[Both Warlords & Food Fight Are Returning To Coin-op This Year]

1 hour ago, Giles N said:

Another attempt (remember - new stuff can done, rebuild walls etc + remember 2, itd just concept-art)

 

 

 

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.

[Both Warlords & Food Fight Are Returning To Coin-op This Year]

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

Fair enough. 
One could imagine: looks much better and plays equally well, better and/or with much more to do/get-to-grips with.

 

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.

 

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

I don’t won’t to go ‘cheap’ on anything - I totally get your high gameplay-priority, but as one who really wanted to be(come) a graphics-artist back when I was 13-16, I think it’s extremely unrealistic to think that most people feel like  ‘visuals don’t matter that much, if gameplay is pure genius’. It’s a reason it’s called video-gaming. People are people; they like that what they play also look nice. And in many cases the game would break down or become a button-pushing sports, if you didn’t have graphics to present the game-world or game-concept.

 

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.

 

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

Sometimes I think of you as a ‘purist’ (in a positive, descriptive sense of the word, which is also why I asked you), but I for my part do think that quite some changes couid be added without changing the core of the gameplay entirely. (I may be wrong of course).

 

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.

 

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

We write 2024 now, and screens can be ridiculously large and have 8K resolution - giving room for quite a lot of things to be placed within the games’ play-field.

 

You mentioned ‘Pong’ as a predecessor, and I guess many would think along the lines of Breakout or a Breakout VS-type game.

 

I would believe that, given that the gameplay-‘core’, ie castles built of bricks/parts that are destroyed by somecbouncing projectile, is there, you could add lots of variation in every area of the gameplay without changing that core.

 

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.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

As long as you have 1) movable shields, 2) castles of ‘breakout’-bricks and 3) at least one bouncing projectile, you still have Warlords, and add as many other things as you wish: number of castles, types of shields (size, shape, speed and other properties/traits), castle-materials (here humorous easter-eggs like ‘rubber castle for 30 seconds’ could come in). Dragons could be different from level to level, starting with a little, lizardy dragon spitting only a lousy pebble all the way to some 6-headed winged Hydra firing off 6 fireballs, 3 of which have semi-glue-like substance which you’d better leave to your enemies, because they may stick to the shield and incinerate it if you don’t shake it off quickly (by meddling thine owne’ paddle in ways most vile to wrists thus mistreat’d, yet as victorious in bravery as ‘tis foolish in action severe)

 

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.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

All those factors would impact the gameplay, and then someone could feel its been changed too much.

 

But what is too much or way too little?

 

A completely new game without any change

at all?

 

If one really feels that some of these Arcades are too iconic to get any change, then one is left with getting the original and enjoy it.

 

If one feels it can be changed, but more subtly so, a description is needed, - or put it more precisely: the more detailed or elaborate the descriptions of whats wanted and whats to avoid, the better.

 

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?

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

I’m of the opinion that many or all of Ataris biggest classics needs to get full official sequels which both are 1) faithful to the original game-world and setting and ‘spirit’,  2) gets so much difference as Super Mario Bros contra Mario Bros, or Street Fighter 2 contra Street Fighter 1 (ok, I know SF1 remained obscure, but the difference in content must be that much, that big).

 

"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?

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

For my own part I think these old classics have a unique ‘universal appeal’ that should be kept, like chess and other old table games does, but also that they are ripe for adding more content that gives depth to gameplay tasks/mission objectives/ways of mastering or winning the game, but avoid getting some forgettable, non-universal gimmick-take only appealing to outward style.

If its all style and no content, it’s better left alone.

But if one improves upon the actual gameplay content, you can add visuals and sounds that will truly amplify the quality of gaming experience. But if its only designed to appeal to those between 15-25 as of 2024 (with sales forecasts until mid-2026 at most), its easy to lose a great title to the ever-increasing pile of fads, forgettables and mediocre outlets, even easy to make it something that’ll look really, really akward in a short time. 

 

Agreed.  The really good arcade games I think are timeless.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

When that is said, - I think we just need to accept that modern gamers don’t want games where they ‘shoot pixels with other pixels’. The hardware just have gotten way beyond that, and very few people would want a chess-board of plastic with chess-pieces of wooden squares, all the same size and shape, marked with single-letters to identify what they’re meant to be, when you rather could get a chess table of solid mahogny with exquisitely made pieces, each cut of material ‘matching’ the role in the hierarchy: oak-pawns, granite-cut rooks, marble bishops, Metal knights, Silver Queen, Gold King.

