1001 VG Book #06 - "Space Invaders" - (1978)

commentary about the book article for:

#6 = Space Invaders (1978)
- by CD (Chris Dahlen)
- Arcade

- Good article, however there aren't a "handful of methods for predicting the appearance of the UFO." The writer got confused... the UFO appears at regular time intervals, and the "methods" he's thinking of are simply in knowing how to get 300 pts every time you hit the UFO. It has to do with counting your shots.. and hitting the UFO with a very specific # shot.

- Also, this naturally mentions the oft-repeated fallacy of Space Invaders causing a coin shortage in Japan.  We now know that there wasn't extra coin production due to Space Invaders... but it's one of those stories that is legend, even if truth has been stretched.

- The other glaring error is they called Galaga a "clone" of Space Invaders. That's like saying Eminem is a clone of Sir-Mix-A-Lot because they are in the same genre. Sure, there are some genre similarities -- but a clone in the videogame world is a bad thing... a duplicate. Same game, different name.  Galaga is clearly not a clone!  It's a true original - an all-time classic with many of its own innovations!

MY QUICK REVIEW:
Space Invaders is one of the big daddy games of video game history. Whereas Pong might've been the first big hit for video arcade games... Space Invaders was the revolution that moved the entire industry from a small entertainment avenue towards a major global juggernaut. It effectively launched a massive increase in awareness and growth for video arcade games.

Furthermore, when it was licensed and brought over to the Atari 2600 platform in 1980, it also created demand for that console equating to millions of units and a march towards market dominance.

But why? The modern player might find it rather repetitive and boring. It's just 5 rows of 11 invaders that move monotonously, dropping steadily closer... for wave after wave until you fail. Well, maybe a few reasons:

1. High-score games were nothing new, but this was not a timed game... you really could rack up a decent score the better you got at it, lasting longer on a quarter and sensing accomplishment. The high score was saved for all to see at the very top of the screen.

2. This wasn't trying to simulate real life... it was something entirely new. It wasn't a driving game, dogfighting, sports or a shooting gallery... those are things people either saw or possibly could do in real life. But shooting down waves of aliens set on destroying the Earth was novel (at the time). Might be old hat now, but captured the imagination.

3. Well-balanced play, built-in tension, and the bug that became a feature - the gradual speeding up of the marching aliens. Never underestimate how important gameplay is.  Is it fun?  With it's tension-inducing, four-descending note soundscape (doo, doo, doo, doo...), the mother-ship popping out with its own wild sounds, and the difficulty moving from fairly easy right on up to beyond-reflex hard...heck yeah it was fun!

Did I mention it looked really cool? A painted backdrop depicting the defending moon landscape, with an angled-mirror reflecting the actual B&W screen hiding below. It had depth, sounds, gameplay, tension, presentation... and novelty! Deserves to be remembered. Still playable today.

VIDEO:

1001 VG Book #05 - "Combat" - (1977)

commentary about the book article for:

#5 = Combat (1977)
- by GM (Gary Penn)
- Atari 2600 (or Atari VCS at the time)

  - This was a great review - and it IS so true that with great play mechanics and a well-matched opponent the graphics fade into the background. 

  - I don't particularly like cartridges being described as "slammed" into the Atari. I was always careful. Were you a slammer?  Nor do I like "thumbed away at rubberized joysticks" -- because I for one just grabbed the joystick with the full hand, and base in the other, thumb on the fire button.  Using your thumb to work the joystick seems weird.

-- There were both tanks and planes… a lot of variations on planes and jets and other sky combat games. So to be fair, the cartridge had quite a bit more variety than hinted at…

 
- I hate the word seminal - I won’t use it. It's perfectly legitimate, I just think there are far better words that mean the same thing.  Look it up.

  - It is mentioned Combat was a pack-in game... and that's true, Pac-Man finally replaced it as the pack-in game in 1982. So, kudos to the article mentioning "for five years" which was indeed the time it was the bundled game for the 2600 from 1977-1982.

  - However… originally there was both an "Atari VCS" as well as a "Sears Tele-Games" console -- same internals, different brand & marketing paths.  Of note, though, is that the pack-in title was different on the Sears Tele-Games!  So, not everyone who bought a consle in those first five years automatically “slammed in” the Combat cartridge. But... it was a popular cartridge... so I'm sure the vast majority of people probably had it or bought it.

