mbabramowicz@amherst.bitnet (10/30/90)
I am a programer of shareware and public domain games, and hope in the near future to embark on a new creation. However, I have not yet decided what game to make, and thought that readers of this newsgroup might have dreamed up games that they wished were available for the Mac. So here is my request: If you have an idea for a Macintosh game, please post it (If I end up using your idea, I'll put you in the program's About... box. And if I end up marketing the game commercially [not very likely] we'll cut some sort of deal.) I would be particularly happy if the game(s) you propose meet the following criteria for good arcade games. 1) They should be original, i.e. preferably not available on the Mac or (even better) other systems. 2) They should be simple to play. While different users are different, I know that I tend to only play games whose rules I can pretty much figure out by reading a sentence or two. 3) They should offer room for improvement. Some games are simple to play but are measurements of some natural characteristic (such as memory-ability) rather than of hand-eye-mind coordination. This was a problem, I think, with another game I wrote, MacSimon, which is fun, but only for a little while. 4) They should offer the users different options and ways to change the game environment (e.g., start on level 4 instead of level 1.) 5) They should be arcade games (This is just a personal preference.) I am not really interested in programming mind games or adventure games, even though they are fun to play. 6) The game should not be so difficult that a novice would not feel that he or she had done at least reasonably well and want to continue. It is sometimes hard, I suspect, to make both rule 3 and rule 6 work together, but the best games (like Tetris and Crystal Quest) are not absolutely impossible for beginners, but people get much, much better at them as they play more. 7) A game should be simple enough so that a user can play it without really concentrating too hard. Games like Breakout and Space Invaders do a good job with this. 8) A game that can be played against another player as well as against the computer is always nice. If you have any other criteria for what you feel makes a great game, feel free to post those too. I've put on so many restrictions that I wouldn't be surprised if no one posted any ideas, so I'll be very greatful if you do post some. I'm sure some other Mac programmers might be interested too in what the people they are writing the games for really want. Michael Abramowicz Amherst College
hulsej@lclark.UUCP (Jose Hulse) (11/02/90)
I am also an arcade game fan, but what I'd really like to see someday is a fantasy role-playing game, of the Might&Magic or Wizardry variety, with a multiplayer or head-to head option. That way, it would be a competition to see which player's party could solve the game first. Naturally, for some real fun, you'd be able to pit your party against another player's party in a no-holds barred fight, complete with fireballs, disintegration spells, etc., with the program moderating the battle. Now *that* would be fun! Has anyone ever heard of such a thing, period (let alone for our beloved, if somewhat neglected Macintoshes --neglected by most of the commercial game publishers, anyway)??? Also, can anyone out there tell me about Legends of the Lost Realm? Thanks in Advance, Jose' Hulse (hulsej@lclark.bitnet) Opinions expressed are my own, etc.
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (11/04/90)
In article <1025@lclark.UUCP> hulsej@lclark.UUCP (Jose Hulse) writes: >I am also an arcade game fan, but what I'd really like to see someday is a >fantasy role-playing game, of the Might&Magic or Wizardry variety, with a >multiplayer or head-to head option. That way, it would be a competition to >see which player's party could solve the game first. Naturally, for some >real fun, you'd be able to pit your party against another player's party in >a no-holds barred fight, complete with fireballs, disintegration spells, etc., >with the program moderating the battle. Now *that* would be fun!.... This is a fascinating subject to me, and I've been wondering for some time whether anybody would try it. The difficulty in creating such a game would be to try to figure out how to run the thing on one computer instead of on MVS or instead of on two computers connected by modems. There are other problems here too. There has been some good discussion in the newsgroup rec.games.frp lately which concerns the knowledge which the various characters have versus the knowledge which the human players have. If one group learns something, how could the other party not learn about it as well even though they shouldn't since they might be elsewhere? In other words, each adventuring group would have to be taken out by a *different* player, and that player would not be able to give any hints to the other players in the game. But this would mean that the game could only be played in a sequential, chronological mode--i.e., no two parties could be adventuring at the same *time*; otherwise they might run into each other or if the game was badly designed then they could be performing the same actions in the same place (such as talking to Mr. X) and not even know the other party was there! Also, there should be designed into the game the ability for one group's actions in an area to affect what the other group(s) would find and experience in that area should they go there at some later time. I don't see how this can be done very well unless you have two keyboards and two monitors (or more) so that the time that passes in the game is the same for all the characters in the game. If you tried to play just one group at a time and wanted the possibility of running into another group, how else would you do it? I suppose if you had enough room on your hard disk that the game could be automatically saved every time the party took a single step so that if another group ventured on a square which had been occupied at that same time by the