Simply call it something else like I suggested, Rock Crusher or Space Miner or something. People would look at it, see that it has floating rocks that you have to shoot (along with many changes), think "Ah, sort of like Asteroids" but be intrigued because it's different. But you want Alan-1 to make an Asteroids Recharged that is significantly different from Asteroids. You never suggested a new name. Which means that the relevance of the name of the game matters. The reason it's called Asteroids Recharged is because it's very very close to Asteroids. The name creates the expectation of recognition. Now, if Asteroids Recharged does well (I hope), I can see a "Super Asteroids" being made that builds off that and has more of the big changes like you want. But the first move for a new Asteroids game after decades of nothing in arcades has to be close to Asteroids in order for any fans of the original to be attracted to it. There is no other reason to call it Asteroids Recharged than because you hope fans of the original spend money on your new updated version. Young players who have no attachment to the original Asteroids won't care what it's called so long as it's fun for them, only fans of the original will react to the name and have instant expectations of what they're looking at. On the other hand, if it's really different like you wish for and called something like Space Miner then it will be evaluated solely on how it plays and how fun it is, no preconceived notions of gameplay. Some classic Asteroids fans might love it, might not, but who cares since it's not called Asteroids in the first place, it's not aimed at that fanbase. I already went over this with that horrible '80s version of the Dodge Challenger. Everyone had the same reaction which was due solely to the name association. Mitsubishi had already made that car with slightly different body panels and nobody cared because... it was called something else. It succeeded or failed on its own merits. But that new Challenger? It's immediately compared to the previous Challenger, with predictable results. Name recognition matters in terms of familiarity. Whoa, I didn't mention any of that shit, I said original vector Star Wars with the only change being a raster screen (19", I think, for that cabinet). You immediately change that to giant screen that surrounds you that is displaying near-cinema quality graphics with surround sound? That's not the original Star Wars game with raster graphics. I mean, I can see why you would significantly change what I suggested in order to try to make your argument work but try again with only the one change I presented - the exact same '80s Star Wars game but swap out vector graphics for raster graphics, is it more immersive? You make my point. The game is weak enough that it doesn't require your full attention, it's a clumsy movie not a difficult arcade game. If you started sight-seeing while playing the vector original Star Wars you would quickly fly into something or get shot. I can sight-see while playing those home Recharged Atari games, too, because they are also slow, non-challenging games with overpowered weapons. I can't do that with the original arcade versions once they speed up. I'm really hoping that Alan-1 doesn't pull that move with Asteroids Recharged, I hope that it is challenging enough that I have to pay real attention to it after the first couple minutes because if I start sight-seeing I'll get killed quick. Just. Like. The. Original. Asteroids.

True, you couldn't get to what we have now without pushing the miserable graphics back then beyond what they were capable of. And I like the changed viewpoint of that Missile Command game where it feels like you're standing on the ground and looking up at the actual missiles coming down towards the cities. I bet a game with updated graphics with that viewpoint, using goggles or a yoke, could be pretty fun. And also very hectic in later levels, hahaha.

I was trying to find a link to that parody version of Asteroids with the Van Halen sounds (Assteroidz) but it seems to be gone. Too bad, that bass thump was perfect! True, but I think a version of Missile Command where you are looking up over your own head as missiles come down (almost straight at you) might work better with a yoke to give you a better sense of "up" and "down" along with left and right. It would also give more of a sense of aiming a gun directly at the missiles vs. trying to set a targeting pip. I mean, if modern "gamers" can't handle a trak-ball for something simple like new Centipede games, using a trak-ball for a VR-looking version of Missile Command will crack their brains. I understand but you were still touting that as a massive improvement ("completely new visuals") whereas all I saw was the horrible "3D" graphics. The '90s were terrible in terms of video game graphics because they had abandoned the simple representative shapes of the older 8-bit games and were attempting to look photoreal, and missing the mark terribly. I think it worked better for things like side-view fighting games where the fighters now looked more like people instead of LEGO statues. Didn't really help ships or cars much, either, until more recently. Now you have graphics that are better than some low-budget movies with weak digital effects. I still think the idea would be cool, almost from the point of view of standing on the ground looking out at cities and up at incoming missiles, talk about immersive! It would play out the same as the original, it would just look cooler having missiles flying away towards the farther away city, you would still have to target it and shoot it out of the sky with the same control scheme as before. I think the missiles coming almost straight down at you towards the cities close by would be more impressive now with modern graphics, talk about big explosions, hahaaha.

