Why do the bad guys always win in classic video games ???

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,finet.unet (More info?)

I mean you can kill as many Space Invaders as you can, in the end,
they will win.You can eat as many pills as you can in Pacman, in the
end, the ghosts will win.

In all those games, you cannot win and the aliens will finally destroy
you.

Were all those games written by sadistic pessimists who want everyone
to die?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,finet.unet (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2005 23:48:04 -0700, mist_distance@hotmail.com (Tristan
Beeline) wrote:

>I mean you can kill as many Space Invaders as you can, in the end,
>they will win.You can eat as many pills as you can in Pacman, in the
>end, the ghosts will win.
>
>In all those games, you cannot win and the aliens will finally destroy
>you.
>
>Were all those games written by sadistic pessimists who want everyone
>to die?

To balance the games where the good guys wins in the end. You find
the chalice and get it to the yellow castle safely, the good guy wins.
=)
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

Please don't feed the trolls -- remove finet.unet from the newsgroups
if/when you reply.
--
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 slapdash@rcn.com [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

In article <slapdash-60E401.20510315062005@news.rcn.com>,
Russ Perry Jr <slapdash@rcn.com> wrote:

> Please don't feed the trolls -- remove finet.unet from the newsgroups
> if/when you reply.

Actually, Russ, I think this thread has a potential for excellent
discussion. I hadn't thought a lot about this before, but there is
truth to the eoriginator's post. Only a few games of such nature
offered any potential for other:

Galaga - the very best could roll the game until they fell asleep.

Pac-man - a few people could navigate every maze pattern up to the
system heap of 99 (I think), and then walk away to grab a burger.

Donkey Kong, you rescued the girl (Daphne was it) multiple times, and
then it all began again, but there you could enjoy several victories.


But so many games did end with the bad guys winning. Look for a prime
example at The End. The game offered infinite lives, but you lost when
the baddies stole the last supply box you were set to guard.

And look at so many game's set-ups and premises. You were the last
surviving pilot. You alone must rescue the girl. You are our last line
of defence. Everyone else is already wiped out. Will goodness prevail,
or is all hope lost? How will the Caped Crusader get out of this one?

jt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

jt august <starsabre@att.net> wrote:
> Russ Perry Jr <slapdash@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Please don't feed the trolls -- remove finet.unet from the newsgroups
>> if/when you reply.

> Actually, Russ, I think this thread has a potential for excellent
> discussion.

That's fine, but leaving in the troll newsgroup is just encouraging
them.

> I hadn't thought a lot about this before, but there is truth to the
> originator's post.

Frankly, it's mostly technology. It's easy to program a game to keep
going, but hard to code an ending, if you're using a lot of the ROM
space for the game itself.

But another way of looking at it is "the draw". If you conquer a
game, why would you play it again? But if you can never win, the
theory is you won't get tired of it, because the ONLY way to succeed
is to keep doing better, which requires you keep playing.
--
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 slapdash@rcn.com [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

In article <slapdash-690505.19312617062005@news.rcn.com>,
Russ Perry Jr <slapdash@rcn.com> wrote:

> But another way of looking at it is "the draw". If you conquer a
> game, why would you play it again? But if you can never win, the
> theory is you won't get tired of it, because the ONLY way to succeed
> is to keep doing better, which requires you keep playing.

But so many games were ultimately coded so that players got to levels
truly impossible to beat. Tempest would be an example I can think of.
I have played some of the ferociously highest levels only through game
cheats. I am not aware of anyone playing to the black tunnels naturally.

Sinistar is another example. Much as I still love that game, I have
never gotten out of level two, and I think the record is only level 5 or
6, but I think I found some developer's archive info that said it had 25
or 30 levels.

Even the Atari 800 game I wrote and released was coded to play harder
and faster until no one could beat it. I test set it at level 750 one
time to test, and it was not realistically playable. One tester got to
level 187, and he was spent after that game. I never got beyond level
46 myself.

So, yes, games were coded to be ultimately unbeatable, and I have to
thus agree with the original troll.

jt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

For arcade games, it is trying to get you to put in another quarter to not
let the bad guys beat you. For home games, I don't think it's a desire for
replay factor as much as it is a limitation in memory space. Memory was at
such a premium that you couldn't "waste" it for an ending. Look at arcade
games with intermissions which never made it to the home. Home games would
*want* you to finish them, so you have to buy another one. I think that
"endings" became more prevalant when the arcade games' importance diminished
on the home consoles.

Dane.

