Elements of Great Classic Games

[+kisrael]

this is a repost of a repost...a thread I started years ago in the Usenet group r.g.v.c. but I'd be interested to hear what this crowd has to say about it....

 

-----------snip--------------------

Hey there-

I'd like to start a discussion about the elements that set *really* good

classic games from the ordinary. (I decided against cross-posting this

to rec.games.programmer, at least for the time being.)

 

The reason I'm into this is because I just got a 7800, and have been

enthralled with "Food Fight"- it's one of the few classic games I'll play

until all my lives are gone. Also, it'll be nice to get discussion that

is more general, not just cart auctions and flame wars....

 

So here are some elements that some realy great games have in common.

There all opinions, and definately worth flaming over- lets nice-en this

place up a bit, please?

 

PARALLELISM OF PLAYER AND ENEMIES

This is one of the reasons two player-simultaneous games, even

simple ones like "Combat", are so popular. It's you against the enemy,

mano-a-mano, no one starts with an advantage.

"Joust" and "Food Fight" are both great examples of this. In

Joust, all of the enemy riders have the same abilities as you- there are

no bullets to fly at different rates, etc. (You could argue that the

enemy birds fly 'smoother' than the players wild flapping, but it's not

as much of a factor.) With Food Fight, the 4 chefs have to run around

and pick up the same ammo- they may be a little slower, but that's made

up for by the fact that there are 4 of them.

 

A SENSE OF 'CLEANING UP THE PLACE'

I first heard this mentioned in an inteerview with the author of

"Pac Man". "Asteroids" and "Space Invaders" have the same feel, I think-

distinct rounds that are cleared by clearing something out- pellets,

rocks, or neatly-spaced invaders, as the case may be. "Tetris" relies on

a similar principle, but without the distinct rounds.

 

'INDIRECTION'

This is a very vague concept, but an important one. Many games

make themselves interesting by adding elements that aren't "Everything v.

the Player". For example, "Defender" and "Robotron" have the players

defending themselves *and* Humanoids. "Warlords" is all about attacking

the other players' buildings, not the players themselves.

I think "Food Fight" is an example of another form of this- you

don't have a magic infinite-ammo gun, you have to pick up the damn

fruit. Same with an old atari-8-bit game "Dog Daze Deluxe" that had too

canines hurling a single bone at each other- it's kind of like one form

dodge ball thats 'every man for himself' in elementary school, you want

to get the ball to throw it at someone, but you don't want to be too

close if the other guy gets it first.

 

INTERESTING CONTROL METHODS

Think "Joust". Getting away from all that damn shooting!

 

DAVID V. GOLIATH FEEL

Think "Empire Strikes Back" for the 2600.

 

LIFE GOES ON WHEN YOU"RE NOT LOOKING

"Time Pilot 2084" and "Sinistar" both have the idea of your ship

against an army THAT HAS ITS OWN AGENDA, not just directly killing you.

(this ties in with 'INDIRECTION' I think) Life would be going on even if

you weren't there. "Raid on Bungeling Bay" is an even better example-

you're taking on a whole island civilisation that's building weapons to

take you down.

 

 

OK- so let me know what you think about these, and if you have any

other concepts or examples- I think this can be a really productive

thread...

(There are always games that have none of the principles, but just

*work*, that'll always be the case...)

 

So whaddya think??

Kirk

[Mindfield]

There are a few others I think are important.

 

SIMPLICITY.

The ability to plug the cart in, or plunk a quarter down, and be able to pick up the game within moments of starting, is an important element. Modern games are usually complex, involved, and have a learning curve. It may take you an hour or a day just to get the hang of it. Classic games are all about packing the most enjoyment into the least number of rules.

 

SMALL IMMEDIATE GOALS, IMPOSSIBLE LONG TERM GOAL.

Most classic games never end. Ever. The long-term goal (defeating the aliens, rescuing the princess once and for all, eating the last damn dot, etc.) is not attainable -- it isn't within the scope of the game -- but the short-term goal, the completing of the immediate level, give rise to the challenge anyway. It's never about achieving the ultimate goal, but about completing the immediate, short-term goal of finishing the level. Levels give an interim sense of accomplishment and become an overall mark of achievement moreso than score -- kids in the arcades back in the day were more liable to ask "What level did you get to" before asking "What's your high score?" Moreover, when your game is over, regardless how short it was, you never feel like you left anything undone that you have to go back to. It always comes back to beating your own (or someone else's) personal best. Notable exceptions to this would be any of the laserdisc games (Space Ace, Dragon's Lair, Cliff Hanger, etc.) which are just linear, semi-interactive stories.

 

ABSTRACTION.

Every game connects with its player in at least one way that can be related to key concepts they are famliar with. Pac Man is eating and evading enemies. Donkey Kong is rescuing the girl. Space Invaders is defeating a wave of enemy aliens. But they all do so in abstract ways that remove it far enough from reality to be engaging -- we play video games often as not to escape reality, and abstraction is a quick, easy and effective way to accomplish that.

 

PREDICTABILITY.

No one likes cheap deaths. The game should be about the skill of the player, and not the random number generator or lightning-quick enemy movements too fast to counter that ultimately determines your score. One's score should be a measure of achievement rather than as much that as random events that help or hinder the player to any significant degree. As good a game as Defender is, this is one game that sometimes goes against this tenet when aliens materialize directly on top of the player, resulting in instant death from above. Players like to feel that they are in total control of the events portrayed on the screen without being overwhelmed by the odds, the pace (at least, at first, as players expect the pace to ramp up as they progress), or completely unpredictable events.

[+kisrael]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply...

I think in most ways yours is a better list of realy defining elements of the Classic era. My list is a bit too much of "thinkgs *I* I'd like to see more of in games", which makes the thread title a little misleading, but still...

[StanJr]

REPLAY VALUE.

 

This is one of the most important. It ties into that idea of Impossible Long Term Goal. You never finish. You can always play again and do more, get more score, go further into the game. There is always more to play.

 

To me this may be the MOST important aspect of classic gaming.

[Shannon]

I'm not gonna be pretty with this but one thing that always impressed me about older games is the way some add rules or variations to the main theme as the levels progress. One of my fav's is bomberman. As you progress you run into different enemy types which move in ways different from other enemies causing you to have to expand your strategy (improvise) in order to continue. Eventually the boards recycle with these elements in play.

[MegaManFan]

Infinite challenge. Modern games are often far too focused on achieving a specific goal, and once you do there's no incentive to play anymore because you're "done." With games like Galaga and Space Invaders though, you can always come back for a higher score, because there's +almost+ no limit to the challenge - even when a game can be maxed out and locked up, it's longer than the typical amount of time any average gamer would have even conceived of and certainly unheard of in the "classic" era they came from until Twin Galaxies came around.

[sigma]

It has to be fun. That's a hard thing to define...but you guys are doing a good job of it.

[+kisrael]

Infinite challenge.  Modern games are often far too focused on achieving a specific goal, and once you do there's no incentive to play anymore because you're "done."  With games like Galaga and Space Invaders though, you can always come back for a higher score, because there's +almost+ no limit to the challenge

 

It's interesting how GTAs fit into this...even after you're done with the core story, sometimes you're compelled to come back...either for all the "sidebar" stuff, or just because it's such a fun toybox. Few classic games could pull that off. Adventure comes close though.

[Raijin Z]

Repetition dousn't equal replay value to me. I love Gyruss almost as much as Gradius, but I can't sit through more than two planets without shutting the NES off.