previous group they would then encounter one another. But this would mean that all the actions of the first group would be become nullified for all the time they have spent after they left that square. And it would mean that your players (human players) would end up knowing more than your game characters since they would have found out things that the party had once found out, but now should not know about. See what I mean? I'm glad you mentioned Might and Magic. This is my favorite RPG so far. Take a look at how MM (Might and Magic) does this... In MM you take out different groups of people at different times. Although you may have 30 to 40 adventurers you can only adventure with 8 at a time. What do the other 22 to 32 adventurers do when those 8 are out roaming around? Apparently they just sit at the Inn twiddling their thumbs while the party which is out adventuring is getting the *&$#@ beat out of them. Another possible way of doing this is to have geographically restricted areas. One group could be taken into a certain area, and then if you wanted to take another group out you could choose the time to start out (from the time the first group left till the present), and then take them into another area which did not at any geographical point overlap that of the first one. This way you could have a number of parties out and simply toggle between them via different windows. Of course this would mean 1) You would be playing them at different *game* times, so that for one group it might be nighttime and for another group it could be midday, and 2) What happens to one group could *not* have any direct bearings upon another group--especially if the knowledge that one group obtains would be beneficial for another group. This might be on various levels... Let's say that one group encounters a certain creature, fights it, finds its vulnerable points, and kills it. The creatures in MM are very much this way--some can only be hit physically and some can only be affected by magic, etc. Then what happens if another group (adventuring in another place and having had no contact with the first group) should come upon this same monster? *YOU* know how to fight this monster, but *THEY* shouldn't. See the inherent problems here? ...or on another level, if you want this game to be played by one person who is using several parties, then (as stated above) those parties would have to be solving absolutely independent problems/goals. Otherwise if one group obtains clues that could be beneficial to another group *YOU* would know about it, but wouldn't it be cheating to alter the actions of the other group since *THEY* shouldn't know about it? You might say "Well, I'll build telepathic abilities into my characters so they can share useful information over long distances." Bzzzzzzt.... This would mean that ALL the groups would have to be adventuring (or lounging around at an "Inn") at the *same* game time. This doesn't even scratch the surface of all the difficulties. What about time travel--an element that many RPG's use, such as Ultima and MM? What a mess to even start trying to figure that out! I'm sure there is a way of doing this. A discussion of this should be moved to rec.games.int-fiction. I will be quoting your posting and about 4 others from rec.games.frp in rec.games.int-fiction soon to start a discussion on this there. S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC 4 other postings from
jost@alice.coyote.trw.com (Patrick Jost) (11/04/90)
Anyone reading this newsgroup for any period of time will come across numerous requests for hints, spoilers and whatever for the seemingly illogical and counterintuitive puzzles encountered in many games. Here are some of my "gripes" with most adventure games, and possible solutions for what I'd consider better games: 1) Having to go through a tedious process of gaining "experience" before being able to use certain spells and so on. As an alternative, I'd recommend immediate access to just about everything, but making part of the game sorting out what to do with them. For instance, if there are several "attack" spells, which ones work best on which foes? Sure, you'd be able to cast anything, but you'd better cast the RIGHT thing. 2) Running out of food, torches and so on. I think this reduces many aspects of gameplay to tedium. Sure, you'd have to have these things in real life, but I don't see that this adds anything to a game. 3) Having a "quest" be an integral part of a game. Once the "quest" has been accomplished, the game is more or less over. I'd like to see a game where you just explore a large world-in fact, you could have the program create an endless series of "random" worlds (along with different spell characteristics and so on). 4) Lack of originality is chronic! Every game seems to have a few attack spells, a few heal spells, transport spells and so on. For characters, you get fighters, wizards and clerics; sometimes you get thieves, ninjas and the like. Once again, I'd like to see more effort put into creating a real "world" with characteristics to be learned as the game goes on. One of the best games I've had was Might and Magic. The first thing I did was play around with my character file in ResEdit. Sure, I got some WEIRD stuff (like a character who could not "own" anything, but who was almost invulnerable and was a very powerful wizard, or a character who was a powerful cleric, but who seemed to age very rapidly), but I could heal, fight and get around pretty well. I spent quite a bit of time exploring the world of Might and Magic, but never even bothered with the quest. On the other hand, I think Citadel is a PAIN. I've read the "cluebook" and came to the conclusion that the game seems to consist of a single path... with a lot of frustrating nonsense along the way (I won't drop any spoilers here). Even though I loved the graphics in Shadowgate, it is pretty much the same-you spend all of your time fretting over silly things, and not enough time enjoying yourself. These are just my opinions...however, if anyone would like to collaborate on the development of such a game, please drop me some email! Patrick Jost jost@coyote.trw.com -- | Patrick Jost (PJester) | "The thief of Baghdad hides in Islington now" | jost@coyote.trw.com | -Marillion (Fish)