 

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.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

They’d play exactly the same. With wood-block pieces you just need to look at the letter on-top: P, R, B, K, Q, K

 

But which one would you honestly like to sit down and play over a cigar (or cold Cola), with some good music on the stereo in the background, for an evening, or weekend, with a friend or friends…?

 

Ok, - some could say ‘I don’t care’. Fine, what would one think is the average take on this of every chess-player in the world…? How many would prefer the lettered wood-block-piece thing to the mahogny table with artistically made chess pieces of different matching materials ?

 

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.

[Both Warlords & Food Fight Are Returning To Coin-op This Year]

3 hours ago, Giles N said:

Ok, so treasure drop:

- from time to time the drsgon does a flyby carrying some his typicsl dragons loot: the player who hits the dragon carrying treasure, gets the power-up or bonus.

 

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.

 

10 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Here is a video of it (starts at 7.20):

 

 

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).

[Both Warlords & Food Fight Are Returning To Coin-op This Year]

2 hours ago, Giles N said:

Perhaps Warlords could be Recharged or Reimagined?

 

AI-generated conceptual take on Warlords.

With limited time/access, and busy with other AI projects, this is the best I got ‘handed-out’.

 

What do you you @Shaggy the Atarian think about this^ level of updating things, if gameplay is smooth and rewarding?

 

@ledzep

You have (very) strong opinions concerning the classic Atari originals. What do you think of the above re-conceptualization of Warlords…?

 

 

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.

[INTEREST CHECK: New Reproduction Overlays...]

On 10/23/2017 at 1:46 PM, pboland said:

It's Here!

 

 

 

It's official. Please see this topic if you are interested:

 

 

SUPER OVERLAYS Set (New!, for Atari 5200)

 

 

If you guys have any questions please do not hesitate to ask.

 

 

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.

[Hellhole from Fury Unlimited]

15 hours ago, 128Kgames said:

It took so long to get mine, I lost interest in playing it and never opened it. 

 

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.

[Hellhole from Fury Unlimited]

On 10/25/2018 at 4:11 PM, JEFF31 said:

 

 

"Because he does deliver the goods." - Well Led - send me 100K because I'll repay you in 75-100 years...

 

WELL GOSH - 5 Months gone by - (crickets heard in the back ground)

 

Nothing - NADA

 

 

 

NUF SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Disappointed in the midwest.

 

 

 

Jeff31

 

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.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

16 hours ago, TampaBay said:

I most certainly don't agree with anything you've said. 

 

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.

 

16 hours ago, TampaBay said:

What are you even talking about??  I didn't mention the relevance of the name of the game even one time in my posts.

 

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.

 

17 hours ago, TampaBay said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you.  One million percent.  The same gameplay plus a giant screen that surrounds you that is displaying near-cinema quality graphics with surround sound of the movie's actual score IS absolutely, unequivocally more immersive, and saying that it's not is utterly preposterous.

 

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?

 

17 hours ago, TampaBay said:

Yes, absolutely.  That's precisely what I'm doing.

17 hours ago, TampaBay said:

Because my brain is perfectly and easily capable of doing more than two things at once, in this case skillyfully playing the game while also enjoying the graphics and sound.

 

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.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

45 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Love or hate early 90s 3D, I think it's easy to say that the jump from single-color 2D objects to low poly textured 3D would technically be considered a massive improvement  

 

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.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

13 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

I do totally agree that a game has to have a great sound mix, but it can be done. This is one place where I think that Alan-1 can greatly improve on AR. At present, there is no distinctive sound for when UFOs appear, there's no tension from the JAWS-like heartbeat thump that the original had. The thump could be the music or they get a song that integrates that, without being too loud. 

 

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!

 

14 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

A yoke might be OK, but IMHO, a trackball is the only way to play MC, unless you did have the headset w/ tracking.

 

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.

 

16 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

That was just an issue with the Jaguar

 

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!

