Categorizing 2600 Play Mechanics: Movement Basics

[+Random Terrain]

This is why I don't like "platformer" as a basic "movements" category: it describes how it *looks*, rather than how it behaves.

What would you use in place of that one category that the average person could easily recognize? If I would be in the mood to play a game such as Keystone Kapers that has running, jumping, ducking, elevator riding, escalator riding, and capture, where would I look in the list? What categories would it be under? If we want some detail without going microscopic, is Platform descriptive enough? Can it be broken up just enough so that it is still manageable without being so detailed that it could drive you insane?

[NovaXpress]

This is a tough nut to crack. Platformers are certainly a basic game concept but the definition is hard.

 

Perhaps "first person" and "third person" are absolutes and the rest of the Movement types spring forth from there.

 

The fact that walls in Dark Chambers are seen from overhead while the characters are seen from the side is irrelevant. Almost every game shows a front view of the characters. From Pac-Man to Berzerk.

[stop_rebel_scum]

This is interesting, but perhaps ultimately impossible? Another post in which this came up mentioned miner 2049'er as 'terrain capture' or something similar because of the way sections are captured, like in amidar.. but I would agree that point of view is probably a better way to categorize games in general; thus I think miner 2049 is better of as 'platformer'. The same could be said of qbert (which doesn't seem like a much of a platform game, but probably has more actual platforms than donkey kong)

 

Your first person maze games would of course be a mixed category, like skeleton, crypts of chaos, etc. Is skeleton the only good game like this? I've never played the starpath/arcadia stuff.

 

I think a lot of our difficulties come from the legacy left by specific games (pac-maze, mario-platform). Nova, it's interesting that you note first and third person as absolutes because those are obviously the most common literary points of view too.. I wonder if there's any connection?

[NovaXpress]

The "territory acquisition" concept would be a Goal, which I see as the game element equally important to movement. Goal would have the sub-category of Method of achieving said goal (shooting/jumping/eating)

 

A possible ultimate formula for say Asteroids might be Third-Person Free Range (warp)/Clearance (shooting). Action that takes place all over the screen with ability to warp to the other side and a goal of clearing all enemies with firepower.

Edited March 23, 2006 by NovaXpress

[NovaXpress]

Someone needs to invent a "second person" game.

[A.J. Franzman]

I've seen follow-camera perspective (erroneously?) referred to as "second-person" - i.e., this is a "wingman's" view of the action.

 

In a literal sense, "second-person" is perhaps an impossible paradox to create in a game - at least on the 2600. In literary terms, the "Choose your own adventure" and similar series of children's books are considered as second-person. Everything is written as "you" do this and "you" see that (contrast this with "I" for first-person and "he" or "she" for third-person). So perhaps a true second-person perspective game would have one person controlling another...

 

OTOH, the Infocom and other text "interactive fiction" computer games are all written in second-person literary style. So would Stellar Track qualify? (I haven't played it.)

Edited March 23, 2006 by A.J. Franzman

[NovaXpress]

Second-person just can't be done visually. It was a joke. So would Xybots be "first person plural?"

 

I still can't get a grip on how to define the "Donkey Kong" genre.

[vdub_bobby]

I think they are a subset of maze games, where the maze walls aren't tight (or always visible - gravity can be, effectively, a maze "wall"). But I think your "tight-walls" restriction on the maze category is artificial anyway.

 

There is some blurring between your definition of maze games and what you call "free-range with obstacles."

 

For example, Pac-Man would be a maze game but, by your definition, Hangly Man would be free range (w/ obstacles)!

Edited March 23, 2006 by vdub_bobby

[NovaXpress]

So do walls, no matter how sparse, make a maze game? I think of Berzerk as a shoot-em-up which happens to have static obstacles. I see a difference between that and a game like Dark Cavern which allows no freedom of motion.

 

Maybe mazes and platformers are the same idea at the core. Perhaps the theorized definitions are wrong. Perhaps there is no formula. But every other form of sprt or art can be analyzed in this manner, video games should be as well. It's hard because the individual personalities of each game can overwhelm its core play mechanic.