  - Roughly 4 million combined console sales by end of 1981… both Atari & Sears branded console sales in total.

MY QUICK REVIEW:
The Combat cartridge for the Atari 2600 boasts 27 video games.  This was a time when gameplay variations were counted as unique "games" but in this case can really be broken down into a few major categories:
Tank (14 variations)
Biplane (6 variations)
Jet-Fighter (7 variations)

This was only a few years after the initial release of a Tank video game in the arcades, and so from a technical perspective it's quite an achievement. I feel like Atari was really focused on giving the player as much as they could on a single cartridge along this style of game play... head-to-head battle with vehicles.  

With only 2Kb storage capacity, there might not have been any room leftover for a computer-programmed opponent. Therefore, Combat is best experienced with a real-life person, sitting just feet away with you, on that 2nd controller. Somebody who teases, yells, and threatens retaliation for the beat-down delivered with grinning satisfaction.  Ah yes!  The smooth gameplay allows you to forget about the pixelated graphics and to be absorbed in the age-old fight for bragging rights.  

VIDEO:

(Atari 2600 game - Combat gameplay footage)

1001 VG Book #04 - "Boot Hill" - (1977)

commentary about the book article for:

#4 = Boot Hill (1977)
- by JRu (Justin Russell)
- Arcade

  -  The review suggests this as "Pong redesigned by a John Wayne fan?"  Laughable. It doesn't even feel like a pong game, its a totally different genre, with vastly different rules. This kind of inaccurate portrayal makes me feel like these reviewers are not concerned with the actual games, but in writing up some kind of fan fiction. Sorry, but it just bugs a historian like me.

  - The article fails to mention the addition of computer-controlled opponent!  That's a big change. Also, article says you lack certain realities without the actual arcade cabinet -- but the graveyard is definitely emulated.  True, it is hard to replicate the dual-stick joystick setup though. Left for movement, and an analog grip-handle on the right for aiming & shooting.  That's a fun setup to play on a real machine.

  - "Bang, bang, you're really dead." Ugh, I hate that line. There is no "really dead" since this is all a video game. I'm sure this is in reference to the game's animation of shuttling off the dead cowboy to the graveyard and a tombstone is erected on the spot... but this is all good simulated fun. 

MY QUICK REVIEW:
Boot Hill is the 2nd game, an "upgrade" of sorts from the 1975 game Gun Fight. They added the reflective glass to give it this feeling of depth.  So I looked up who was the first to use this "projected mirror trick".  Apparently in 1976, Midway introduced a few games using this setup:  280-Zzap, Sea-Wolf and Tornado Baseball.

In any case, gameplay is much like Gun Fight, two cowboys face off in a duel... loaded with just six bullets each "round" to shoot down the opponent.  Various cactus are randomly generated on each side, which provide some obstacles and/or cover, but can be partially destroyed with a single bullet.

The biggest change from the previous game, in my opinion, is that there is now a computer controlled opponent. There is just a 70-second time limit on a quarter, so there is no such thing as a single-player "game" or campaign... but at least you can play a fun game by yourself.

There are probably other games that could've made this list... as Boot Hill only ranked 11th in 1977 and 20th in 1978 (according to RePlay magazine).  In fact, I think one of the omitted games on the 1001 list could certainly have been Sea-Wolf by Midway, which was a very popular game and introduced a number of things itself.  Boot Hill does have a nice style & presentation and is a good example of early head-to-head fighting type of game. So it's a nice inclusion on the 1001 list.

VIDEO:

(Boot Hill - simulated original gameplay)

1001 VG Book #03 - "Breakout" - (1976)

commentary about the book article for:

#3 = Breakout (1976)
- by SP (Steve Poole)
- Arcade

  - First note - the picture in the book is actually from "Super Breakout" - which is a 1978 sequel to Breakout that introduced three game modes. The picture above is the original Breakout from 1976.

  - The article mentions how many games still show the influence of Breakout - including Peggle. Really? Peggle? How did they make that stretch? It's fine by me to point out some of the closely related games, such as Arkanoid, a game clearly in the genre and tradition of Breakout. But to stretch influence beyond a clear connection is to ignore the many genres and other games that have all had their own influence in this great industry. There are many games that draw inspiration from many sources.

