Lunar Lander Beyond (by Atari) - (in VCS Store)

[Bill Loguidice]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

Atari has a lot of games that are single concept "Sky Diver", "Missile Command", "Lunar Lander" that aren't really great for building franchises around,    I would think it would make more sense to build a space franchise around say "Star Raiders" and maybe make this game fit inside that Universe instead of the Lunar Lander Universe?

Now see, I think a "Sky Diver" expansion would actually be a lot of fun. I do love the original, as simple as it is, as well as the variations on the theme like Ripcord. With that said, I suppose Atari doesn't necessarily have the resources to do a proper 3D treatment of it, but I could certainly see it as a mission-based expandable type of thing that could very well be a franchise (sort of like a parachuting version of the Sniper Elite series). 

[zzip]

32 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

Now see, I think a "Sky Diver" expansion would actually be a lot of fun. I do love the original, as simple as it is, as well as the variations on the theme like Ripcord. With that said, I suppose Atari doesn't necessarily have the resources to do a proper 3D treatment of it, but I could certainly see it as a mission-based expandable type of thing that could very well be a franchise (sort of like a parachuting version of the Sniper Elite series). 

It's probably not that complicated as a 3D game, you need a landscape with targets, a plane, a jumper, a physics engine, and that's about it.   Could probably be done fairly cheap..  unless they expand it with storyline and many more game mechanics.

[Bill Loguidice]

29 minutes ago, zzip said:

It's probably not that complicated as a 3D game, you need a landscape with targets, a plane, a jumper, a physics engine, and that's about it.   Could probably be done fairly cheap..  unless they expand it with storyline and many more game mechanics.

You're probably right. I'm thinking of the fun I had with PAIN on the PS3:

 

This could be a variation of that as well. Lots of possibilities.

[MrBeefy]

5 hours ago, zzip said:

Atari has a lot of games that are single concept "Sky Diver", "Missile Command", "Lunar Lander" that aren't really great for building franchises around,    I would think it would make more sense to build a space franchise around say "Star Raiders" and maybe make this game fit inside that Universe instead of the Lunar Lander Universe?

Or combine both Star Raiders and Lunar Lander?

 

That's the problem with these IPs. They haven't had any natural evolution from Atari.

 

Adventure is the easiest example. That game has evolved but by different companies. Legend of Zelda NES, LttP on SNES, BotW on Switch. How many steps beyond Adventure has a franchise like Zelda gone? So how does one tackle the Adventure IP? Keep it blocky and basic? Or maybe go a JRPG route and make multiple games? The Adventure for the Golden Chalice? Adventure: Rise of the Dark Wizard? 

 

It can be done just what type of effort do they want to make?

Edited April 30 by MrBeefy

[zzip]

15 hours ago, MrBeefy said:

Adventure is the easiest example. That game has evolved but by different companies. Legend of Zelda NES, LttP on SNES, BotW on Switch. How many steps beyond Adventure has a franchise like Zelda gone? So how does one tackle the Adventure IP? Keep it blocky and basic? Or maybe go a JRPG route and make multiple games? The Adventure for the Golden Chalice? Adventure: Rise of the Dark Wizard? 

And it doesn't help that so many of Atari's early IPs have such generic names either.    "Swordquest" is a better name for an Adventure/RPG franchise and even had comic books to flesh out the lore,  too bad the games sucked!   At this point, I think Atari could produce a pixel-art "Adventure" game,  (similar to the graphics in Atarimania),  but keep the mechanics of the original while expanding--  larger kingdom or multiple kingdoms,  more items,  more enemies, maybe NPCs, merchants and whatnot.    Pixel art games do seem popular with younger generations too so if they do it right they could expand beyond fans of the original.

[Bill Loguidice]

12 minutes ago, zzip said:

And it doesn't help that so many of Atari's early IPs have such generic names either.    "Swordquest" is a better name for an Adventure/RPG franchise and even had comic books to flesh out the lore,  too bad the games sucked!   At this point, I think Atari could produce a pixel-art "Adventure" game,  (similar to the graphics in Atarimania),  but keep the mechanics of the original while expanding--  larger kingdom or multiple kingdoms,  more items,  more enemies, maybe NPCs, merchants and whatnot.    Pixel art games do seem popular with younger generations too so if they do it right they could expand beyond fans of the original.

I think you bring up an interesting point about "expanding fans." I honestly don't know if it's possible for games like that to really break out in any significant way. I can't really think of the last time a "low tech" game with a generic name and setting became a cultural, breakout hit. I mean, there's always exceptions, like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress (though the latter is still definitely not mainstream, despite big sales, so perhaps that's not a good example) and what-have-you, but in general, no matter how good an "indie-style" game is, it rarely breaks through (and certainly those examples are incredibly deep sandbox-style experiences). There are of course "Five Nights at Freddy's" and various mobile hits like "Roblox" that transcend their origins in a huge way, but I just don't see how an Atari is positioned for any of their releases to follow suit. Their designs are often too constrained. It feels like the company and its IP always falls within a certain mass market, but narrow range, of nostalgia and interest, but never anything beyond that. That probably has to do with the origin of these games and IP more as much as anything else. These were never deep or involved experiences. Even a game like "Adventure," as significant as it was and is, is nothing more than a multi-screen maze rush. The Atari stuff just doesn't seem to be amenable to something deeper lore-wise, real or imagined. In other words, Atari would have to focus on original IP to break free from those legacy constraints, and at that point they're in the same crapshoot as thousands of other devs/publishers to try and look for the next breakout cultural success. 

[zzip]

1 hour ago, Bill Loguidice said:

I think you bring up an interesting point about "expanding fans." I honestly don't know if it's possible for games like that to really break out in any significant way. I can't really think of the last time a "low tech" game with a generic name and setting became a cultural, breakout hit. I mean, there's always exceptions, like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress (though the latter is still definitely not mainstream, despite big sales, so perhaps that's not a good example) and what-have-you, but in general, no matter how good an "indie-style" game is, it rarely breaks through (and certainly those examples are incredibly deep sandbox-style experiences). There are of course "Five Nights at Freddy's" and various mobile hits like "Roblox" that transcend their origins in a huge way, but I just don't see how an Atari is positioned for any of their releases to follow suit.

You should see the games that my Gen-Z kids find!     Even weird games like this become viral hits: https://basically-games.itch.io/baldis-basics   

But there's also stuff like Among Us, Deltarune (pixel art adventure),  Powerwash Simulator (all you do is wash the dirt off houses).    "Untitled Goose Game"

 

These are all driven by Youtube/Twitch influencers, much like Five Nights At Freddies was.   A game doesn't have to be super deep or expensive, it just has to have something that makes it go viral (and if you knew the secret to that you'd be a billionaire).  

 

So Atari has a chance to appeal to this crowd but it will take a bit of luck

[stirrell]

I'm trying not to let the madness overtake me but can they just take a little care and pay some attention to detail?