Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video

[TampaBay]

3 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I think Asteroids Recharged has a decent chance of succeeding in the arcades. That is because video redemption games, which they are competing against, don´t have spectacular graphics. They have simple graphics. In that sense, Asteroids Recharged delivers.

 

Asteroids Recharged´s biggest problem is, in my opinion, that it has a steep learning curve. Steering, firing, thrusting and occasionally warping at the same time is difficult at first, especially for kids. I fear many will try it once, die quickly and not play it again if it is too difficult for first time players.

 

Gotcha.  Cool.  I certainly hope you're right.  I admittedly don't pay too much attention to the "redemption" component of the games, so on that I can't comment either way as to how it affects the success (or not) of any given game.  I'll defer to you on that one.  Sure when I play Space Invaders Frenzy, it puts a bunch of tickets on my card, but I actually play that one because I think it's pretty fun!

[Lord Mushroom]

5 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

I just can't envision a younger person who is entirely unfamiliar with Asteroids walking by the Recharged cabinet, looking at those "vector-like" graphics, and stopping to play it vs. moving on to one of the modern games that Shaggy says are his best sellers / most popular. 

Those games don´t have redemption, so they are not the kind of games Asteroids Recharged would be (mainly) competing with. Here is an example of a successful video redemption game:

[Lord Mushroom]

1 minute ago, TampaBay said:

I admittedly don't pay too much attention to the "redemption" component of the games, so on that I can't comment either way as to how it affects the success (or not) of any given game.  I'll defer to you on that one.

I have never even seen a video redemption game in real life, so I am not exactly an expert either.

[TampaBay]

2 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I have never even seen a video redemption game in real life, so I am not exactly an expert either.

 

I play them frequently, I just don't pay that much attention to the redemption part.  That Centipede game is a true redemption game and it would do fantastically in my local FEC.  I guarantee there would be a line of people waiting for it.  Unfortunately Asteroids: Recharged is nothing like that and is a totally different category of game, much closer to a classic arcade cabinet.  Asteroids may technically provide tickets to the card for redemption in the shop, but it isn't a redemption game in the traditional sense like that Centipede game.  

[Lord Mushroom]

7 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

That Centipede game is a true redemption game and it would do fantastically in my local FEC.  I guarantee there would be a line of people waiting for it.  Unfortunately Asteroids: Recharged is nothing like that and is a totally different category of game, much closer to a classic arcade cabinet.  

There are certainly differences between the two. The CC cabinet is flashier, has bigger screen, seats and more action-packed gameplay. But there are also similarities, and AR doesn´t have to be as successful as CC to turn a profit, so I give them a fair chance.

[TampaBay]

To clarify, in my FEC's, the redemption games are generally huge, wildly over-the-top caricatures of a game.  They seat multiple people, usually in some type of large cockpit or seating area, and most importantly, their primary purpose is to dispense tickets based on competition of the players.  The game itself (the development, detail, skill-level) is often secondary to the game just being loud and attention-grabbing to attract the most amount of customers.  Hence the huge displays, giant flashing lights, loud booming sounds, etc.  To my knowledge, Asteroids: Recharged is not really following any of that format, based on what I've seen.  It appears to be a much more "serious" game with a focus on gameplay.

[TampaBay]

3 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

There are certainly differences between the two. The CC cabinet is flashier, has bigger screen, seats and more action-packed gameplay. But there are also similarities, and AR doesn´t have to be as successful as CC to turn a profit, so I give them a fair chance.

 

They definitely have a chance!  Shaggy will fill us in when he gets his!!

[Shaggy the Atarian]

On 4/3/2024 at 4:24 PM, ledzep said:

 

Interesting, I may actually have that game (in a box somewhere).

 

I like the idea of that first version.  The graphics suck (the missiles look like colored blobs) but that could be fixed in a modern arcade version (much higher resolution now).  I cannot stand those giant mountains or whatever they're supposed to be (they feel like Easter Island statues), makes the cities you're defending look like stacks of oil drums, but I suppose they're there to keep you oriented to what direction you're looking in (along with the lens flare) so I'm not sure what they could be replaced by.  I think if they made the mountains look more like mountains and changed the shooter's perspective to be lower to the ground then the mountains wouldn't have to be so tall (some skyscrapers could do the job) and the cities would appear larger and more like actual cities.  There could also be a grid or other indicators superimposed on the sky (there are already targeting pips superimposed) to keep you oriented.