 

25 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Any game should follow Nolan's old motto: "Easy to the learn, difficult to master," although in today's market, you do have to keep it from being frustratingly difficult. Spread the cities too far out and when its raining nukes, I'm not sure that would be very fun to manage...although I've never cared much for Missile Command anyways as it kind of hits that energy in later waves

 

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.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

1 hour ago, Lord Mushroom said:

It is not just about dying quickly. When the game is complicated, you die with a feeling of being in over your head.

 

The first time you play Pac-Man, you die quickly, but you don´t have any problems with the controls or understanding the object of the game. So you still have some feeling of mastering the game. But if the first time you play Asteroids Recharged, and die quickly because you have difficulties making the ship do what you want it to do, you feel like a clumsy idiot.

 

Back in the day, Asteroids succeeded despite this because the gameplay was really good compared to contemporary games. People were willing to put up with initial failures because they could see how fun it would be when they mastered the controls. Now there is no shortage of straightforward games with good gameplay amongst video only arcade games, so people won´t bother mastering a game that by today´s standards has mediocre, at best, gameplay.

 

Amongst video redemption games, on the other hand, competition in gameplay is much less fierce.

 

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.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

5 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

In vying for attention in an arcade though, the less flash and noise your game makes, the less chance it has of getting played. Just like in movies, a good, fitting soundtrack to the action makes a huge amount of difference: 

 

 

In terms of arcades, there are some games which miss the audio mark but there are others where it just nails it and the sound becomes more compelling to bring players back than the graphics. I have a few games that do that - Dariusburst Another Chronicle, Maximum Tune 5, SpaceWarp 66 - all have great music and sound effects that elevate the games like John Williams elevates E.T. or Star Wars.

 

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.

 

5 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

In regards to MC3D, keep in mind that it was designed for use with a VR headset, so you just looked around and could aim and shoot down the missile quickly. Since that headset wasn't released, the Jag version is lacking; Feels like it would have worked better with a trackball controller instead of the slow D-Pad.  

 

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.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

5 hours ago, TampaBay said:

To clarify, in my FEC's, the redemption games are generally huge, wildly over-the-top caricatures of a game.  They seat multiple people, usually in some type of large cockpit or seating area, and most importantly, their primary purpose is to dispense tickets based on competition of the players.  The game itself (the development, detail, skill-level) is often secondary to the game just being loud and attention-grabbing to attract the most amount of customers.  Hence the huge displays, giant flashing lights, loud booming sounds, etc.  To my knowledge, Asteroids: Recharged is not really following any of that format, based on what I've seen.  It appears to be a much more "serious" game with a focus on gameplay.

 

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?

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

5 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Those games don´t have redemption, so they are not the kind of games Asteroids Recharged would be (mainly) competing with. Here is an example of a successful video redemption game:

 

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.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

5 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Asteroids Recharged´s biggest problem is, in my opinion, that it has a steep learning curve. Steering, firing, thrusting and occasionally warping at the same time is difficult at first, especially for kids. I fear many will try it once, die quickly and not play it again if it is too difficult for first time players.

 

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"!

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

6 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I have always thought the graphics in Asteroids is supposed to show the actual things, and not a representation of them on a radar screen.

 

I meant more the perspective, life flying a plane remotely.  Yes, it's supposed to show the actual things but we don't live in a world where everything is just a neon outline of itself.  Using vector graphics adds a "control panel display" aspect to what you're looking at, whether it was the intent or not.  I think a game like Xevious, also top down with it's shaded raster graphics, is a better attempt at showing the actual things.

 

I'm biased, though, I think vector games always look better than the raster versions.  I don't pretend to be in the majority there, of course.  I just love those crisp lines, if you changed Red Baron to raster graphics I would still play it, but I would miss the vector representations.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

I think this hits the nail on the head as to where we don't see eye to eye.  I don't agree with this statement at all.  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".

