Random Within Range

[Random Within Range]

Hmm, I dug this up from an old source file. I'm pretty sure SeaGTGruff wrote it originally:

 

   function get_rand
  if temp1 = temp2 then return temp1
  if temp1 < temp2 then temp3 = temp1 : temp4 = temp2 else temp3 = temp2 : temp4 = temp1
  temp4 = temp4 - temp3 + 1
  if temp4 = 0 then temp3 = 1 : temp4 = 255
  temp5 = 255 / temp4
  temp5 = temp4 * temp5
get_rand_loop1
  temp6 = rand
  if temp6 > temp5 then get_rand_loop1
get_rand_loop2
  if temp6 > temp4 then temp6 = temp6 - temp4 : goto get_rand_loop2
  temp6 = temp6 + temp3 - 1
  return temp6
end

 

Then you should be able to call it with statements like:

 

if...then x = get_rand(0,100)

(Number between 0 and 100)

if...then x = get_rand(6,50)

(Number between 6 and 50)

etc...

 

Of course, I'm not sure if this is as fast or as flexible as what you are looking for.

 

EDT: That syntax was a little malformed in the calls. Basically, a designated variable would store the result of the function.

[Are there any Atari 2600 sprite animation tutorials?]

Another thing to consider is using incremental color shifts in the TIA palette to creat the illusion of texture. You can often make an object look rounder or shift the angle of perspective with light-to-dark gradients.

[Random Within Range]

I remember using something like "INT(199 * RND(1)))" to get a result within 1 to 199 in QuickBASIC. Is there an approximation in Batari?

 

Maybe there's a way using modulus. Something like "rand MOD 199"

 

Any clues guys? I've done a search with some hits but nothing clear.

 

 

No, but you can write a function that does something similiar.

[Are there any Atari 2600 sprite animation tutorials?]

Another thing that might help is to think of sprite animation in terms of old-fashioned hand drawn lightbox animation. Usually, you'd start an animation with endpoints and rough line gestures and then build it when the motion itself looks right. They still do something similar in 3D animation with what they call "wireframe" models, which have untextured surfaces, low polygon counts, etc.

 

So in complex animations, such as a person walking in profile, the first thing you might want to do is establish the number of frames in the loop and then draw single pixels where the feet, hands hips and head will be. When doing this, bear in mind these parts rarely move at a constant rate, but rather swing at varying velocity. Watch film of someone walking (or just look at them out on the street) and you'll notice that the arms and legs move most quickly during the middle of a stride, and slow up at the end when the momentum is shifting the other way, sort of like a pendulum on a clock.

 

To simulate this momentum shift, have the feet and hands move two or three pixels during the middle or last third of the swing, but slow down to one or zero towards each end of it. Relative movement speed is probably the most difficult thing to capture in low res sprite animation, but I think it looks great when done right. Other sorts of mechanical things (robots, space ships) lend themselves to more constant animation and can look quite good that way, but living things tend to look better when there's a bit of momentum shifting going on as they walk, run, hop or gallop around.

[Are there any Atari 2600 sprite animation tutorials?]

Do you mean an aesthetic guide (how to make VCS animations look pretty) or a technical guide for programmers (setting up animation loops, framerates, etc)?

[Need some help thinking]

Note: Buying the full version of The Graveyard adds only one feature, the possibility of death. The full version of the game is exactly the same as the trial, except, every time you play she may die.

 

Yet another grim and angst-ridden experimental game.

 

Is it, at least, the "possibility of zombie-related death?"

[Need some help thinking]

When it comes to having fun and truly playing, we might want to create some video toys instead of video games if the word 'game' must always be tied to competition and winning in your mind. When you look up 'game' in the dictionary, it can also simply mean "amusement or pastime," so that's something we might want to remember when creating new games.

 

This sort of reminds of some things I've read about H.P. Lovecraft. While I suppose most people remember him as the father of Gothic Tentacle Horror, he is also widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern wargaming. What I found fascinating about the account of this side of his life was the way his obsession started as just playing "toy soldiers" with his sons. There were no rules in the beginning. They just moved the little soldiers and horsies around - regular, old "bang-bang you're dead" playtime-type stuff. Then, over time, they began to get a bit more sporting about it. So it was the old "bang-bang your're dead" versus the inevitable "No, I'm not! You can't hit me from there!" The game mechanics more or less began to evolve organically from this seed, from line-of-sight to tree cover to rules about cavalry movement. Eventually, they had designed a game together, and when his friends visited and saw their elaborate setups of terrain and armies, they got interested and wanted to play. Soon enough, they were having grand, imaginary wars that sprawled all over the house, and from the descriptions of these events, great fun was had by all.

 

Eventually this activity would morph into some of the terrifyingly complex rules of modern tabletop miniature wargames (and the soulless, masochistic grognards who love them). While the kernel was about playtime and imagination, and the rules made it more sporting, rules and regulations can pile up until it feels like what you are doing is "work" not "play."

 

Then a few years ago, I discovered this, and my faith in humanity was restored...

 

A game with competition can be a good game. A game with cooperation can be a good game. But a game without fun isn't a game at all.

[Need some help thinking]

One guy posted a funny response to that article:

 

"I played it, but had some weird graphic issues for most parts of the game and could only guess at what was going on. Anyway, I think the inclusion of enemies like ninjas, robots, arabs od nazis could have made the game better. Oh and you really should be able to ride in some kind of vehicle. And some minigames too. Come to think of it, a crafting system would have been a nice touch. And it definitely needs online multiplayer. With a coop story campaign. And achievements.

 

Also, you need a dog. Every game is much better if you have a dog. It could be your interface. Or something."

 

My favorite response:

 

"Yes! I beat the end boss!!"

 

:ROFL:

[Need some help thinking]

Here you go:

 

 

1061

 

EDIT: Aww, crap. Good job. You beat me before I posted my screenie.

 

I tried to screenshot, but I must have just missed it. It was 1577.

 

Looking back on it, it seems you get "double points" for running with a spouse, but I'm unsure if this counts for treasure as well as just running forward. I'll give it a try.

 

*EDIT: Nah. The wife stinks. You don't get double score for treasures you pick up, and also she can't pick up treasure herself (no working women in this life sim, I guess). This is especially "Irritating and Frustrating" because you can't even "phase into" the treasure with the passage of time to pick up the loot. So basically, any treasure that is only accessible from the front spousal-side is inaccessible. And you get trapped and hung up on walls far too much for the double-score to be worth a damn.

 

Sorry you romantic types... single is the way to go.

[Need some help thinking]

Here's a tip.. don't get the girl up top.. marriage will only tie you down. In the game you won't be able to maneuver the bottom if you have the excess baggage along with you.

 

Yeah, I got my 1577 living a swinging bachelor life. At first I wondered if getting hitched gave you a special multiplier or allowed access to special bonuses, but it doesn't seem like it does... the ol' ball and chain just slows you down. This could be a philosophy course taught by Rodney Dangerfield.

[Need some help thinking]

I don't know what the "scoring metric" is, but pressing right takes forever.

 

If you go down and right, there's things to run over. Within like 30 seconds or so you'll have almost 900 points.. I had 859.

 

I just got 1577, with a mixture of running and exploring.

[Need some help thinking]

I don't know what the "scoring metric" is, but pressing right takes forever.

 

If you go down and right, there's things to run over. Within like 30 or 40 seconds you'll have almost 900 points.. I had 859.

 

 

Okay, I scored "779" on the second try of Passage, simply by holding the right arrow down for the entire time. It's possible that 779 or 780 is the pacer. It's also seems likely that it's impossible to beat this score, based on the scoring metric described.

 

So, this is art, but not necessarily a game. Sort of like Shadow of the Beast, except even less like a game. Still, it is an interesting bit of interactive art, much like some of Ian Bogost's VCS experiments.

 

Nice. Well, I shall give it another try then... and beat you!

[Need some help thinking]

Anybody think that Passage or Gravitation follow the rules?

 

I just tried both. They are very intriguing and interesting, and would qualify as works of digital art.

 

Alas, my reptiloid overlords insist I mention that I scored "540" on my first game of Passage. I will see if I can beat that on the next play.

 

Okay, I scored "779" on the second try of Passage, simply by holding the right arrow down for the entire time. It's possible that 779 or 780 is the pacer. It's also seems likely that it's impossible to beat this score, based on the scoring metric described.

 

So, this is art, but not necessarily a game. Sort of like Shadow of the Beast, except even less like a game. Still, it is an interesting bit of interactive art, much like some of Ian Bogost's VCS experiments.

[Need some help thinking]

Anybody think that Passage or Gravitation follow the rules?

 

I just tried both. They are very intriguing and interesting, and would qualify as works of digital art.

 

Alas, my reptiloid overlords insist I mention that I scored "540" on my first game of Passage. I will see if I can beat that on the next play.

[Need some help thinking]

Anybody think that Passage or Gravitation follow the rules?

 

From "Passage"

 

The rewards in Passage come in the form of points added to your score, and you have two options for scoring points: treasure chests, which give 100 points for each hit, and exploration, which gives double-points if you walk with your spouse. There's a pretty tight balance between these two options---there's no optimal choice between the two.

 

The explanation, however, is one of the more angst-ridden ones I've ever seen, and perhaps qualifies as a phenomenal art project on the subject of death.

 

 

"Gravitation" sounds like another art project (on a very somber subject), although the mechanics aren't really described in enough detail to really tell if it complies. Perhaps some playtesting is in order.

 

Actually come to think of it, there's no way to tell if either game complies with all (or any) the guidelines listed above without a proper playtest. For instance, "Passage" describes a maze that is impossible to explore in one try, but does the maze itself or the location of the treasure chests change with successive plays?

[Need some help thinking]

Although I hesitate to call it a "game," one game-like activity that might fit these guidelines is "Whisper Down the Lane." When played well, I believe the goal is not to guess what the original phrase was, but rather to crack up the next person in the circle with your change.

 

It might be an interesting thought exercise to come up with a non-competitive game (i.e no gauging of performance via score, time, or zero-sum contest). I would be curious to see how it works out, although I have a suspicion that the end product would either be a toy, exercise or test of some sort rather than an actual game. Either that, or people would find a way to turn it into a competition regardless of how it was marketed, since humans (and animals, and, when you get right down to it, plants) all seem to be built that way.

 

For instance, I could imagine a puzzle game where players are given the ultimate goal of dividing a set number of blocks equally amongst themselves, with some interference from pseudo-random game mechanics. While disdaining competition on the surface (and really, being almost Bolshevik in its logic and presentation), competition would naturally develop at some point. Play Group A was able to "share" their blocks twice as quickly as Play Group B. National Block Sharing leagues coalesce across the globe, pitting the fastest sharers against each other. Stress follows, as Master Sharers practice their sharing techniques for the World Block Sharing Tournament.

 

Whenever there is a goal, competition will naturally arise. And if there's no goal, it's not a game. It's a toy. It could be a great and entertaining toy, but it's not a game.

[Need some help thinking]

Hey everybody, let's play "Identify Tree!" Then after that, let's eat our minimumally-survivable portion of vegan gruel compound, decorate our non-denominational holiday pole and then sing 60's protest songs until we pass out from protein deficiency!

 

Frankly, I'd prefer a lively round of "Artillery Duel." I love it when those two little soldier guys march out to carry off my enemy's crippled, smoldering carcass.

Yep, you can't make or play cooperative games unless you are a crazy pot smoking hippy who gnaws on tree bark and is afraid of deodorant.