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (11/04/90)
> [deletions] ...A discussion of this should >be moved to rec.games.int-fiction. I will be quoting your posting ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and about 4 others from rec.games.frp in rec.games.int-fiction soon ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >to start a discussion on this there. Meant to say rec.arts.int-fiction! ^^^^
francis@arthur.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov3.212628.22893@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: >In article <1025@lclark.UUCP> hulsej@lclark.UUCP (Jose Hulse) writes: [...] >This is a fascinating subject to me, and I've been wondering for some >time whether anybody would try it. The difficulty in creating >such a game would be to try to figure out how to run the thing on one >computer instead of on MVS or instead of on two computers connected >by modems. What's MVS? What's wrong with AppleTalk? You set up one machine as a server, so that it stores all the data about the game, & run the others subordinate. Then you've got real-time interaction between the parties. As for running it on one machine, you're probably right--you'd have to have multiple monitors & keyboards. But that is probably a less common setup than AppleTalk, especially since *all* Macs have the network hardware, but only the more expensive ones can even think about multiple monitors without extensive hardware mods; and the Plus and lower models cannot have multiple keyboards. Granted, I can see why running on one machine is cheaper than 2, but I seriously doubt anybody is gonna get a 2nd monitor & kbd just for a game. If I had a Mac, & I wanted to play this with a friend who also did, I could just bring over my machine & hook them together. There's also the fact that campus setups often have AppleTalk, but rarely have consultants who will let you install a second monitor in their machines. | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Non sequiturs make me eat lampshades | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | |
tjonker@letaba.rice.edu (Todd V Jonker) (11/06/90)
Long ago, there was a fabulous game on the Apple II called _Ceiling_Zero_. It was basically a shoot-em-up game with some novel twists. The players moved his gun across the bottom of the screen with a paddle and shot at the little alien ships above. At the top of the screen was a big "mother ship" which roamed back and forth across the top, launching smaller daughter ships which you attempted to shoot. Just underneath the mother ship were a pair of devices, one at each side, which formed a glittery beam or laser horizontally between them. This was the ceiling, and the game started at Ceiling 15 or so, meaning all the way up. Now here's the fun part: the mother ship (which could not be destroyed) launched the little ships at an angle, and they passed down through the ceiling and began _bouncing_around_ off the floor, the walls, and the bottom of the ceiling. Not random bouncing, but more like a racquetball in zero-G. If one of these critters hit your gun, it blew up, the ships continued to get launched and bounce, and soon you would get another gun to continue. Now the little ships came in three flavors, each of which move at different speeds: slow, medium and fast. And after each wave of about 10-20 ships, the mother would stop launching and wait while you attempted to blast the remaining ships. If you succeeded, the Ceiling would descend, and another faster wave would begin. The wonderful part was that the bounce-around area kept shrinking as you got to be a better and better shot, keeping the game remarkably challenging. The best I ever did was up to Ceiling Five, so I am not sure what happened at ceiling Zero. At any rate, this is still one of my favorite games, and I would love to see a Macintosh implementation. It should be relatively simple; I have seen a version implemented (also on the Apple II) in a few pages of assembly code.) Well, Michael, this seems to fit quite a few of your criteria. What do you think? /====================\============================\ || Todd V. Jonker \ tjonker@titan.rice.edu || || Rice University /\ "DAMN good coffee... || || Computer Science / \ ...and HOT" || \===================/====\========================/ R E L A X ! don't do it
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (11/09/90)
Francis Stracke writes: >>The difficulty in creating >>such a game would be to try to figure out how to run the thing on one >>computer instead of on MVS or instead of on two computers connected >>by modems. >What's MVS? Sorry about that. MVS stands for multi-virtual system, but is probably not the accepted acronym for systems that are simply capable of multitasking. It was the term we used for such systems when I was an operator about ten years ago. >As for running it on one machine, you're probably right--you'd >have to have multiple monitors & keyboards. I'm beginning to think that way myself. I brought up the subject because I thought it would be interesting to see how other people might handle this situation. I also was interested in why this apparently hadn't caused anybody any trouble with games that were already being played. >Granted, I can see why running on one machine is >cheaper than 2, but I seriously doubt anybody is gonna get >a 2nd monitor & kbd just for a game. If I had a Mac, & I wanted >to play this with a friend who also did, I could just bring over >my machine & hook them together. Or with a modem you could just call the other person if you both had the appropriate hardware and software. A few games have actually been created with this capability. Physically transporting a a computer is never a good idea to me (jarring can cause damage to hard drive, etc.). S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC