Star Strike vs. Asteroids Commercial

[+Random Terrain]

In case it hasn't been posted already:

youtu.be/AFZI3mnpVYg?t=22m56s

 

 

Speaking of Asteroids:

 

youtu.be/sn_8C8uqopE?t=5m43s

[Ransom]

Oh, what a plus!

[+nurmix]

I like how the "alien" playing asteroids is holding the joystick the wrong way...

[Ignorama]

What Plimpton forget to mention back then: Despite the primitive graphics Asteroids is a fun game, while Star Strikes is pure unfun garbage.

 

Honestly, the "story" is a very cheap and questionable rip off of Star Wars and the gameplay itself is very, very simple. Even Asteroids has actualy more gameplay physics then Star Strike does. But, and that is even worse, the game is full of flaws. Its not programmed well, not even considering that its not very complicated. It really seems rushed out with little to no testing.

[Flojomojo]

RT, how on earth did you find these gems among all the other junk in that long video? Did you watch the whole thing?

 

Agreed about Star Strike, it doesn't hold up, but it was so pretty for the time. Same can be said about any Colecovision game, all of which look chunktastic today.

 

I think Star Strike could be reworked with some better feeling inertia in the controls (make it more like Star Fox than moving a cursor with arrow keys) ... I would definitely be into something like that. Just a bit of tuning.

[Ignorama]

That is what really pisses me off: Its not far from beeing good, so its nothing which couldnt have been done back then. If you go a bit into it its really just a bit hit box correction, removing some RNG and fixing some timing issues. All not very hard to do, but extremely important for the gaming experience. Just one single day of testing would have shown most of the problems.

[+Random Terrain]

RT, how on earth did you find these gems among all the other junk in that long video? Did you watch the whole thing?

 

I rub the mouse pointer over the video quickly and look at the little preview images without blinking. You can find video game commercials pretty fast doing that.

[+atari2600land]

Honestly, the "story" is a very cheap and questionable rip off of Star Wars

Did I read somewhere that they actually programmed it for Star Wars but had to change it? Or was that a dream I had?

[+intellivotion]

Star Strike is a typical example of the eternal fight between appearance and substance, the former being the winner this time and the latter the loser with little dignity

 

A game that would deserve to be hacked and upgraded as already happened to NHL Hockey, imo

[Ignorama]

I really dont think it served to be improved. Yes, it could be better, but even if it wouldnt be full of flaws its nothing outstanding. Replay value is relatively low and there are plenty better games. To be honest, I think its one of the worsed Intellivision-Games, no matter what.

[m-crew]

Star Strike is a typical example of the eternal fight between appearance and substance, the former being the winner this time and the latter the loser with little dignity

 

A game that would deserve to be hacked and upgraded as already happened to NHL Hockey, imo

 

Its hard to enjoy playing this game that's for sure.. but at the time like you mention the graphics really made you think wow...

[mr_me]

By 1984, I had 21 Intellivision cartridges, and Star Strike might have been the only one I regretted buying. There's nothing wrong with simple games. I liked Skiing, Snafu, and Biplanes; and I like the basic gameplay and objective of destroying the deathstar in Star Strike. But, I've mentioned this before, once you get hit and lose your ship functions, the game is frustrating to play. Modifying this flaw, with a ship that repairs itself, will improve the playability of the game.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would remove random elements in a video game. Without random elements you'd be playing the exact same game over and over again like Pac-man, or Locknchase, or an NES game. Without random elements the game becomes an exercise in memorising patterns and not making mistakes. Good for high scores but it's not fun. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but random elements are an important part of a game with replay value. So too is winnable endings, this also adds to a game's replay value and is why I would never play Star Strike at level six. Once I could no longer beat my high scores, I probably played Star Strike more than games like Burgertime or LockNchase. And this is only because Star Strike has a winnable ending where I choose the skill level.

 

The good thing about arcade conversions, is the arcade game itself went through extensive play testing. Before they are approved, arcade games at Atari were tested in an actual arcade and they had to make top money or they were cancelled. More completed arcade games were not released at Atari than those that were. Home cartridges were the opposite, where few were not released. That doesn't mean that arcade conversion cartridges will be good games, only that the basic game play could be solid. Arcade Asteroids is a great game, but Atari 2600 Asteroids is unplayable to me. Due to 2600 hardware limitations, the asteroids move mostly vertically and you can sit in the middle without being threatened much.

 

A lot of Intellivision games fell victim to appearance over substance, and that includes many of the popular Imagic Intellivision games. Marketing only cared about fancy screenshots to sell games. A lot of Mattel's games wasted development time with speudo 3d perspectives to try and distinguish themselves. Combined with a lack of gameplay performance testing meant some games went to market that were not good. Fortunately, Mattel and APh had some good game designers and many very good games got released. Takeover is an example of a good game that Mattel cancelled only because of poor looking screenshots. Ripping off Star Wars has nothing to do with a game being good or bad, but it might help a poor game get released.