MY QUICK REVIEW:
Breakout is a great game... makes Pong style gameplay fun without an opponent. Adds a little bit more to do than just getting the ball past your opponent's paddle, too.  At first you just want to keep the ball in play, but as the blocks get eliminated you really have to get good at hitting the edges of your paddle for finely-tuned aiming.

We have a risk-to-reward here as the edges of the paddle put you closer to just barely missing the ball, but if you don't you might never get all the blocks.  Furthermore, once the ball goes above the top red block line, your paddle shrinks in half!  So there is clearly a skillset needed to actually eliminate the entire 112 brick wall.  And if you DO...  you have a 2nd full set of blocks to eliminate.  But here's the cool thing - if you clear the 2nd set, you've actually beaten the game.

I also love that Breakout was part of what inspired the "minimal" level of graphics necessary for the Apple II.  Steve Wozniak, famed Apple I & Apple II designer, had stated that when designing the Apple II it should be at least capable of playing a decent game of breakout.  There's also the crazy story during the creation of Breakout... how Steve Jobs got Wozniak to implement a tight design... pocketing a big bonus for reducing the total number of chips. But then Steve lies to Woz about how much the bonus was and pays him his half of the "lied-about amount" (which varies a bit based on who's telling the story).  Still... crazy stuff.  Crazy history. 

VIDEO:

(Breakout original cabinet gameplay)

(Peggle gameplay example)

While Peggle is a really fun game, I don't think it has much in common with Breakout other than "bouncing balls".  But you're really not controlling much of anything except the initial shot from the top of the screen.

1001 VG Book #02 - "Pong" - (1972)

commentary about the book article for:

#2 = Pong (1972)

- review by MK (Michael Kittymycack)

- Arcade

  - This entry was awful. First, I really hate it when they describe Pong as having "english". If you've ever played any actual racquet sport, or even Billiards, you'll understand that "english" is spin you purposely place on a ball to affect trajectory and bounce. Ping Pong, especially at high levels of play, has huge amounts of spin... and there is no equivalent in Pong. The only thing happening here is the angle the ball rebounds is affected by the location it hits the paddle. - Then there's the story about the game breaking shortly after it was installed due to a completely stuffed coin tray. It wasn't "shortly after" Pong was placed that Andy Capp's Tavern called… it actually took a couple weeks to fill the coin slot by all accounts. Still, it was doing high coin drop in short order.

  - Sayng that as soon as Pong was a hit “an industry was born” is also inaccurate. The coin-op industry had other hits going strong, and new games coming every month at least.  Pong was an attempt at a new and novel variation of coin-op game. Once it hit big, it was somewhat classified in a category the coin-op industry called "tv games" and later more broadly "videos". Pong clones were very popular for two to three years after Pong, with many clones and competitors jumping on this new type of coin-op game. Although Pong started the popularization of the "video game" coin-op, the big transition to them being the primary type game really took off once Space Invaders became a massive hit starting late 1978.

  - Finally, the most egregious mistake in the article is talking about Pong as having a computer AI opponent. What!?! Obviously they were not playing the original 1972 game, but some kind of port if they were playing against a computer opponent. Honestly, there was no ability for computer AI - there was no microchip or computing going on.  Analog circuits only.  Also, a major factor in future games like Breakout (1976) was the introduction of gameplay that didn't require an opponent at all. This is the kind of error that prompts a project like the one you're reading right now.

MY QUICK REVIEW:
There is probably some confusion to the modern gamer why the fuss about Pong. And, in truth, I've often felt that way myself. I look at this simplistic game and wonder how it could possibly have been a hit. I can surmise two reasons: first, a video game was still prety new technology; second, it just boils down to the competitive head-to-head fight it engendered.

Even though we had computer space months before Pong, and we certainly already had a tradition of coin-op arcade games, shooters, gun games, etc. this video thing was still new. These little analog controllers let you control a paddle on a TV screen in a smooth, responsive way. You weren't moving something around in a strictly physical sense, but the feeling was real. So that aspect was captivating.

