mika

136,570

damn, I hit esc in stella accidentally edit: btw guys, what a game! good choice for the tournament

you will be able to exchange data between them with Gameband.

I feel sorry in advance for all those that will support this non-wearable speakerhat.

I would just take a step back from Haunted Adventure, play something, I don't know - relaxing - and come back to it with a fresh mind in some time.

very interesting. That SMB example - my jaw dropped, thanks Zack for pointing to that video (interesting channel, subscribed!). No wonder it had so many views. bjbest, great input. By reading it I realized that location is in a way collision with something predetermined in a way, isn't it? It may not actually involve player vs player collision, but eg. playfield or just coordinates. If we look at finish line it may be coordinate x, or a playfield block. Can even be player! I will try to find some excerpts from the book you recommend. I am looking at my favourite game, Pitfall - I realized that Crane is using all types of collisions with all types of different outcomes, and when talking about the location - if we exit screen from top it uses different reward than when we exit screen from underground! So he is potentially using coordinates x and y to determine where to jump in his polynomial (or whatever was it's name, writing from memory) counter. I say potentially, because I have no idea what he is actually using to determine scene change, but something like that would make sense - so if we go left out of the screen: for x<0 and y>=(ground level) = scene-1 ; y<(groundlevel) = scene-3. [every time we pass underground screen in Pitfall! it skips 3 scenes instead of 1, so you can actually get quicker to your target]

I really would like you to find it. And no, seriously - not trying to be offensive or anything like that - the level of your dedication to the task is fascinating (unfortunately sometimes a subject of ridicule here, too, but then you have to accept it, as most people, including me, just simply wouldn't bother). I really think that you will only find closure if you were the person to find that ultimate easter egg. I cannot help, as I wouldn't even play this type of game - not my style at all. I even tried to search for that walkthrough for you, but didn't succeed unfortunately. I suppose quite a lot of people here will also be very relieved, if you find it!

Thanks! I started reading and find it very helpful, but yes - not exactly what I'm looking for! I am adding to bookmarks anyway. David Crane's interviews and presentations are/were an equivalent of these for the Atari era (his post memoriams for Activision titles especially), but I hope someone covered videogame theory deeper.

that's exactly why it is called 'Ataribox'. What is being created is a box - with 'Atari' on it.

and what stops you from starting indiegogo campaign? You can't be any less credible that the ataribox guy ;D

do you remember the name? link? is it still there?

Ok, long shot maybe, but hopefully someone will be able to point me in the right direction. I am looking for - ideally - comprehensive (but some basics will do, too) sources on 'player' or 'sprite' interaction, and ways of implementing in videogames. I will try to briefly explain below, as I myself doubt if I was clear. Trying to design a game I am looking at the gameplay on Atari 2600. Leaving missiles, ball and playfield for a moment, we end up with what basically is 'player0' and 'player1'. Now trying to design challenging gameplay one must notice that there are two basic states of relation between them: 1: collision 2: non-collision. Now trying to break this down further 1: collision a - collision from the top b - collision from the side (now if you think this split is unnecessary, just picture Mario and Goomba in SMB - if Mario collides with goomba from the top - he kills it; if he collides from the side - he is killed instead!) c - full collision (i don't know how else to describe it, 'overlapping' of sprites, possible Keystone Kapers and using lift, however its' probably not done via sprites - you need to be "within" other object to trigger it, not simply touch it) d - partial collision (hmm, Pitfall! maybe and Harry jumping on alligator with an open jaw - if he lands on the head it's fine, but he dies when he lands on his mouth) 2: non-collision at first it looks simple, no collision means no collision, but I can think of: a - proximity - so technically there is no collision between players, but for example a preset offset of pixels can trigger certain action. I'm not exactly sure, but doesn't Pacman have something like that? When ghost is 'close' enough he 'feels' the presence of pacman and starts chasing him (I don't know if it actually works like that, but let's say it's possible non-collision situation b - 'sighting' - hope you get an idea, not sure what example can I use (wasn't it used in Halo 2600?) - players0 and 1 have no collision present, but one is exposed to others line of sight, is spotted in other words, which determines further action by spotter All the above obviously only make better sense in actual gameplay when results of interactions are rewarded. Rewards can be both positive or negative (or both?!) eg. 1a in Super Mario will give you 100 points, 1d in Pitfall can take your life etc. So the very basic of player0 interacting with player1 is above, but I'm pretty sure someone has produced a detailed analysis of the mechanisms and techniques. Which leads me to the question again: do you know of any reference source that contain detailed analysis of all the types of gameplay affecting interactions? Any books, online articles, essays? (Ideally online!) Actually now after reading it, I just want to clarify that I am interested in all interactions, including missiles, ball - I only used players only for simplicity of the examples. If anyone is able to help, I will really appreciate. I don't even know what to type in google for a start, and how to judge credibility of the sources.