 

Look, none of this is meant to be personal. Some of my best friends are dirty, pot-smoking hippies! But certainly, if social (or religious, or political) activism of any kind comes to the forefront of a game's design, chances are what you will wind up with isn't a "game" but rather a piece of preachy propaganda dressed up in game-like clothes. I have nothing specifically against the Bible, but have you ever see any of these Bible-themed games? Most of them are pathetically bad. Worse, they are usually given to kids who are already inundated with this stuff by their parents and other adults on a daily basis. So whether its the "Woodcraft Folk" vegans with their exciting "Identify Tree Game" up there or Wisdom Tree's "Bible Adventures", trying to teach morality through a video game feels unnecessary and stapled-on. Really, there doesn't appear to be much difference between "let's get rid of competition and winning in games" and Jack Thompson's crusade against sex and violence in video games. Personally I don't care if a game has violence, sex, Mormons or grown men hugging trees. It just ought to be fun and engaging.

 

Maybe that should be Rule #1 in any game designer's list of guidelines. Have people play your game, and let them tell you what is fun and what's not fun about it. There's no hard and fast formula for fun, because there are many different ways to have it.

 

As for "putting the cart before the horse," it's quite normal to have a testable theory before you have a product or application that demonstrates it. But to propose a theory requires some observable phenomenon, otherwise it's just conjecture. In this case, we should all be able to come up with a slew of terrific games that fit this mold you've cast. So far we've yet to come up with one... and that includes you, RT.

 

My advice to you is: invent that game! You can read all the theories on education and reptiloid conspiracies that you want, and swoon to the soothing, sultry sounds of Alfy "competition is terrible" Kohn on a daily basis. But Kohn can't tell any of us what is fun. As a game designer, perhaps you should try to design a game that meets these criteria, and also happens to be fun. Maybe it will be fun to large swathes of people, or maybe it will be only fun to a handful of them. Tastes differ that way - not everyone enjoys the same stuff. But niche games are still games, and can still attract an audience and make people happy.

 

But here's one thing I do know for sure: many hippies have money, and will shell it out for something that is fun and interesting, but still respects their worldview. Design the "Hippie Monopoly" or the "Hippie Counter-Strike," make a kajillion bucks, and then retire someplace warm and beautiful.

[Need some help thinking]

It's funny, I didn't really click through any of these, since you didn't really "sell" them to me. But I just randomly clicked the last link.

I tried to put the links in order of importance, so the last link is the weakest. I only include it because they wrote a book long ago called Playfair that was filled with all kinds of cooperative games.

 

I didn't know I had to 'sell' the links. Does it have to be true? If not, how about this: the following links have free lesbian porn videos and coupons for free chicken.

 

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/games/

These are games to change the world. They show that the alternative to competition, to striving to be the best, to winning at all costs can be enormous fun. That cooperation and sharing not only have some big words going for them like equality, fraternity and justice but a great little word too - fun!

 

I guess that means this first one is the most relevant, but after a read-through I'm still puzzled as to who the quoted person is or what he/she does. Best I can surmise, he is somehow associated with the University of Birmingham and/or Oxford Walking Tours.

 

Besides, there's a little more to that quote after the word "fun!" RT:

 

Non-competitive games as an activity for adults seem to have developed with the hippie movement and the New Games organisation(sic) in the 1970's. They are an integral part of the Woodcraft Folk , a liberal youth movement which embraces most left leaning preoccupations: concern for the environment, anti-racist, non-sexist, co-operation above all. There are a number of books describing these games: the best of the bunch is produced by the Woodcraft folk themselves. Links to sites about some of these issues particularly in relation to children are listed here.

 

How's that for a healthy spoonful of indoctrination with your "fun!?"

 

*Here are some of this guy's favourite games:

My favourite games (listed here): if you are stuck for a sure-fire winner try one of these. Identify Tree (nature), Catch It-Drop It (lively); Touch Blue (lively), Peoples Ball (lively), Octopus (lively, our kids all time favourite), Mushroom (parachute), Sharks (parachute), Shoes, (other), I sit in the wood (name), Action name, (name), Cat and Mouse (parachute), Cat & Mouse in line grid (Tig), Dodge ball, (lively), Rooks and Ravens, (lively), Ball Circle, (lively), Letter, (lively), Huggy Bear, (cooperation), Spirals, (cooperation), Log Roll, (cooperation), Motor-cycle(cooperation).