Yet I believe the real reason for Pong's success was it's head-to-head competitive gameplay. One quarter, two paddles, two players.. and a race to get to 11 or 15 points (DIP switch setting) first and win! It was a skillset you could develop and felt like a new category - the "TV Game". Also, you could play the game with one hand... so the other was free to hold a drink or something. It just seemed to do well because people enjoyed testing out their skill against other people.

After this was introduced we went through a few years of Pong clones everywhere, and then the Pong consoles hit the home market. Eventually there was a bit of a video game crash as the pong craze died off and before the next big thing took off. But there's no doubt Pong's great success was the beginning of making "video" (TV) games a valid and vibrant part of the coin-op scene. Furthermore the "home Pong" system was a breakthrough in home electronics becoming a market segment!

VIDEO:

1001 VG Book #01 - "Oregon Trail" - (1971)

-  1970's  -

==========

The book begins with a short introduction to the "1970's" section.  In it, they talk about Asteroids and Space Invaders both being released in 1979… (Space invaders is usually given a 1978 release date because of its Japanese release first)... but fine, close enough and still late 1970's.  However, in the same section they also mention arcade hits like Pac-Man, Centipede and "other" arcade hits being put onto the TRS-80. Really guys? Pac-Man was 1980, Centipede 1981… how are they going to put future arcade releases on the TRS-80 in the 1970's?

commentary about the book article for:

#1 = Oregon Trail (1971)
- by JT (John Teti)
- Apple II (which didn't exist in 1971 BTW)

  - They put this in the book first, with a release date of 1971. That's just plain dumb, and many people were surprised by this first entry. The game they're describing in this review (and the one most people think of for "Oregon Trail") is the 1985 Apple II release (see below).  Even putting down the date of 1971 for an Apple II release doesn't matchup given that the first Apple II was made in 1977 (and wasn't the same computer that could play the 1985 Oregon Trail game either)

- The skeleton of a game in 1971 was nothing like the 1985 version which truly defined "The Oregon Trail" in the minds of school children everywhere. The picture in the article is from a version circa 1978 or so. Back then, playing the game (if you had access to it at all) meant typing on a teletype machine, or maybe even an early timeshare terminal system.  It was hardly what people think of as a "video game".

- No doubt "The Oregon Trail" should be in the list... but I would much prefer to place the date in 1985, and discuss some of the earlier Oregon Trail versions as developmental steps towards the definitive Apple II edition!

- Also, I beg to differ that "students learned almost nothing about the actual Oregon Trail". Awareness is a big part of learning, actually. And the 1985 game had actual cities along the way, the fact you started in Independence, Missouri… had to make it to various Fort's, the danger of fording rivers, etc. There's a lot of great educational material worked into the "play" factor beautifully. The game was built to spark the imagination - and on that front, it clearly delivered. Dysentery as a death is legendary in gaming circles because of Oregon Trail.

MY QUICK REVIEW:
There is a magical quality to the Oregon Trail... something that has kept the game being revisited, improved, and updated for over 50 years now. I think it's the power of the story. The harsh setting of the actual Oregon Trail with all its risks and rewards. The incredible fortitude of those people who risked it all to move out west, take ownership of some land, and start a new life.  And YOU get to transport yourself into that very situation with the power of imagination and gameplay.

The first version in 1971 was told through text on a teletype machine, not even a video screen. Then came later initial graphical flourishes and additions. MECC (the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium) continued to publish this educational game throughout the early 80's and it was a popular classroom item. Finally, the game which immortalized The Oregon Trail was the 1985 update for the Apple II.

I grew up fascinated by the possibilities of exploring the Oregon Trail game. However, in a classroom situation, we never seemed to have quite enough time with it. I don't remember ever finishing an entire game and making it alive to the promised land. But the game sticks in the memory, perhaps even more than it has a right to. Yes, it's a game based around resource management, survival, planning and some luck. And yet, that's somewhat true of life, isn't it?  This real-world feeling might just be part of that magic that makes Oregon Trail so long lived.

VIDEOS:

 

(This is 1975 version... as close of an approximation to the original 1971 version of Oregon Trail they've been able to find)

 

 

(here's the 1985 Apple IIe version, which is much more what the article was talking about)