 

I don't think you realize that you agree with me here.  Like I was saying about Galaga, Space Firebird, Phoenix (and Moon Cresta, forgot about that one), it's very easy to look at those games and say they were inspired by the original and see one of them for the first time and say "Hey, this cool new game really reminds me of Galaxian!".  100% agree, it happened more than once.  What you are not including is the follow up "But it's not Galaxian, it has this different ability/requirement/gameplay change!", meaning it's worth playing because it's not Galaxian, otherwise... just play Galaxian again.  In that sense I think Asteroids Recharged, being called Asteroids [something] must be much more like Asteroids than not.  But, like I said, the multi-player aspect and the power-ups add to it.  If the gameplay sucks, the game is a loser as a new Asteroids game.  Don't like that comparison?  Call it something else.  Especially if it were a new game that significantly changes the game and many aspects from gameplay to graphics, it's nowhere near the same game, calling it the same thing + Recharged only confuses people who know about the original.  The people who don't know/care about Asteroids won't be bothered by a different name, anyway.

 

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

That's what I think should have happened.  I recognize that for you once you bend far enough, it's an entirely new game.  Fair enough.  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.

 

You're saying you would not play your imagined radically changed game if it did not have "Asteroids" in the name?  Why?  If it was called Rock Crush or Space Miner, had all the changes you imagine, it would be a waste of time because of the name?!  I don't think I ever played/avoided a game because of the name, I only cared about how it played.  Are you saying that modern gamers care more about names and eye candy?

 

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

I don't necessarily think the developers and / or Alan-1 are attempting to cater to people like us who love the original.  I think they'd have more success leveraging the formula of Asteroids while catering to the modern gamer as well.  It's a business, and in the end they are in it to make money, not have guys like us applaud their faithfulness to the original.  Shaggy will be able to tell us soon enough how it fairs in the wild, since I believe he'll have a cabinet in his arcade.  I'm rooting for it, but I'm not sure I'm too optimistic about its financial prospects.

 

They must be, at least partly, or they wouldn't have wasted their time not only grabbing the Recharged home game, but also making it closer to the original arcade version and going on forums that cater to people like us who love the original (I saw posts about this on KLOV forums as well, and they fucking hate those modern "arcade games") to ask their opinions, right?  I have no idea if it will succeed but if it's a good game then it won't be the fault of Alan-1, it will be the fault of modern "gamers" who can't handle playing an actual arcade game with some bit of a challenge instead of simply being whores for flashy graphics and endless power-ups and redemption points/tickets.

 

I really wish I could transport a few of those "gamers" to the early '80s and watch them fumble around consistently getting the lowest scores in the arcades while crying about not being able to win because there's no power-ups.  You'll know if I invent time travel because that's one of the first things I'll do (that you'll hear about, hahahaa).

 

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

As for Star Wars, obviously if you feel that the second screenshot of these two is not a leap forward, then we're not going to agree.  I totally get that graphics are not that important to you, especially relatively to game play.  I don't feel that way.  I'm looking not just at game play, but also an immersive experience.  You don't want to feel like you're "in the movie", but I do.  So the incredible graphics and stellar soundtrack for me personally, were a massive step forward to that end.  I think both games are great.

 

Ok, so now you're telling me that if the original vector Star Wars game was converted to raster with brand new, modern shaded graphics and unchanged gameplay that that somehow transforms the game as some sort of more immersive experience?  When you play that new Star Wars Trilogy game are you actually spending significant time sightseeing the various rendered objects that are in the background?  How can you last more than 20 seconds while gawking at what's flying around shooting at you?  I would certainly smile looking at all that graphical goodness watching someone else play the game, but once I started playing my only focus would be trying to shoot all the targets in time, I could care less what they actually looked like.  And if the gameplay sucked, to hell with that game, I'll watch someone play it to look for movie Easter eggs but, otherwise, yawn.

 

Quick question, if someone took that Star Wars Trilogy game and changed only the graphics/sounds to OG Battlestar Galactica graphics (Basestars, Cylon and Viper fighters, Cylon centurions shooting blasters at you) and added some of the TV series soundtrack, would you seriously love it because it was a different game that was immersive for that specific TV show?  Or would you, like me, shake your head and say it's the same goddamn game as Trilogy, they just changed some shapes and colors?

 

And, for the record, I totally feel like I'm "in the movie" playing the original vector version of Star Wars because it's first person perspective so I can easily imagine being Luke in that X-Wing, I think most kids in the arcades felt the same way.  Because the gameplay is convincing (enough).  No stellar soundtrack needed, the original had good enough music as well.  I do like the Trilogy version of the game looking at it again but I'd still rather play Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back.  They should have split those blaster fight and lightsaber duel sections into separate games with more appropriate controls (light guns, some kind of wired Wii type controller).