 

Hey everybody, let's play "Identify Tree!" Then after that, let's eat our minimumally-survivable portion of vegan gruel compound, decorate our non-denominational holiday pole and then sing 60's protest songs until we pass out from protein deficiency!

 

Frankly, I'd prefer a lively round of "Artillery Duel." I love it when those two little soldier guys march out to carry off my enemy's crippled, smoldering carcass.

[Need some help thinking]

You are assuming that I'm saying that all games must have enemies in them. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a game has enemies, they should have some kind of intelligence. For example, in Adventure, the dragons don't bounce back and forth in front of a castle door, waiting for you to time your jump perfectly to make it in. The dragons 'see' you and will chase you. They are more 'alive' than people or creatures that act like mindless obstacles.

 

Right. And part of being alive is competing with each other (for food, for mating rights, for scarce resources) and trying to hinder each others goals. A dragon who wants to eat me is engaged in the ultimate competition with me (who does not want to be eaten)

 

No, I don't think so. That would be a puzzle, rather than a proper "game", I think. Chess puzzles are very popular..."

I'm not talking about a puzzle to solve, but it doesn't matter. I'm not interested in making a new cooperative chess game.

 

Yes but you said you needed some help in thinking about game design, and I mentioned Chess, which great multitudes of people think of as one of the most well-designed games in the world. I am just trying to help you think.

 

The most important element of a game is that it's an unproductive activity that is fun, and most of us find competition fun. It's fun to try and its fun to win. And while losing is sometimes no fun, the loss is simulated. And losing has its own merits, building character and stretching the mind to evolve new strategies. In a way, losing games and failing tasks probably develop the mind more quickly then any other activity. I'd almost go as far to say that "losing is good for you," since mental hygiene seems to be one of your goals here.

Related quote:

 

It is said that our leisure activities no longer give us a break from the alienating qualities of the work we do; instead, they have come to resemble that work.

 

The chief reason our recreation is like our work is that it has become more competitive. Sports, for example, have always been competitive and never really qualified as play in the first place. Although it's not generally acknowledged, most definitions of play do seem to exclude competitive activities...

 

No offense, but this guy kind of sounds like a crackpot. He also wants to eliminate grading in education, and eliminate punishment from parenting. In fact, these are the subjects he writes about, which have nothing to do with games or game design, or anything remotely fun and enjoyable. Furthermore, writing about how homework stinks when you are a grown man reeks of the bitterest sour grapes. Get over it, Mr. Kohn.

 

Quite a romantic image for someone who believes competition to rot the soul!

Not really. I have my stupid causes and I'm usually the only one left standing after those on my side and those against me get all worn out. It's probably a side-effect of delicious Ass-Burgers.

 

Well, I'm just saying it's a startling bit of imagery from someone who seems to be advocating against competition in gaming: standing on a blood-stained hill, ringed by fallen enemies, banner streaming. Perhaps a more appropriate image would by "standing hand-in-hand with my helper buddies on a flat, nondescript plain, in a circular formation equidistant from some arbitrary point, murmuring soothing, non-judgmental affirmations to one another." Of course, knowing how most of us brainwashed, victory-addicted, capitalist pigdogs function, we would probably find a way to make a game out of that too... first one to fall asleep wins

 

But seriously, I guess mixing in some of these hippyish ideas about soft-edged cooperation isn't unworkable. It just sounds like a theory you would first need to prove by actually designing a game that was fun based on these principles. In other words, it's the ultimate "cart before the horse" to write down these guidelines before you discovered or invented a great game that conforms to them. It also seems to have the following built-in excuse: if people don't like the kind of games that result from these guidelines, it isn't because those games suck or because the theory is flawed, but rather because there is something broken about the people who don't like them. Usually not a good sign for a theory or set of guidelines.

 

-J

[Need some help thinking]

. . . considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history.

