Adventure III: The Race for the Chalice

[+x=usr(1536)]

On 3/15/2022 at 9:27 AM, FujiSkunk said:

Adventure on the 2600...

Adventure II on the 5200 (and sort-of the 2600 but meh)...

 

It's only fitting that Adventure III be on the 7800.

 

So, who's planning Adventure IV for the Jaguar?

Technically, shouldn't Adventure IV be a Lynx release, or would that be Adventure III.V?

6 hours ago, RevEng said:

#1 is ok, but it's the one I'm least fond of it, as it continually separates the players.

Agreed.  One thing I'll add to that: it also seems (unless I've misunderstood how it works) to have the potential to hold one player up more or less indefinitely while the other player finds the key and gets to the end of the level.

2 hours ago, Trebor said:

Option #2, would work if the other player would also have the ability to 'steal' the key from the player holding it.  Otherwise, I agree with the other comments of the frustration setting in for the player waiting on the one with the key in their possession...

Which might not be a bad way of handling the waiting-for-the-other-player scenario, but in all honesty I'm not too wild about either #1 or #2.

9 hours ago, PacManPlus said:

3. One castle per area (new idea, scenario 2): Again, one castle per area containing a key to the next area.  One player picks it up, but it still exists for the other player as well.  As in option 1, gates are locked for each player.  Other items (sword, bridge, etc.) are found in the 'wild' again.

This seems like the most balanced solution.  I also like the following idea:

1 hour ago, Mitch said:

How about a combo of two and three. Two keys in different locations but once the gate is open it is open for all.

With a bonus of some sort for the first to reach the gate.  Provided the keys were more or less equidistant from the gate, this could make for an interesting turn from cooperative to competitive play before reverting back to normal on the next level.  In a way, it could be like a mini-bonus level.

[+Karl G]

I like the idea of the world having the same "state" for both players in terms of items taken, gates opened, etc., but I also dislike the idea of one player being able to hog a key indefinitely. Having duplicate keys seems like a good idea, but I don't know if having them in separate castles of the same color is how I'd want to distribute them.

[Goochman]

Maybe key possession can be timed?  A player would lose the key where it would return to its original spot?

[PacManPlus]

Hello!

 

Ok, so counting people who picked more than one solution, the current tally is:

1. √

2. √√

3. √√√√√

 

I didn't even count my vote (which was for #3 anyway):

Bob said:

3. One castle per area: Again, one castle per area containing a key to the next area.  One player picks it up, but it still exists for the other player as well.  As in option 1, gates are locked for each player.  Other items (sword, bridge, etc.) are found in the 'wild' again.

So #3 it is.

 

Other Details:

RevEng said:

For #3, the issue I have is just implementation. A key that is taken and remains for the other player is weird. So either there should be 2 identical keys (and you can only take 1) or taking the key should immediately trigger a gate unlock.

The idea I had was this: Upon collision with the current player and the <object> tile, see if this player has it.  If this player already has it, do nothing (i.e. don't pick it up).  If the player doesn't have it, add it to inventory.  Then check the opponent.  If the other player also has it, we can remove the tile and replace it with a blank tile.  Otherwise, leave the tile alone so the other player can pick it up too.

 

Now, that was until I saw Trebor's post:

Trebor said:

Option #3, I'm for two identical keys in different locations in which each player must find their own key to progress.

...I kind of like that too, so now I'm considering that as a way to go.  Not sure which way I will handle it yet.

 

So here's the overview layout of the map screen.  Please note that this screen will be replicated for both players, and is limited to a 20x7 grid.  I'm doing this split screen so that each player can enter a different castle and be on a completely separate area of the same playfield:

The 'house' at the left is the starting point.  Each section where a Castle can be randomly placed is the 4x5 colored area (Gold castle = Yellow area, White Castle [mmmm....  White Castle hamburgers] = Tan area, and Black castle = Maroon area).  The Yellow lines = the gates that need a corresponding key.  The yellow square at the right is the final castle where the chalice is.

 

Considerations:

- After obtaining the chalice, maybe the player needs to make it back home (i.e. not just end the game once you get all 3 pieces).  This way you can run into the other player again along the way, or even other 'hinderances'...

- There was another one, but I now can't remember it.  I'll edit this point if/when I do.

 

Also, regarding cooperative vs. competitive...  I kind of like the way I have it set up - It's competitive unless both players have parts of the chalice and neither has a sword any more (they can break, you know ) at *that* point it becomes cooperative and they have to find each other and 'collide' to either win immediately, or still have to make it back home (as mentioned above).

 

So, first off, does anyone see anything wrong with my layout of the terrain above?  

Thanks,

Bob

Edited November 4, 2022 by PacManPlus

[RevEng]

I hate to muddy the waters, but how about a "steal" mechanic, where you can fight the other player and take an item they're holding?

[PacManPlus]

25 minutes ago, RevEng said:

I hate to muddy the waters, but how about a "steal" mechanic, where you can fight the other player and take an item they're holding?

AArrgh!  THAT was the other consideration that I couldn't remember!!!!!!  (and of course it's too late to edit my last post)  

 

THANK YOU!

Edited November 4, 2022 by PacManPlus

[Cousin Vinnie]

5 hours ago, PacManPlus said:

 

 

Now, that was until I saw Trebor's post:

...I kind of like that too, so now I'm considering that as a way to go.  Not sure which way I will handle it yet.

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds like the best way to go to me too. This makes me wish I had friends. 

Bob, the people are behind you!

[PacManPlus]

11 hours ago, Cousin Vinnie said:

Bob, the people are behind you!

[Frantically turns around]  Where!!?!?!?!  Where!!?!?!?!

 

[gambler172]

Hi Bob

Whatever you do, I am sure, it will be great.

 

[gambler172]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:20 PM, PacManPlus said:

AArrgh!  THAT was the other consideration that I couldn't remember!!!!!!  (and of course it's too late to edit my last post)  

 

THANK YOU!

Yes, a Space World 😁

[Zonie]

Cool. I can't think of a better person to make this game. One thought. Weren't there UN-winnable scenarios in Adventure variation 3?

[PacManPlus]

Yes

 

...and thank you so much for the kind words.  

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by PacManPlus

[Shaggy the Atarian]

Really like the concept. One fault of Atari was not taking a page from Nintendo and keeping their old IP alive, not by simply sprucing it up, but by going in different directions with it. Sure there was the occasional exception like T2k, but it was infrequent.

 

I know this could possibly pile on work but have you thought about including some elements from Elf Adventure? I caught that AtariProtos recently updated that entry with info from W. Robinett and it was pretty interesting how he was going to have an anger/friend system with the elven NPCs in the game.

[PacManPlus]

Thank you! 

 

Actually, that wasn't a consideration as I hadn't even looked at the update to that game.  I'll check it out and if it makes sense for me to use some features from it, I will.  

 

Bob