 

The graphics have to be good enough to convince me that I'm seeing what the game claims I'm seeing (intuitive).  I don't need any more than that.  So Asteroids with vector outlines of my ship and those asteroids?  Perfect, I understand what's going on.  Galaxian with colored ship and colored aliens (wings moving nice touch), also perfect.  Pac-Man, which I can't stand, perfect graphics, same for Donkey Kong.  Same for Star Castle and Qix.  Wasting time presenting me with "new" versions of those games that are nothing more than graphical updates, why not just put more effort into new games instead?  I think that is something that separates actual gamers (who prioritize gameplay) from watchers (who love graphics and big bright explosions).

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

17 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

Anyone who feels this way which is perfectly valid, should continue to play and enjoy the original Asteroids.  I do.  If the gameplay on the original is enjoyable and better graphics are of no importance, there is no need to play any kind of updated version.  Just play the original.  I play the original all the time because I think it's great.

 

Not entirely true.  If you want (mostly) the original Asteroids in terms of looks and gameplay, but you'd like to play a 2-3 player version, and you like reasonable power-ups, then this game is perfect (if it's not too easy or boring).  I'd like to try a 3-player version of Asteroids, with the correct controllers and same gameplay (shooting, asteroid movement).

 

19 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

My point is that IF someone is going to remake it, then REMAKE it.  Blow my mind.  Take advantage of FORTY YEARS of advanced technology.  Make me stop in my tracks in the arcade and say "holy crap!!  This is insane!!  The Asteroids: Recharged remake is barely, marginally, every so slightly an incremental advancement of the original.  And that's being generous.  If the original was built in 1979, the new version could have been 1980.

 

You mean Asteroids Deluxe?  There's also Space Duel.  Consider both of those.  They were very popular even though the changes were marginal but welcomed.  They were still different enough for some players to prefer the newer versions.  I honestly don't remember a lot of arcade gamers loving Blasteroids.  They played because it was new, always looking for new, but I don't remember it being a big deal.  Again, I do like the updates in Blasteroids, the goal of clearing sectors, the power-ups, but the gameplay suffered.  That's inexcusable.  And the updated eye candy graphics didn't matter.

 

21 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

I don't know what could be possible with Asteroids: Recharged now, I'm not a game designer, but I know something could have been built that is faithful to the original and still a tremendous, giant leap forward.

 

Probably true.  Why would the graphics have to change significantly?  You speak of a "holy crap!" reaction, how is that going to happen if many people passing by can't even recognize that it's an Asteroids update because the look is significantly different?  How far do you think you can change a game before it bears no resemblance to the original game?  If you want a large change to the look and gameplay, call it something else, problem solved.  If you expect fans of the original to care about your recharged update, it better look and feel very close to the original, otherwise it's false advertising and you'll get a lot of "Aw, this isn't like Asteroids at all..." disappointment.  It's not the worst thing to just make a new game "sort of" like a previous idea, there were dozens of Galaxian clones/updates out there, some were fantastic like Galaga, Space Firebird, Phoenix, etc., and they didn't suffer because they weren't called Galaxian Recharged.

 

What "giant leap forward"?  If it's still a top-down radar view perspective, what can be changed?  I suppose you could have a 1st person version, sort of like Star Wars or Star Trek: SOS where you're spinning around trying to blast asteroids coming at you, but otherwise, what giant leap forward could be had while still keeping it recognizably "Asteroids"?  There's only so much you can do, honestly, and I say this as someone who played all those games back then and saw many variations of certain themes.

 

33 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

The point of the Missile Command example is to simply show that a fairly significant leap forward occured in 1995 with Missile Command 3D.  You hate it.  Fair enough.  That's preference.

 

Not entirely true.  I liked the idea of the changed perspective, I hated the clunky implementation.  Certainly it could be improved today with faster chips and better displays.

 

34 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

The point is someone took advantage of the technology at the time and greatly advanced Missile Command (regardless of whether it may or may not be your personal cup of tea).