[+Random Terrain]

I think people would be pretty pissed off if they bought a puzzle book full of mazes to solve and each maze only had a few walls. A maze is a "complex system of paths or tunnels in which it is easy to get lost." The 'mazes' in games such as Pac-Man are pretty simple and barely count as real mazes, but they are complex enough and maze-like enough to be put in the maze category.

 

If you took the rooms of Berzerk, shrunk them and put them all together on a piece of paper, it wouldn't look like a maze, so Berzerk is not a maze game.

[NovaXpress]

That's how I feel. There's an obvious difference between a tight maze and mere walls.

 

But like with the platform, we need a better definition than "I know it when I see it."

[+Random Terrain]

That's how I feel. There's an obvious difference between a tight maze and mere walls.

 

But like with the platform, we need a better definition than "I know it when I see it."

By the time my first draft is finished, I'm sure someone or a combination of people will come up with something good.

[vdub_bobby]

The more I think about it, the more I think that using "maze" as a basic movement description is a red herring - a maze game differs from a "free range w/ obstacles" game quantitatively, not qualitatively. IMO.

 

Take Berzerk vs. Dark Cavern:

In both games, you can move in two dimensions, with the only restrictions being the walls, in both games you shoot enemies that are also restricted in their movements by the walls. Is there a *qualitative* difference between these two games, with regard to "movement basics"? I don't think so.

 

I think "maze" is a higher-level categorization, combining elements of goal, appearance, and player movement.

 

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what do you guys think: does the Hangly Man hack of Pac-Man change a "maze" game to a "free range /w obstacles" game?

Edited March 23, 2006 by vdub_bobby

[+Random Terrain]

The more I think about it, the more I think that using "maze" as a basic movement description is a red herring - a maze game differs from a "free range w/ obstacles" game quantitatively, not qualitatively. IMO.

 

Take Berzerk vs. Dark Cavern:

In both games, you can move in two dimensions, with the only restrictions being the walls, in both games you shoot enemies that are also restricted in their movements by the walls. Is there a *qualitative* difference between these two games, with regard to "movement basics"? I don't think so.

 

I think "maze" is a higher-level categorization, combining elements of goal, appearance, and player movement.

Berzerk: Your guy moves when you move the joystick.

Dark Cavern: Your guy constantly moves until you hit or push against a wall.

 

Berzerk: Enemies come after you sometimes, but most of the time they stand around like idiots.

Dark Cavern: Enemies constantly patrol the maze looking for you.

 

Most regular Maze-Chase games have enemies that roam the maze and that seems to be something that many people like. It wouldn't be too much fun to play out in the open with Pac-Man ghosts coming right at you. The maze gives you a fighting chance and some comfort. The combination of chase and maze seems to be a perfect match.

 

When you create a more open game such as Berzerk or Gauntlet, you have to change the behavior of the enemies or it would be too hard.

[NovaXpress]

The more I think about it, the more I think that using "maze" as a basic movement description is a red herring - a maze game differs from a "free range w/ obstacles" game quantitatively, not qualitatively. IMO.

 

Take Berzerk vs. Dark Cavern:

In both games, you can move in two dimensions, with the only restrictions being the walls, in both games you shoot enemies that are also restricted in their movements by the walls. Is there a *qualitative* difference between these two games, with regard to "movement basics"? I don't think so.

 

I think "maze" is a higher-level categorization, combining elements of goal, appearance, and player movement.

 

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what do you guys think: does the Hangly Man hack of Pac-Man change a "maze" game to a "free range /w obstacles" game?

I think there is a significant difference betwen the two, in looks as well as the player experience. How many obstacles does it take to make a "maze" then? Are the skulls in Robotron enough? A true maze game is a highly restrictive experience. I think that the berzer experience is miles apart from dark cavern, only due to the restrictiveness of the walls.

 

Yes, I would say the Hangly man hack changes the nature of the game.

[vdub_bobby]

I think there is a significant difference betwen the two, in looks as well as the player experience. How many obstacles does it take to make a "maze" then? Are the skulls in Robotron enough? A true maze game is a highly restrictive experience. I think that the berzer experience is miles apart from dark cavern, only due to the restrictiveness of the walls.