 

I appreciate everyone's opinion, it's one of the things that makes this forum worthwhile.

[Ignorama]

I never said remove all RNG. Like in Tropical Trouble, there is a good example of RNG. The stage changes, but it stays always fair. Same for Flapee Bird, to talk about a Homebrew. Every time a new level, but all of the time the skilled player will be able to play the game. No dirty surprises.

 

Star Strike doesnt show this good RNG, its just bad RNG. I explained the examples in the HSC thread and I can't imagine that you consider that RNG to be anything but stupid

[+save2600]

I wonder what my best friend (really) thought of Intellivision Star Strike after I gave it to him for his birthday BITD, pre-crash. Seems he and I enjoyed it well enough, as we did most games back then, but yeah... made the purchasing decision based on the screenshots on the back of the box for sure. That, and it must have been cheap.

[Flojomojo]

I think I got my copy for five dollars or less. This was after the big game crash, but all of the reviews and commercials were still vivid in my mind. It really was a great time for a kid without a lot of money you really wanted to play a variety of different games.

[Ignorama]

I think Space Battle was a very bad investment as well for many people. I like the game idea and its really cool made. But its over after about 15-20 Minutes first try. And you could play it again, but it wont be much different.

 

Space Battle would be a game which would deserve a better version. The gameplay is pretty creative, especially the "command" zone (where you guide your squads), but it would need some campaign modes, maybe traveling to different planets, build new bases and stuff like that. Like a mixture of Space Battle and Utopia.

[Flojomojo]

That's this game!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fox_Command

[Eric7100]

Space Battle would be a game which would deserve a better version. The gameplay is pretty creative, especially the "command" zone (where you guide your squads), but it would need some campaign modes, maybe traveling to different planets, build new bases and stuff like that. Like a mixture of Space Battle and Utopia.

 

It would also be cool if S.B. came in two different colored boxes. Oh, wait...

[mr_me]

I never said remove all RNG. Like in Tropical Trouble, there is a good example of RNG. The stage changes, but it stays always fair. Same for Flapee Bird, to talk about a Homebrew. Every time a new level, but all of the time the skilled player will be able to play the game. No dirty surprises.

 

Star Strike doesnt show this good RNG, its just bad RNG. I explained the examples in the HSC thread and I can't imagine that you consider that RNG to be anything but stupid

So I don't misunderstand, are these the examples from the other threads?

 

...

4. Its a lot RNG in your idea. Sometimes the enemies kill each other, sometimes don't. Also sometimes they fly right in front of you and sometimes out of your reach. You can never avoid RNG competely, but Mode 4 requires a lot of RNG by default.

...

I think for the enemies to kill each other, you have to put your ship in the line of fire and risk getting hit.

 

Random Number Generator, so the randomizer of the game.

 

Examples: You may already noticed that sometimes both enemies attack you quickly and sometimes just one attacks you, while the other on do not even bother for a while. That is terrible, because if both attack you at the same time, both pass you at the same time and you have breathing room to fly down and aim the ground target. But if one attacks you later he will later pass you and so you have less time to go in the right position. This disadvantage stacks, because the next enemies just appear a certain time after the old ones left the screen. If you get rid them very quick the new ones start attacking you while the screen is shacking from the bomb. If the second one doesnt attack it delays the whole process and so you will come in the situation were you need to hit the bomb at the ground while both enemies are shooting at you. In that position it needs a lot of luck to get out of.

So far I havent found any way to manipulate the AI of the enemies and so I have no idea how to trigger both enemies attacking me as soon as possible. May I will find it, may not, may its not even possible, I dont know

 

Another huge RNG part is the damage you get by beeing hit. Every hit destroys one of your ships functions, but it has no order and so its random which part of your ship is destroyed. Most parts are useless (at least for me, but probably not for every playstyle, I will explain that after the challenge), some are very handy and some are indispensable. As you may remember I wrote in another thread that the accustic signal sometimes doesnt appear and I thought it was random, but in reality its one possible damage.

 

This RNG thing can really suck, because if I get hit several times I sometimes don't even care, while in other runs the first hit destroys my whole plan.

Are you saying these random elements are a bad idea or are you just explaining them? Edited November 13, 2017 by mr_me

[Ignorama]

Random Damage is a bad idea in my opinion, because it turns it into a roulette. I wouldnt remove the damage, and also not include a repair-timer, but I rather would change the damages and put them in a order. First hits - minor damages (may have a random pool of these, but really just damages from a less important category), more hits - moderate damages and many hits hard damages. It would turn the game much more fair and eliminates the frustration if the first hit wrecks you completely.