 

What was "greatly advanced" about it?  Still missiles coming down.  Still anti-missiles fired at those missiles.  Still cities that needed to be protected and that could be destroyed.  All that was changed was a slightly more detailed set of objects (that looked shitty compared to what was the goal) and a different perspective (which was the best part).  It's a very basic game idea that requires very smooth, quick gameplay.  You can't change it too much or it's no longer Missile Command.  You can add fireworks and booming music and strippers to blackjack, it's still blackjack, just more busy.  The moment you add new card values and rules to the game, it's no longer blackjack even if it still uses cards.  Do you understand?

 

39 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

Here we are decades later, and Asteroids Recharged brings little to the table.  I might as well just play the original.

 

The original doesn't have power-ups or multi-player options so you'd be missing out on those extras.  There were many arcade games I played that I wish could have had more than one player at a time.  I loved games like Wizard Of Wor and Rip-Off for that reason, they were actually much less fun single player.  I think you're starting to see, even as you resist the reality of it, that you can't significantly change any arcade game and still have it be recognizable as that same thing.  They're not adventure games.  They're quick shooters and platformers and driving/flying/fighting sims, a few puzzle games.  That's it.  Changing the graphics doesn't mean shit if the gameplay is reduced.

 

46 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the various arcade Star Wars games, but for example, the 1983 vector Star Wars cabinet was absolutely amazing.  One of my favorite games of all time.  (I own a reproduction in my man cave).  In 1998 Sega came out with the "Star Wars Trilogy" cabinet, which is just incredible (again, maybe not YOUR cup of tea).  The first three boards of Star Wars Trilogy are almost identical to the 1983 version in theme, but brought up to date with the technology of the time.  I personally think it's AMAZING.  It's like being in the movie.  That's the type of advancement I expected to see in a new Asteroids cabinet.

 

I loved the original Star Wars game and the The Empire Strikes Back update.  They lost me with that boring Return Of The Jedi game.  I remember looking at the Trilogy game and not being that excited about it.  Not saying it was bad, it just didn't grab me but then I never went to the arcade wanting to be in a movie.

 

 

Ah, now it's coming back to me.  Ya, it's a game on rails.  So what, so was the original Star Wars vector game.  But what was "amazing" about this version?  Ignore the graphics (which are pretty good looking) and the background, what are you looking at?  Basically Tail Gunner or Red Baron (both of which I prefer) or Star Trek: SOS (the coolest of the bunch) or Starhawk (lesser gameplay) but with raster graphics and a lot more eye candy that doesn't affect the gameplay at all, it just looks cool (I do like the lightsaber parts, though, but it seems very clunky without having a lightsaber type controller).  Move the targeting pip around, shoot the enemies.  What the fuck are you flying in?  It feels more like being in a turret in the Falcon than being in an X-Wing fighter where you mostly have to aim the guns by aiming the whole ship.  It is no different than playing Cobra Command, a Data East laserdisc shooting game that I personally loved but that was limited in what you could do.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

9 hours ago, TampaBay said:

A picture's worth a thousand words, so I'll leave you with this.

 

After over Forty Years of advancing technology, this is the difference between the original Asteroids from 1979 and the new version from around 2021:

 

 

 

Compare that with the original Missile Command from 1980 and the home console version on the Atari Jaguar from 1995 (nearly 30 years ago):

 

 

I'll let the screenshots speak for themselves.

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is, though.  Do the graphics actually matter?  I mean, do you think Blasteroids is way better than Asteroids because the asteroids now look like rocks instead of vector outlines of rocks?

 

 

For me the gameplay was always far more important than shaded objects.  Even back in 1987 you had power-ups from Atari yet I don't hear modern supposed "gamers" praising that version.  I think clearing the sectors is too easy, doesn't take long enough but it's not a bad idea change to the original Asteroids.  I just don't care about the rendered asteroids or the random planet backgrounds, they add dick to the gameplay.  So this new Alan-1 version at least pays homage to the original but if the gameplay is weak then it won't matter what it looks like.  Which is true of all arcade games.

 

If you take an older gutless car like, say, a Datsun 510 and switch out the whole suspension and drivetrain to something modern (gas or electric, doesn't matter) with a lot more performance, are you seriously going to complain that the car isn't fun to drive simply because it still looks like the old car?  That's crazy.