 

Right, but I'm trying to break free from that mindset like these people:

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/games/

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

 

http://www.childandnature.com/

 

http://www.ru.org/personal-development/cooperative-games-that-teach-solidarity.html

 

http://www.coopsports.com/purefun.shtml

 

http://www.playfair.com/

 

It's funny, I didn't really click through any of these, since you didn't really "sell" them to me. But I just randomly clicked the last link. It's a bit bizarre on several levels (seeming to be some sort of corporate team-building firm), but I found some of the text on this page to be interesting, describing some of their fun activities:

 

Have everyone bring in photos of their pets, and have a contest to guess which pet goes with which person.

"Bury a bone." Hide little gifts around the office for your co-workers to find.

Guess who made what. Anonymously put all the potluck dishes on a table. A large number is placed by each item. Pass out paper with numbers on it. Have everyone try to guess who made each dish. The one with the most correct answers is first in line to be served for the feast!

 

These sound like competitions to me. Although, to be fair, they also sound about as fun as unbuttered toast. I think I'd be mortified if these freaks showed up to my office.

[Need some help thinking]

If you want to follow your own rule against competition, I think it should apply to AI characters too. Otherwise the game will appeal to (and reinforce) the competitive nature in the player that you feel is a lie.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking as well. In constructing a simulated foe, aren't we in fact trying to simulate a human enemy? That would seem to be a paradox in the ethos: humans are not actually competitive by nature (being forced into that mode by their reptiloid masters), but in constructing a lifelike opponent, the opponent must seek to defeat you or hinder your goal.

 

With that wrinkle aside, the only games I can think of that live up to your ideals are: M.U.L.E. in 1-player mode, and 7 Cities of Gold.

 

I suspect Civilisation type games might qualify too, but I don't play those so I can't say for sure.

 

It seems these would be out. Don't M.U.L.E and Civilization both contain computer A.I. foes? Aren't they still competitive games that gauge your performance, and end when one player "wins?"

 

I also get the feeling that good game design is similar to comedy: one can do a thorough analysis on the nature of what makes things funny, but constructing a joke from the rules will lead to something spectacularly unfunny.

 

I recall this point was made - in a very funny way - in a film I saw many years ago. Can't think of it now, though. But I agree in general. A rigid set of rules that include or exclude what games are "fun" almost seems to defeat the purpose. Not all of us find the same activities fun.

[Need some help thinking]

Thanks for the comments so far.

 

 

. . . considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history.

Right, but I'm trying to break free from that mindset///

 

Well, maybe it's a question of semantics, then. I think for most people, a "non-competitive game" is perhaps some sort of toy or exercise rather than a game. The semantics get even trickier, since some popular definitions of "games" actually define a "game" as separate from a "competition" by merit of the ability to actively interfere with or alter the performance of the other player or players. Meanwhile, a "competition" would involve things like foot races or figure skating, where there are rules and constraints, but no direct interaction. So that by that account, Galaga would be a high score "competition", while Pong would be a "game."

 

There are surely "games" that include elements of cooperation and that can be "won together." But there still must be active resistance of some form, otherwise the game contains no challenge. This is why there is some conflict with your "No Mindless Enemies" rule. According to your own tenets, you must be competing against something at least marginally intelligent for the game to be any fun. It seems like you are insisting that the intelligent, lifelike enemy *must* be artificial, and you force that distinction without making it clear why it's important. If I find a human mind equally or more challenging to play against than a mechanical one, why is the designation important? Especially in the digital era, where an online A.I. "bot" will have the same sensory representation as a human opponent? It just doesn't seem like a game-centric or fun-centric rule, but rather some moral code that you are assigning. Most people find competition fun!

 

 

There is no such thing as non-competitive Chess, for instance.

With some thought, you could probably come up with a chess game where both players work toward a goal instead of fighting each other.

 

No, I don't think so. That would be a puzzle, rather than a proper "game", I think. Chess puzzles are very popular, and I've occasionally tried to solve them collectively with my wife on a lazy Sunday morning. But these aren't "games." We are just squinting our eyes, making a guess and passing it back and forth. Of course, if one of us solves it first, there is usually a sly grin... because, while an unspoken competition, we all know whoever solves it first "won."