I agree with your assessment about playing new games, but I don't see Asteroids Recharged as having worse gameplay compared to original Asteroids, it's basically identical in terms of controlling the ship and shooting moving targets. I just wish the smaller asteroids (and saucers) would move faster than the big asteroids. That's a basic part of Asteroids, it makes this Asteroids Recharged easier to play. So I can see where new gamers will see is as meh compared to the eye raping new games with so many explosions and power-ups, though when I look at those games I just see modern versions of Scramble or Galaxian that are way too easy because of the super guns. That is mediocre, at best, gameplay, but they're just interested in biggest guns or something. Back in the day people were more up to the challenge of beating a new/hard game. I would watch people try over and over to beat Robotron, Defender, Sinistar, Tempest, other games, in order to proclaim themselves "the best" or whatever. I don't know what has changed today that "gamers" care more about redemptions and power-ups.

Ok, I understand that, but there has to be a limit, yes? If a game comes out that's louder, won't the other games suffer and then they have to be louder in order to make money? And then if they're louder, too, then the first game loses that advantage and has to be even louder, to the final result that you can't even hear yourself think inside the arcade? "Enough" soundtrack and attract mode sounds should be good enough for all the games, they're all levelled out to be attracting but not deafening. But there are games that need actual in-game sound effects to tell you what happened along with the graphics, right? What happens if they're drowned out by overbearing music? I've played games where I've died because the goofy game music was so loud I didn't notice an alarm or ship sound warning me of some enemy sneaking up on me. At that point, turn down the goddamn music. Unless you're not there to actually play the game, just listen to its music. I understand, what I was saying was even without the headset, that first version was an interesting idea for a different point of view for the same basic game mechanics. It could work with a Star Wars yoke, I think. But if the gameplay isn't as good, meaning the controls don't let you be accurate enough to actually target and destroy the missiles, or the missiles look stupid as they're descending (meaning you miss them because they weren't represented accurately enough overhead) then the game will be frustrating. But "VR headset" doesn't excuse the clumsy looking "mountains" or the low-rez cities. A new arcade version would certainly fix those visuals, I think, and be a cool new version of Missile Command. But hopefully not too easy or slow or too loaded with power-ups. It would be cool to have the cities spread around, like a few are close to the player, others are farther away, so that the missiles come down in many directions, not just left/right like in the original, an umbrella effect seen from below. But that would be challenging, which would repel modern gamers, which would result in poor sales. Forget I said any of that.

I'm curious what you think of that 8-player Mega Pac-Man game then. Yes, it's huge but that's due to the 8 players. But from what I can tell (never seen it live) it plays like Pac-Man, new power-ups that seem fun and not excessive (no miniguns or smart bombs every 10 seconds, yes?), large screen, how is this game successful (if it is) when it's not some radically changed version of Pac-Man that's rendered 3D with crazy new perspectives? It seems more like original Pac-Man even than Asteroids Recharged is to Asteroids. Actually, I would love to see a 4-8 player version of Asteroids with a giant horizontal display like this game, loads of asteroids flying at various speeds, different saucers and occasional power-ups, maybe allow players to combine into a super ship with multiple guns or something Voltron-ish, hahahaa. I know it's only one example but it seems to argue for being truer to the original while maintaining the same gameplay can work. It doesn't have realistic shaded textures depicting prison walls or dry riverbeds or something else that is unlike the original, the dots are still dots, the ghosts still look like ye olde time ghosts, etc. I wouldn't ever describe Pac-Man as "serious" but certainly this new version maintains the same gameplay from what I can tell. If it is popular, how can that be if it looks almost the same as the original?

Hahaha, I see those little stools and my back says "Oh, finally!". That would be cool to play 3 player... if not for the shitty joysticks replacing the much better trak-balls. And of course the minigun spray of bullets, you would think 3 players would add enough of an advantage against the centipedes. We need to stop dumbing down games for modern "gamers", they need to understand that being challenged is ok, you can't dominate every game the first time you play because the weapons are so stacked in your favor all the time. Participation trophy mindset sucks.

I don't understand that statement. You are describing almost every arcade game in the late '70s/early '80s. Every one of them, when they first showed up in arcades, were new to first time players who hadn't seen them yet. Lots of kids played them as well. I remember being baffled by Defender and Tempest, lots of others. After watching a few people play them, though, ok, I'll give it a shot. Dead, dammit. One more shot. Oooh, I lasted 3 levels! One more shot... $10 gone, like that! By your thinking all of those games would have failed because of the similarly steep learning curves, yes? Robotron? Joust? Gravitar? Ok, bad example, hahahaa. Yet most of those games always had people waiting to play next (the quarters set on the marques). I mean, if modern "gamers" are too feeble to handle Asteroids then I see what you mean, but otherwise, have a little pride! Beat that damn game already, "gamer"!