I dunno. All of that is pretty subjective; the basis for categorization is almost all in squishy words: "highly," "experience" x 2, "restrictiveness"

 

I'd almost go so far as to say that a "true" maze game *must* have dead-ends. Otherwise, they're just obstacles. Which would, of course, DQ Pac-Man!

Yes, I would say the Hangly man hack changes the nature of the game.

From this map:

To this map:

Changed the nature of the game? I dunno...

[StanJr]

I would say the definition of "platformer" would have to include: "gameplay consisting of one or more independent "platforms" or play areas which the player is able to traverse in order to complete the goal of the game." This allows Pitfall, Man Goes Down, and Jungle Hunt.

 

I'm sure there should be more qualifiers to hone the definition more.

[NovaXpress]

Okay, I was thinking of a level without walls. Those screens you showed are indetical game-mechanic wise.

 

I dunno. All of that is pretty subjective; the basis for categorization is almost all in squishy words: "highly," "experience" x 2, "restrictiveness"

I know, we're trying to un-squishy them. It's weird that we can't even clearly define a simple 2600 game principle.

[supercat]

How many obstacles does it take to make a "maze" then?

 

The issue is not IMHO the number of obstacles, but rather the existence of two-dimensional free movement within them.

 

In Pac Man, except at maze vertices, a player is limited to only vertical or only horizontal motion. If the player is travelling along a vertical corridor, no horizontal movement is permitted at all. By contrast, even within narrow vertical passages within the mazes, Adventure allows the player a few pixels worth of horizontal movement.

 

Even though Hanglyman gets rid of much of the visible maze, there is still an invisible maze to which the player is confined. Only at vertices of the invisible grid is the player allowed to switch between horizontal and vertical motion. The playfield may look wide open, but that doesn't mean the player can move freely.

[vdub_bobby]

Even though Hanglyman gets rid of much of the visible maze, there is still an invisible maze to which the player is confined. Only at vertices of the invisible grid is the player allowed to switch between horizontal and vertical motion. The playfield may look wide open, but that doesn't mean the player can move freely.

I don't think that is true, based on some quick tests with MAME. And in the screenshot I posted, there are four small areas that are *not* intersections where you can move in any direction; i.e., free movement is allowed in those four areas.

Edited March 23, 2006 by vdub_bobby

[A.J. Franzman]

The issue is not IMHO the number of obstacles, but rather the existence of two-dimensional free movement within them.

 

In Pac Man, except at maze vertices, a player is limited to only vertical or only horizontal motion. If the player is travelling along a vertical corridor, no horizontal movement is permitted at all. By contrast, even within narrow vertical passages within the mazes, Adventure allows the player a few pixels worth of horizontal movement.

 

Even though Hanglyman gets rid of much of the visible maze, there is still an invisible maze to which the player is confined. Only at vertices of the invisible grid is the player allowed to switch between horizontal and vertical motion. The playfield may look wide open, but that doesn't mean the player can move freely.

IMO this hits the nail on the head - linear movement between corridor intersections and turns.

 

 

Even though Hanglyman gets rid of much of the visible maze, there is still an invisible maze to which the player is confined. Only at vertices of the invisible grid is the player allowed to switch between horizontal and vertical motion. The playfield may look wide open, but that doesn't mean the player can move freely.

I don't think that is true, based on some quick tests with MAME. And in the screenshot I posted, there are four small areas that are *not* intersections where you can move in any direction; i.e., free movement is allowed in those four areas.

If this is true, then it would make Hangly Man a hybrid of sorts - "mostly" Maze with some Free-range areas.

 

I think the existence of "hybrid" games is something that we will not be able to define away; we're just going to have to accept their existence and deal with it. However, in the case of Hangly Man, the free range areas seem to me to be so small as to be insignificant to the overall game play. Is there any real advantage available to a player who tries to make use of the freedom they offer? If not, I have no objection to continuing to call Hangly Man a Maze game.

[+Random Terrain]

When making an alphabetized list, do numbers always have to come first or can you put something like the number 3 in the list as if it were spelled out as three?

[StanJr]

Unless they are written as "three" I would have to say they need to come at the start or end of a list. Keep it simple.