Planet Bob

I think you should wait to call it quits on "speed-up games" till after you port Warp & Warp.

 

j/k

 

I'm not sure where I'm going next. I've been toying with lots of ideas during the past 12 months. I've been checking out some in deeper detail lately, But I haven't made a definite choice yet. Hottest candidate still seems to be Taitos "Water Ski", but I'm a little reluctant to do the third Taito game in a row

I agree with you, to an extent - I really prefer to code games where the increasing challenge is from several factors. I.e., in Go Fish! (since it's been on my mind lately ), the enemy fishies get faster, true - but also: the player fish also gets faster, but changes direction slower, and gets bigger, and enemy fish get bigger, plus fish change their behavior, plus special enemies are introduced, each with their own "AI" (if you can call it that). Thinking back, I tried to design Reindeer Rescue similarly: it speeds up but I also tried to increase the difficulty in other ways: by level design mostly, but also with the various enemies/obstacles.

 

As far as two-player games. It's a lot of fun to code AI - at least I had fun trying to do it for M-4 - but I think it is just the nature of 1-on-1 games that the appeal is limited. Much more interesting to fight/compete against a horde than against just one.

 

Anyway, some thoughts off the top of my head.

I can't speak from a programmer's standpoint... but here's my take on it from a gamer's point-of-view.

 

The "speed-up" type of games usually have one of two problems with them, depending on the game.

1. They become impossible to play
   
2. They become boring to play
   

In the first case, the programmer intentionally makes it impossible to get past a certain point in the game. Probably because they can't figure out anything else to do with it at that point. The problem here, of course, is that the game no longer "plays fair" and becomes a source of frustration to players who can regularly get that far.

 

With a lot of games though, this isn't a problem for most players, since they can never get good enough to reach that point of "intentional unplayability".

 

In the second case (see: Laser Blast), you end up with a game where the difficulty simply tops out too soon, and then the game just becomes an exercise in boredom, since you can effectively play the game forever if you want.

 

As with "impossible" games though, not a lot of players can actually master those games to the point where they can play forever. It's only the games that have glaring shortcomings in their designs that can be easily exploited.

 

Now, the plus side to Laser Blast (and some other Activision games) is they do come to an end. You can actually beat the games if you play up to the maximum score. I'd rather see a game do that, then just roll the score over endlessly, or become unplayable.

 

The trick with games that end, is: what does it take to get to the end? How long is the game? Can you repeatedly hit "continue"?

 

I like Reindeer Rescue because the game is winnable. It's designed to be that way. It rewards you for it. It's not designed to make it easy, however, and you have to play the entire game very well to do it. You also can not continue from where a previous game ended, and I think that's an important factor. Had you been able to continue, it would suck the replay value right out of it.

 

When I first played Scramble in the arcades, I played it repeatedly, trying to get to the base. I had to master every stage of the game to do it, since the game wouldn't let me restart from where I died after each game, and it kept me coming back to play the game. But when Super Cobra came out, it had a "continue" feature. So with a pocket full of tokens, and no real skill, I played through all of the levels in one session, and never came back to the game again. I didn't have to get good at the game to see everything it had to offer. I just had to be persistent to play through each area where I died repeatedly, and limp through the game. It effectively ruined the game.

 

Games that let you continue exactly where you left off with no penalty appeal mainly to lazy gamers (let the flames begin!). A better approach is the one used by Tempest, where you have to start a few levels back from where your previous game ended. This makes the gamer learn to play the game in order to progress through it.

 

Bosconian could benefit from that. In the ROM sets I've played, you get to restart exactly where your last game ended. It would be better if they'd start you back at the beginning of the previous level that you cleared, so you couldn't just dump in quarters to get through a particular level. Another option is to limit the number of continues you have. Use them up, and the game resets all the way back to the start.

 

As far as I know, Bosconian, Tempest, Scramble and Super Cobra don't end. Scramble and Super Cobra just loop, and make you use up fuel faster, so at a certain point, they most likely become impossible. For Super Cobra, there are enough challenges, and the game is long enough, so that's not really a problem if it had a better continue option. But Scramble has a limited number of challenges (that just repeat), so its replay value is diminished for players that figure the game out. Bosconian and Tempest are both quite huge with a lot of levels, so they also have considerable replay value. I've never gotten good enough at Tempest or Bosconian to get bored with them. I still enjoy playing Scramble, since I can get to the base, but I have to play a few games to work up to it. To this day though, I have little interest in playing Super Cobra. Maybe it's because I know I can "continue" my way through it, so I don't see the point in making the effort to learn to really play it.

 

Wow. I sure rambled on there.

 

So... two player games.

 

I really like two player games. They can be some of the most fun games there are. I also agree they tend to be best when there are actually two people playing them, rather than a person against AI. I always had more fun playing Joust with someone, than solo. Space Wars (arcade) is an awesome game, but useless with one person. Armor Attack is good game, but with two players at once, it's an absolute blast!

 

On the 2600, I always liked M-Network's baseball. But I could seldom find someone to play against. Activision's Hockey and Tennis are great two-player games, but in one-player mode, you can beat the pants off 'em both (they're still fun, though). Warlords' AI is so easy to beat it loses all of its fun as a single-player game. Medieval Mayhem is much better, but once you figure out the AI, you can still beat it every time. At that point, the nature of the game changes from being a reactive game, to one where you're executing a pattern. Fall Down, on the other hand, is an excellent one-player game. I can still beat it basically every time I play the game, but it doesn't matter because it's incredibly fun to play. In that case, it's not a matter of figuring out how to make the AI look stupid, because the game is still based on reflexes. It doesn't "feel" like you're just playing a one-player version of a two-player game.