 

The most important element of a game is that it's an unproductive activity that is fun, and most of us find competition fun. It's fun to try and its fun to win. And while losing is sometimes no fun, the loss is simulated. And losing has its own merits, building character and stretching the mind to evolve new strategies. In a way, losing games and failing tasks probably develop the mind more quickly then any other activity. I'd almost go as far to say that "losing is good for you," since mental hygiene seems to be one of your goals here.

 

 

And I cannot think of a single board game whatsoever that didn't involve "Competition" of some sort.

There are plenty of them now:

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=cooperative+games

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

 

Perhaps they are dull? Also, how can these have intelligent enemies, as you suggested in your tenets? To my knowledge, there are no artificially intelligent dice or cards.

 

 

 

Maybe you have to pare back the list a little, or allow for exceptions.

I'm the type of person who stands on the hill in torn clothing, waving a tattered flag as I'm surrounded by the rotting corpses of my 'enemies' and companions, so paring back may not be an option, but I might be able to save my sanity by making occasional exceptions..

 

Quite a romantic image for someone who believes competition to rot the soul! Maybe to avoid all confusion, you can add one golden rule that automatically trumps all others "Above All Else, Be Thou Fun." That way, the large masses of us who find Competition fun, or Mindless Enemies a hoot, or enjoy being Frightened and Stressed until our nerve endings are deep fried all have an eject button. Or maybe just make a rule that says "A great game must be contain four out of five of these." I think it might be possible to find a few truly great games that qualify for four of them, and if you strike "no competition" from the group, many, many more.

 

Or don't. I mean, this is your baby. It just seems that if there were any great games that fit this rigid mold, we would have either heard of them or designed them ourselves.

[Need some help thinking]

I think the problem you are having is twofold:

 

1) Some of the assumptions you are making are too reductionist. You are winnowing down too many common elements of "games" as we commonly know them, and some of your criteria is at odds with some of your other criteria. "No Mindless Enemies" and "No Competition", for example, would be at odds in most cases, considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history. There is no such thing as non-competitive Chess, for instance.

 

2) It seems to me that all of what people consider to be the greatest games (whether video games or board games) betray at least one and usually several of your tenets. For instance, Asteroids contained plenty of "Mindless Enemies," "Competition" (in the form of High Scores, like all the great arcade games), "Fear and Stress" particularly in the instantaneous nature of death, and the sometimes hectic escapes and the unwieldiness of the Thrust button. Robotron, from what I recall, had plenty of "Mindless Enemies" as well, and also "Frustration and Irritation," and apart from the random reactions of some enemies to your movements, I do not recall there being much in the way of "Randomness" in the way the levels were begun (i.e, the same number of enemies and humans on level 5, every time). And I cannot think of a single board game whatsoever that didn't involve "Competition" of some sort. Perhaps certain role-playing games would fit this genre?

 

About the only game I can think of that meets all of this criteria was one I saw in science fiction. It was one of those episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation, and involved mentally putting ball into a randomly appearing hole over and over. Most people didn't understand the appeal, but got hooked on it anyway (because it turned out to be some sort of mind control device, if memory serves.) So it's possible that all of your criteria combined do not constitute a "game" necessarily, but rather some other kind of play-like activity.

 

Maybe you have to pare back the list a little, or allow for exceptions.

[Batari question]

Yes.

[Sci Fi Quest]

Not sure what I mean, lol. It's just that they're pretty and look different. Look higher res to me or something. Is it that you use a pfheight or what?

 

Oh, I understand now. No, the trees (and rocks and other terrain) are drawn with the player0 sprite, same as in Circus Galacticus. Basically, the left half of each tree is drawn on even drawscreens and the right half is drawn on odd ones eight pixels to the right. Since the two 8-wide sprites are drawn side by side, the flicker gives the impression of a 16-wide sprite.

 

Cheers,

Jarod.