"jt august" <starsabre@att.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-4A88C9.09484919062005@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <slapdash-690505.19312617062005@news.rcn.com>,
> Russ Perry Jr <slapdash@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > But another way of looking at it is "the draw". If you conquer a
> > game, why would you play it again? But if you can never win, the
> > theory is you won't get tired of it, because the ONLY way to succeed
> > is to keep doing better, which requires you keep playing.
>
> But so many games were ultimately coded so that players got to levels
> truly impossible to beat. Tempest would be an example I can think of.
> I have played some of the ferociously highest levels only through game
> cheats. I am not aware of anyone playing to the black tunnels naturally.
>
> Sinistar is another example. Much as I still love that game, I have
> never gotten out of level two, and I think the record is only level 5 or
> 6, but I think I found some developer's archive info that said it had 25
> or 30 levels.
>
> Even the Atari 800 game I wrote and released was coded to play harder
> and faster until no one could beat it. I test set it at level 750 one
> time to test, and it was not realistically playable. One tester got to
> level 187, and he was spent after that game. I never got beyond level
> 46 myself.
>
> So, yes, games were coded to be ultimately unbeatable, and I have to
> thus agree with the original troll.
>
> jt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

"A *real* ending so you didn't feel like you got ripped off for a
defective game"

Doesn't this imply some sort of narrative thread to the game itself?
By this I mean something so simple as gameplay being defined, for
example, as saving Earth and then after the last wave/mission you are
told something to the effect of "Congratulations, Earth is saved."

I raise this question because I am very interested in the application
of narrative structures to video games. An early game like Pong - with
its instructions of "AVOID MISSING BALL FOR HIGH SCORE" - really don't
have much of a backstory and later arcade games such as Galaxian or
Donkey Kong have a very simple plot with no real development. Also,
how much of the presence of a story is related to the technology in use
at the time? By this I mean as memory expanded, for example,
programmers could devote more space to story as opposed to straight up
gameplay. Did the appearance of story tend to develop more fully in
arcade games or home console games? Finally, to add one more wrinkle,
what about computer games - did text-based adventure games (from the
heyday of mainframe computers and into home computers) allow the player
to "win" against the "bad guys"?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

In article <J2gte.8007$pa3.3589@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Dane L. Galden" <chigroup(at)ix.netcom.comCHANGE(at)TO@> wrote:

> For arcade games, it is trying to get you to put in another quarter to not
> let the bad guys beat you. For home games, I don't think it's a desire for
> replay factor as much as it is a limitation in memory space. Memory was at
> such a premium that you couldn't "waste" it for an ending. Look at arcade
> games with intermissions which never made it to the home. Home games would
> *want* you to finish them, so you have to buy another one. I think that
> "endings" became more prevalant when the arcade games' importance diminished
> on the home consoles.

I site the exception of the O^2. Many of its games had endings. But
what was the ending? The game stopped. Noting more. Oh, take the
money and run made your guy double size. But that was it. And then,
they realized that games were more popular if you ultimately couldn't
win, so games like Freedom Fighters and Pic Axe Pete didn't end.

Endings didn't need a lot of memory. Just an STP command.

jt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

"jt august" <starsabre@att.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-4D1CDC.22054819062005@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <J2gte.8007$pa3.3589@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Dane L. Galden" <chigroup(at)ix.netcom.comCHANGE(at)TO@> wrote:
>
> > For arcade games, it is trying to get you to put in another quarter to
not
> > let the bad guys beat you. For home games, I don't think it's a desire
for
> > replay factor as much as it is a limitation in memory space. Memory was
at
> > such a premium that you couldn't "waste" it for an ending. Look at
arcade
> > games with intermissions which never made it to the home. Home games
would
> > *want* you to finish them, so you have to buy another one. I think that
> > "endings" became more prevalant when the arcade games' importance
diminished
> > on the home consoles.
>
> I site the exception of the O^2. Many of its games had endings. But
> what was the ending? The game stopped. Noting more. Oh, take the
> money and run made your guy double size. But that was it. And then,
> they realized that games were more popular if you ultimately couldn't
> win, so games like Freedom Fighters and Pic Axe Pete didn't end.
>
> Endings didn't need a lot of memory. Just an STP command.
>
> jt

Let me re-phrase that. A *real* ending so you didn't feel like you got
ripped off for a defective game (which was always the feeling that I had
playing O2 games, whether they "stopped" or not).

Dane.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic (More info?)

"Wizard of Wor" <pringprangprong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119242263.503984.283780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "A *real* ending so you didn't feel like you got ripped off for a
> defective game"
>
> Doesn't this imply some sort of narrative thread to the game itself?
> By this I mean something so simple as gameplay being defined, for
> example, as saving Earth and then after the last wave/mission you are
> told something to the effect of "Congratulations, Earth is saved."
>
> I raise this question because I am very interested in the application
> of narrative structures to video games. An early game like Pong - with
> its instructions of "AVOID MISSING BALL FOR HIGH SCORE" - really don't
> have much of a backstory and later arcade games such as Galaxian or
> Donkey Kong have a very simple plot with no real development. Also,
> how much of the presence of a story is related to the technology in use
> at the time? By this I mean as memory expanded, for example,
> programmers could devote more space to story as opposed to straight up
> gameplay. Did the appearance of story tend to develop more fully in
> arcade games or home console games? Finally, to add one more wrinkle,
> what about computer games - did text-based adventure games (from the
> heyday of mainframe computers and into home computers) allow the player
> to "win" against the "bad guys"?
>

As I implied in my earlier post, endings became possible with home consoles
when expanded memory was cheap, and desirable since they would encourage new
purchases. Computer games did have endings first if you count text
adventure games, but I am less familiar with these.

Dane.