 

As for Missile Command, it's supposed to be a representation of an ABM operator's display as he's defending cities from incoming ICBMs.  I'm not saying it's accurate to what the military would use (it's a game, not a training simulator) but the spirit of that idea is certainly there, it has a very radar screen design.  I don't get why some gamers discount that as unimportant, it's part of what makes the game Missile Command and not just shoot random shit falling from the skies.  It's like those clowns have never seen a radar display or would insist that the radar display be modified to show 3D rendered versions of the same objects and rendered ground/water in order to be able to use it.

 

The new Jaguar version is a mess of different scales and shitty textures, those "cities" cannot be the correct size compared to those gigantic boulders pretending to be mountains, everything in that version looks like little plastic toys on a kid's messy bedroom floor.  The original version looks much cooler and has way better sound effects and gameplay.  I do like the change in perspective in the Jaguar version but other than that, all of it is worse than the original, which should be impossible given the extra years and technology available to come up with something better or cooler.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

1 hour ago, TampaBay said:

As for the games, yes agree.  Not sure if you saw my comment above about the Virtual Reality goggles, but I can only assume the gameplay on the 2nd version had something specific to do with VR, which made it deviate so far from the original.  I enjoyed the first 3D version much more.  I'm going to play it a little more later tonight.

 

Probably, but I get the idea that most VR games would sort of look the same the way that most driving games look the same, meaning you can call it whatever you like but it's going to be 90% like the other 5 games that use those goggles, just different colors and shapes and power-ups.

 

32 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

pps. Here's the 2023 Challenger I rented.  (Typo on my part above... Challenger not Charger).  Great styling and really fun to drive.

 

 

There you go.  Not as good as the original (looks, not performance) but anyone who likes the original version will recognize this one and give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

On the other hand, you show that same person this magnificent piece of shit -

 

 

and all you will get is disgust.  A 1981 Dodge "Challenger", you say, hahaaha (come to think of it, I've never seen one at a Mopar car show).  Uh, no, I don't care what the nameplate says, that's a Mitsubishi something, get it away from me!  That's the mental repulsion I experience when I see those home "recharged" versions of classic Atari arcade games that bear almost no gameplay resemblance to the originals.  But the Alan-1 version of Asteroids has potential.  So does that Jaguar Missile Command update (the first version).

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

21 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

The underlying premise of my post was not really about the merits of a 30 year old 3D Missile Command game, but rather that here in 2024, they did significantly less with the new Asteroids, even with today's technology three decades later, than they did with Missile Command in 1995.  I just feel there's so many great things they could have done with Asteroids.

 

I agree, I was just pointing out the differences, from a arcade fan of that bygone era, between the first and second versions compared to the original.  As jeremiahjt pointed out, you go too far, it ain't the game you say it is anymore.  I think also that the first attempts to modernize classic recognizable games should be conservative in terms of amount of changes and updates.  Sort of like when these most recent versions of retro muscle cars showed up, they were pretty close to the spirit of the original versions.  The Mustang and Camaro started deviating after a few years, the Challenger stayed basically true to the original look.

 

My point was that as a Missile Command fan I would be able to recognize that first version of Missile Command as a new "recharged" update to the original whereas the second version isn't really Missile Command at all because the gameplay is so far away from the original and much closer to the way other unrelated games play.  It's a hard line to walk.  Otherwise, just name it something else.

 

Even with doing significantly less changes, that Asteroids Recharged is going to be boring pretty quickly if they don't offer an option to play with the smaller asteroids moving faster and the saucers moving like they're actually trying to stay alive rather than trying to transport a bunch of geriatrics to the assisted living asteroid.

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

19 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

So I had to circle back to this thread after recently playing an Atari game I've never played before.

 

In the comments above, we were all talking about the new Asteroids and whether or not they had gone "far enough" adding new gameplay / features while still keeping inspiration from the original.  That topic is certainly debatable.  I personally would have liked to have seen it show some more modern game features but still be faithful to the original idea.

 

Recently I started playing games from the Atari Jaguar console, and I came across Missile Command 3D.  Keep in mind this "new" version of Missile Command is nearly 30 years old, having been published in 1995.  I think it's a fantastic game, featuring 3D gameplay, power-ups, boss battles, etc., but it's still totally Missile Command.  There are actually two different versions included, both are 3D, but the first game is in a 3rd person perspective, and you shoot missiles that explode in front of the enemies like in the orginal, while the second version of the game is from a 1st person perspective (you are sitting inside the bunkers) and you shoot a laser beam directly at the incoming enemies.  Both games are super fun, bring completely new visuals and originality to Missile Command, while still keeping the general idea of the game intact.