 

For the attack-timer: Its just in combination of this game bad. Different attack-patterns are good, but here its not fitting to the rest of the game, because you just can't aim if you fight. I know it sounds like "it just takes skill, don't cry", but I really dont think so, because if I have to aim, I have to be in a certain space with no chance of moving and in that moment I can not avoid any missile, because when I do I miss my target and lose anyway. Its the precise timing the games requires that makes it bad RNG in this special case. If you compare it to Tron: Deadly Dics you also have many random factors, attacks and even enemies and its nonetheless much better, because the enemies wont prevent you from playing a part of the game. In Deadly Discs you have your phases and they supplement each other, as in most games back in that time. In Star Strike the phases are messed up and if it gets worse they really hinder each other, which leads to unfair (because you just can not do anything) moments and that leads to frustration.

 

So in the context of Star Strike these RNG is a bad idea, because it wasnt polished enough to be good. In generall there are contexts in which such RNG doesnt matter or even is great.

 

And by the way:

 

I think for the enemies to kill each other, you have to put your ship in the line of fire and risk getting hit.

 

Nope. I will explain my strategy after the competition and also explain why this assumption is not true. I can't not avoid the projectiles completely and I also can not force them to kill each other (even if I may be found a pattern which makes it more likely), but I don't increase my change getting hit by increasing the enemies to kill each other.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Ignorama

[Flojomojo]

Random Damage is a bad idea in my opinion, because it turns it into a roulette. I wouldnt remove the damage, and also not include a repair-timer, but I rather would change the damages and put them in a order. First hits - minor damages (may have a random pool of these, but really just damages from a less important category), more hits - moderate damages and many hits hard damages. It would turn the game much more fair and eliminates the frustration if the first hit wrecks you completely.

And add some voices! "I've lost R2!"

[Ignorama]

Still not worth the work, even if the idea would be nice

[mr_me]

Random Damage is a bad idea in my opinion, because it turns it into a roulette. I wouldnt remove the damage, and also not include a repair-timer, but I rather would change the damages and put them in a order. First hits - minor damages (may have a random pool of these, but really just damages from a less important category), more hits - moderate damages and many hits hard damages. It would turn the game much more fair and eliminates the frustration if the first hit wrecks you completely.

 

For the attack-timer: Its just in combination of this game bad. Different attack-patterns are good, but here its not fitting to the rest of the game, because you just can't aim if you fight. I know it sounds like "it just takes skill, don't cry", but I really dont think so, because if I have to aim, I have to be in a certain space with no chance of moving and in that moment I can not avoid any missile, because when I do I miss my target and lose anyway. Its the precise timing the games requires that makes it bad RNG in this special case. If you compare it to Tron: Deadly Dics you also have many random factors, attacks and even enemies and its nonetheless much better, because the enemies wont prevent you from playing a part of the game. In Deadly Discs you have your phases and they supplement each other, as in most games back in that time. In Star Strike the phases are messed up and if it gets worse they really hinder each other, which leads to unfair (because you just can not do anything) moments and that leads to frustration.

 

So in the context of Star Strike these RNG is a bad idea, because it wasnt polished enough to be good. In generall there are contexts in which such RNG doesnt matter or even is great.

 

And by the way:

 

 

Nope. I will explain my strategy after the competition and also explain why this assumption is not true. I can't not avoid the projectiles completely and I also can not force them to kill each other (even if I may be found a pattern which makes it more likely), but I don't increase my change getting hit by increasing the enemies to kill each other.

Sounds like we both agree that there is a gameplay problem with ship damage; and we have different ideas on how to improve it.

 

I understand what you are saying about the enemy ships interfering with your ability to bomb targets. Yes, it would be nice if they did not come out when you are about to bomb a target, but I wouldn't expect the enemy to be cooperative. Is it possible to influence it by speeding up or slowing down your ship? For example after you just dealt with a couple of enemy ships switch to warp three to get to the target quicker before new enemy ships appear. If not, then it's a reason I don't advise playing the game at level five or six. I don't think those levels were how the game designer intended the game to be played, It seems like several Intellivision games had levels that were unfair on purpose so that no-one could complain that the game is too easy. Hopefully most people will find Star Strike level four (disc) challenging; I'm sure some will find it too easy.

 

And a reminder to anyone playing Star Strike, be sure to use the right controller. The game has a bug with the left controller. I don't know if a fixed rom exists but the rom file floating around has the bug.

[m-crew]

Thanks for that heads up on the controllers , going to see if I can better my score with the right controller. Now.

[BydoEmpire]

Wow, thanks for posting, I loved the commercial for Conan the Barbarian at the end of the first clip. I'm such a huge fan of the movie, but I hadn't seen that ad before.