Remember the 2600 Alamo...

[pocketmego]

Why do you guys think there were so many Alamo style VCS games?

 

By Alamo i mean, using a historical contex, battling an endless horde of enemies advancing in waves with no ACTUAL way to win.

 

These are games where victory is never an option and highscores are the only means to determine success.

 

Was it because Space Invader was so popular, ESPECIALLY the 2600 version?

 

Or was it because these games were just easy to do on the 2600 hardware and its limitations lent itself to such games?

 

What do you think?

 

-Ray

Edited August 12, 2006 by pocketmego

[Shawn]

All the above.

[Lord Thag]

Limted memory demanded that, in general, you had to be efficient as possible coding the games. Endless repeating cycles are very efficient, code wise, and you generally only have to change an address or two to ramp up the speed. Plus, the world hadn't invented many objective based games yet. Like the FPS of today, it was the fad of the times.

 

The answer is both, I guess

[Crazy Climber]

I miss endless waves and high scores, those where the days...I'm glad Atari is still popular and games are readily availible

[jboypacman]

Crazy Climber is right.I too miss the endless waves of enemies and High Scores.Thats one of the reasons i came back to the classics.

[G.Whiz]

Crazy Climber is right.I too miss the endless waves of enemies and High Scores.Thats one of the reasons i came back to the classics.

 

Yes, I think it has more to do with game design/development than memory limitations. Adventure games, like Atari Adventure of course, were games that you could "finish" -- and I think the single best thing WR did was make it random so that you could have a different game each time. Look at later adventure games like Ultima. One solution, and once it is solved there is no real reason to play it again. Although it obviously took a lot longer to solve, ultimately you were left with a finished game.

 

Action games started to do this too when the computer game came out. One that comes to mind is "Raid on Bungeling Bay" (sp?) where you flew a helicopter, had to shoot down enemies, and continuously bomb a ship (if memory serves). We did end up solving it eventually -- and then never played it again.

 

Then came first person shooters like Doom, which combined adventure with action. Suddenly all these games required you to "finish" it, and I think today's games, first person shooter or not, owe a lot to Doom for this final shift in gameplay.

 

So what is better?

 

I think both are good in their own way. Space Invaders would not be the game it is if suddenly the screen flashed "YOU KILLED THEM ALL. YOU WIN." It certainly wouldn't be the classic it still is today. On the other hand, it would have been nice to finally get to the end of the river in River Raid... And where would Adventure be if you kept fighting wave after wave of dragons, never being able to get the Chalice?

 

One thing is certain, good "Alamo" games would be a welcome comeback for many people.

 

~G

[NE146]

Were we seeing the first mimicking of a particular game style on home systems that we would see later with games like Donkey Kong, and Doom?

 

But you then again do "win" in Donkey Kong.. it just happens to start over again. Doom had an ending too did it not?

[Godzilla]

I've always prefered a game with endless gameplay vs. finite gameplay.

[pitfallaimee]

I've always prefered a game with endless gameplay vs. finite gameplay.

 

I like both, but there is no question that the replay value is MUCH higher on a non-ending game. You can always try for that high score. Unless you roll it, which I don't think would bother me, but I know Stan is much less likely to play games he's flipped than games he hasn't.

[Crazy Climber]

I would like a hack of Megamania that doesn't end at 999,999. I love that game and it's my favorite on the 2600 but I'm at the point now where 9 times out of 10 this happens. I wonder how high I could get if it never stopped.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I would like a hack of Megamania that doesn't end at 999,999. I love that game and it's my favorite on the 2600 but I'm at the point now where 9 times out of 10 this happens. I wonder how high I could get if it never stopped.

Try this one.

infinitemania.bin

[NovaXpress]

If Megamania didn't stop at 999.999 I would still be playing the game I started in 1982.

[pocketmego]

Were we seeing the first mimicking of a particular game style on home systems that we would see later with games like Donkey Kong, and Doom?

 

But you then again do "win" in Donkey Kong.. it just happens to start over again. Doom had an ending too did it not?

 

I have no idea where my mind was when I typed that. It doesn't even make any sense to me. Ignore that will ya.

 

Thanks

 

 

-Ray

[pocketmego]

I am certainly not taking anythign away from these Alamo style games. One of my favorite Atari games is Demon Attack, which defines this kind of gameplay. In fact I question which is bewtter as well. Certainly the true sense of the classic is maintained when playing these kind of games.

 

Another game which sort of created the "gotta finish it" mentality was Super Mario Brothers. Where Mario Brothers was actually a throw back to the wave after wave mentality, Super Mario was most certainly about finishing the quest. In point of fact most NES games were about reaching some sort of goal.

 

The 2600 was more about reaching PERSONAL goals.

 

-Ray

[markheus]

I am certainly not taking anythign away from these Alamo style games. One of my favorite Atari games is Demon Attack, which defines this kind of gameplay. In fact I question which is bewtter as well. Certainly the true sense of the classic is maintained when playing these kind of games.

 

Another game which sort of created the "gotta finish it" mentality was Super Mario Brothers. Where Mario Brothers was actually a throw back to the wave after wave mentality, Super Mario was most certainly about finishing the quest. In point of fact most NES games were about reaching some sort of goal.

 

The 2600 was more about reaching PERSONAL goals.

 

-Ray

 

Maybe that's what has brought me back to the Atari. I love long, epic games. I cut my teeth on the Zeldas, spent days upon days with NeverWinter Nights, etc...

Perhaps its my three month stint with Morrowind: Elder Scrolls. I've been playing it almost non-stop for the past three months. Sometimes one just gets so bogged down in the sheer grandiosity and epicness of games that it becomes more like work. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy them, but its nice to be able to pop a cartridge in the machine and play for 15 minutes without feeling that you've left something unfinished. You don't need to make it to the next town, clear out the next dungeon, or search through 3 towns for a boatman who has a particular scroll and then return that to your patron. Games on the Atari feel more like... well... a game! (gasp)

 

Sometimes its just fun to shoot stuff...