 

Here's a YouTube video of the gameplay.  The first half of the video is Version 1 of the game (3rd person perspective with missiles), the second half of the video is Version 2 (1st person perspective with lasers).

 

 

 

Interesting, I may actually have that game (in a box somewhere).

 

I like the idea of that first version.  The graphics suck (the missiles look like colored blobs) but that could be fixed in a modern arcade version (much higher resolution now).  I cannot stand those giant mountains or whatever they're supposed to be (they feel like Easter Island statues), makes the cities you're defending look like stacks of oil drums, but I suppose they're there to keep you oriented to what direction you're looking in (along with the lens flare) so I'm not sure what they could be replaced by.  I think if they made the mountains look more like mountains and changed the shooter's perspective to be lower to the ground then the mountains wouldn't have to be so tall (some skyscrapers could do the job) and the cities would appear larger and more like actual cities.  There could also be a grid or other indicators superimposed on the sky (there are already targeting pips superimposed) to keep you oriented.

 

The second version is crap.  That's not Missile Command anymore, it's Laser Command.  Might be a fun game but it loses the anticipation and strategy of the original, now it's just instantly shoot everything that moves (feels more like Star Raiders).  Part of what made Missile Command hard and fun (anathema to modern gamers, I know) was having to time the missiles to reach the targets at the right time, which ABM base to use.  I cannot stand these modern floaty animations, it's like watching the Disneyland Peoplemover up in the sky.  I'm not sure what this obsession is with lasers for everything, missiles are great for this game theme.

 

Lose the goddamn music.  The actual missile sounds are way cooler when playing a game like that, and having the perspective with stereo speakers could give you hints about where off-screen missiles are coming down from (left or right).  Seriously, a modern arcade is going to be saturated with music already, either from the in-house speakers or every other weak game nearby, no need to add more bland notes.

 

I mean, just listen to the original game, all the sounds have a purpose so that you know what's going on even if you're not looking at the specific area -

 

 

Can't tell why modern gamers don't like sound effects and prefer neverending music instead.  There could be sounds for power-ups as well, just a quick tone or something to alert the player.

[You Can Now Pre-Order Your Very Own Asteroids Recharged Cabinet]

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

My problem is that I have so many of those that have accumulated on me, that I'm at the point where I would be stupid to take on more at the moment. Too many games on debt increases the risk, especially if earnings start dropping. I'd much rather have zero debt and be able to buy anything I want for cash, but unfortunately that just hasn't been possible to do outside of an exception here and there. Still, the businesses which can best survive hard times are those with the least amount of debt.  

 

Would it be possible for you to lease those games you own (and maybe don't need) out to some newer places that need some games?  Or does it not work that way?

[Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video]

On 3/19/2024 at 1:18 PM, Jimmy Wicker said:

What other ideas do you have?  Let's brainstorm here.  Help us make this a successful venture by making the best version of Asteroids Recharged that works for this medium (a physical arcade cabinet.)

 

Ok, having seen more video the game being played, 2 things that stand out as boring if they never change is all the asteroids moving at the same speed, and the saucers moving only as fast (slow) as the asteroids.  Hopefully you add a Hard or Competition level that can be selected so that the smaller asteroids move faster and the saucers start being hard to shoot.  Otherwise, pretty good so far.

[You Can Now Pre-Order Your Very Own Asteroids Recharged Cabinet]

15 minutes ago, Zeptari said:

Or $5 when you wait for the 50% off sale. Joking aside you get more than the game for that price. The cabinet looks really cool and the game is modified to be more like the original. But still seems way over priced for what you get. 

 

Yes, the game is different enough that I want to try it out (totally not interested in the home version already).  And who knows if they "limit" the total number (everything is limited edition nowadays), artificially bumping up the price.  We've certainly seen that with some homebrew games, unfortunately.

 

I am curious how much a legit Asteroids vector monitor arcade cabinet would cost in today's dollars if the arcade games from the late '70s/early '80s were just coming out now.  Or, what were their prices then and adjusted to today dollars?