I'll pass. If it's successful on indiegogo, it won't be any more expensive later in retail (it just can't be any more expensive, and if anything it will be cheaper).

ok, so it turns out Keystone Kapers is ok, which means that Pitfall! emulation is flawed. Honestly, was there anything special with that cartridge? No bankswitching IIRC. I'm really disappointed with it :/ I should just return it for a refund, but I really want to support this. Mixed feelings. No wonder it gets so much negative feedback.

has the .bin ever been released? are there any plans to do so?

you're right! I should have thought about that. Will give it a go later and see. thanks!

Why wasn't it recognized? Have you forgot to stain it with coffee? (Ok, I must stop it. Todd Rogers jokes are not funny anymore) Great video, few breathtaking moments By looking at it I can see that even faster time is possible, but it would take skilled player like you and some dedication, so I think I'll pass on beating the record, but still try to attempt 114K at some point in the future.

thanks! at least I won't waste my time attempting then

no, sorry - I shouldn't be trolling in my own topic. I think I will attempt a run with save states in Stella, and see what's possible. Was sort of hoping that someone already done an actual computer assisted run, so I don't have to spend days doing it the complicated way

I guess it took him about 5 seconds to collect all treasures. It may have been the coffee stain though, so let's say 6 seconds.

I got one of AFP's (original version, not this year's one) and I noticed that when I run left in Pitfall! every now and then it 'freezes' the character (not the whole game, just Harry) for a split second, which basically makes it unplayable if you want to attempt the high score, as that will also happen when you trying to avoid the log, or jump over something. Is that emulation problem and happens to everyone, or is it just my unit and some directional pad loose contact? I don't really know what other game I can test it with, as i don't know the game where you can run left for 5-6 seconds continuously. edit: it's quite funny actually, as I only really play Pitfall!, Pitfall 2 and homebrews. One has the above issue, second doesn't work at all as it's using bankswitching or some other incompatible trickery and homebrews will be hit and miss. Not happy overall, which is a shame as I love the concept, and always dreamt of having portable Atari

sorry, I wasn't clear - when I used a phrase 'pixel perfect' I meant jumping/crossing at the optimal possible moment. There are scenes when you don't have a choice but to wait. But, as discussed elsewhere on the forums you can jump into pits while they are still open if you time it right. You can run over when they are closed, and knowing they will open soon 'jump out' before they open below you. Some vines that appear already too far can still be caught. Of course, 'ideal' run would be extremely unlikely to be achieved by even most skilled player. It's all very theoretical, I thought it's impossible (and yes, I've heard that David Crane said that) until I got the score above. Bar few log hits it shows that 106K is possible, and it's only then when I started thinking. There is a huge amount of screens where you don't really have to stop - I memorized number of stages by repetition, and got really good time for 1/3rd of the run, but I kept losing lot of time on the later scenes because I wasn't familiar with them, or because my memory failed me.

are you still working on it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATASCII looks like a character code/set rather than language?

yes, the timer stops as the death music plays. There is a bit of time saving, but as you said you can only do it twice - suppose the most time efficient way would be on the screen with snake or fire. I am confident that reaching 110K is doable without underground, I only got 8 screens short and being unfamiliar with the layouts and bit more careful at the end when I already lost two lives, I kept losing time waiting when I could just, but only just, go for it. Also, on few occasions I stopped for alligators when I definitely didn't have to. I am not sure whether 114K is possible this way, but then I somehow think that David Crane was/is the type of creator that would allow for it in a pixel perfect run, or maybe tease by letting you come one pixel away from reaching that goal. But then it's maybe just my fantasy and I need to grow up.