 

I can certainly see though, how it would be hard to come up with AI that would be anywhere near as challenging (or varied) as a human opponent. Maybe some of the answer lies in adding additional elements to the game, to further challenge a single player. Changing the nature of the game for a single player, rather than trying to duplicate the two-player experience.

I agree with you, to an extent - I really prefer to code games where the increasing challenge is from several factors. I.e., in Go Fish! (since it's been on my mind lately ), the enemy fishies get faster, true - but also: the player fish also gets faster, but changes direction slower, and gets bigger, and enemy fish get bigger, plus fish change their behavior, plus special enemies are introduced, each with their own "AI" (if you can call it that).

 

One common problem with games that constantly introduce new stuff is that unless you design the game so any meathead can get through it, many of the buyers will only get to experience a small part of what you put in.

 

The approach I took in Toyshop Trouble is a little different from anything I've seen elsewhere: you can practice any level up to the highest you've reached in "normal play", but you can't advance levels in practice mode. If it takes twenty tries at a level before you're good enough to beat it consistently, you can do those twenty tries without having to do all the earlier levels each time. But then you have to run through all the levels to get to the next one.

 

I think one of my biggest regrets with TT, in retrospect, is that because I was running short on code-space and time I only allowed the practice mode to go up to December 24. In retrospect, I should have allowed a player to practice January levels as well. The January levels are enjoyable but hard, but having to rerun the whole game to practice them is annoying. On the other hand, levels Dec. 21 and 23 still provide a good challenge.

I can certainly see though, how it would be hard to come up with AI that would be anywhere near as challenging (or varied) as a human opponent. Maybe some of the answer lies in adding additional elements to the game, to further challenge a single player. Changing the nature of the game for a single player, rather than trying to duplicate the two-player experience.

 

My plan for SpaceWar is to have a one-player mode in which a computer-controlled ship drops a mixture of mines (which the player must avoid) and capsules (which the player must collect). Same basic engine as two-player SpaceWar, but the computer's role would be much simpler than that of an AI-based opponent.

Changing the nature of the game for a single player, rather than trying to duplicate the two-player experience.

 

Hehe, like the target shooting in Outlaw? :)

 

That's a pretty good essay you wrote, almost qualifying for an entry of its own.

 

I kinda think different of games like Scramble. While in theory they are indeed speeding-up when viewed from a bigger picture, I mostly just consider them beat when the base is destroyed.

 

I rather meant simpler challenges that really put you in an endless speed-up loop, like Space Invaders, Missile Command, Warp & Warp, Galaxian, Berzerk, Pac-Man, Asteroids - Tetris if you want to.

 

As for the continue feature, it depends pretty much on the rest of the game, wether it makes sense. For example I think you can count the people on this planet that can beat NES Ghosts'n'Goblins without using continues with your fingers

 

Interesting on second thought, those two game design principles I decided to not do again, seem to be the offspring of video game design. Those are the very basics, no?

I kinda think different of games like Scramble. While in theory they are indeed speeding-up when viewed from a bigger picture, I mostly just consider them beat when the base is destroyed.

I agree (hence my experience with Super Cobra). Interestingly though, I don't put Gorf in that category, since they added the "Space" rankings to that game, which entice you to play through the different levels more than once. Smart game design, there. (And wasn't Gorf one of the first multi-stage games?)

 

I rather meant simpler challenges that really put you in an endless speed-up loop, like Space Invaders, Missile Command, Warp & Warp, Galaxian, Berzerk, Pac-Man, Asteroids - Tetris if you want to.

Although Pac-Man comes to an end, of sorts. But I know what you mean.

 

As for the continue feature, it depends pretty much on the rest of the game, wether it makes sense. For example I think you can count the people on this planet that can beat NES Ghosts'n'Goblins without using continues with your fingers

True, but I think the best-designed games shouldn't require infinite continues. At that level, the designers are just pushing the players around because they can. Or perhaps they're so afraid of making a game that's easily beatable, they go too far in the other direction.

 

I think a lot of that stemmed from companies just wanting to make quarter-eaters. A lot of the Capcom shoot-'em-ups are pointless exercises in dumping quarter after quarter into a game. There's very little real gameplay to be had there. Same with a lot of fighting games. The first game I really saw this with was Smash TV. That thing was designed for one purpose - to shove a lot of quarters into. (Sure was fun though. )

 

Interesting on second thought, those two game design principles I decided to not do again, seem to be the offspring of video game design. Those are the very basics, no?

When you boil it all down, there are only a handful of game types that everything else ultimately stems from. Three or four, tops.

 

I'll give an example - Pong.

 

Modern shoot-'em-ups come from Galaga. Galaga comes from Galaxian. Galaxian comes from Space Invaders. Space Invaders comes from what? Breakout. It is, essentially, the same game play. Moving back and forth, "shooting" a group of objects above you. Breakout, of course, stems from Pong. It's just turned on its side, and has only one target. (Although the goal is to actually get it past the target, but it is your target, nonetheless.)

 

You can do this with a lot of games, too. Fighting games, for example, are basically variations on Pong. Especially ones where you're shooting some fireball power-up thing at the other player. It's just Pong, with seven buttons and a joystick.

When you boil it all down, there are only a handful of game types that everything else ultimately stems from. Three or four, tops.

 

It can't be that many. All existing "gameplay" seems derived from competition amongst humans:

 

1. Be Faster than the other

2. Be Smarter than the other

3. Aim better than the other

4. Collect more than the other

(5. Be Stronger than the other)

 

That's it I think. I put the fifth in brackets, because physical strength normally translates into the other four in a video game

 

Hm... interesting. You'd never think that "Aiming" was such an important aspect in life...

 

I think that also explains female gamers. They're not interested in aiming or physical competition, so they focus on being smart and collecting...

 

Hehe, the world in a nutshell, only here in my blog!