 

The second version is crap.  That's not Missile Command anymore, it's Laser Command.  Might be a fun game but it loses the anticipation and strategy of the original, now it's just instantly shoot everything that moves (feels more like Star Raiders).  Part of what made Missile Command hard and fun (anathema to modern gamers, I know) was having to time the missiles to reach the targets at the right time, which ABM base to use.  I cannot stand these modern floaty animations, it's like watching the Disneyland Peoplemover up in the sky.  I'm not sure what this obsession is with lasers for everything, missiles are great for this game theme.

 

Lose the goddamn music.  The actual missile sounds are way cooler when playing a game like that, and having the perspective with stereo speakers could give you hints about where off-screen missiles are coming down from (left or right).  Seriously, a modern arcade is going to be saturated with music already, either from the in-house speakers or every other weak game nearby, no need to add more bland notes.

 

I mean, just listen to the original game, all the sounds have a purpose so that you know what's going on even if you're not looking at the specific area -

 

 

Can't tell why modern gamers don't like sound effects and prefer neverending music instead.  There could be sounds for power-ups as well, just a quick tone or something to alert the player.

In vying for attention in an arcade though, the less flash and noise your game makes, the less chance it has of getting played. Just like in movies, a good, fitting soundtrack to the action makes a huge amount of difference: 

 

 

In terms of arcades, there are some games which miss the audio mark but there are others where it just nails it and the sound becomes more compelling to bring players back than the graphics. I have a few games that do that - Dariusburst Another Chronicle, Maximum Tune 5, SpaceWarp 66 - all have great music and sound effects that elevate the games like John Williams elevates E.T. or Star Wars.

 

In regards to MC3D, keep in mind that it was designed for use with a VR headset, so you just looked around and could aim and shoot down the missile quickly. Since that headset wasn't released, the Jag version is lacking; Feels like it would have worked better with a trackball controller instead of the slow D-Pad.  

Edited April 5 by Shaggy the Atarian

[Shaggy the Atarian]

1 hour ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I have never even seen a video redemption game in real life, so I am not exactly an expert either.

Centipede Chaos did ok by all accounts, but unfortunately, put any "coin pusher" next to a videmption game and the pusher will annihilate it, earnings wise. 

 

The best earning redemption games are the quickest ones as they get players to insert another credit every few seconds. The longer the game is, the less returns you get on that. 

 

If Asteroids Recharged wants to succeed in that arena, what they'll need to do is design a completely separate redemption mode. Something that only lasts for 100 asteroids or so, then challenges you for the bonus. That's what Space Invaders Frenzy and Galaga Assault did and it worked well, but just tacking on tickets to the normal game will not compel people to play it any more than a standard score will, since the games can go on for too long (i.e., More than 60 seconds) and as mentioned, Asteroids has a much steeper learning curve than a standard redemption game where all you do is swipe your card and/or just push a button to see if you win. 

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

In terms of arcades, there are some games which miss the audio mark but there are others where it just nails it and the sound becomes more compelling to bring players back than the graphics. I have a few games that do that - Dariusburst Another Chronicle, Maximum Tune 5, SpaceWarp 66 - all have great music and sound effects that elevate the games like John Williams elevates E.T. or Star Wars.

I think the music in Dariusburst Another Chronicle is terrible. It is boring, depressing and artsy-fartsy. I would much have preferred something upbeat and catchy, like this:

Failing that, I would have preferred scary music. But I agree that most games get better with appropriate music.

[ledzep]

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

I think this hits the nail on the head as to where we don't see eye to eye.  I don't agree with this statement at all.  I think you can significantly change a game and many aspects from gameplay to graphics, while still being inspired by the original, so much so that a stranger walking by who never saw it before would say "hey, this cool new game really reminds me of Asteroids".

 

I don't think you realize that you agree with me here.  Like I was saying about Galaga, Space Firebird, Phoenix (and Moon Cresta, forgot about that one), it's very easy to look at those games and say they were inspired by the original and see one of them for the first time and say "Hey, this cool new game really reminds me of Galaxian!".  100% agree, it happened more than once.  What you are not including is the follow up "But it's not Galaxian, it has this different ability/requirement/gameplay change!", meaning it's worth playing because it's not Galaxian, otherwise... just play Galaxian again.  In that sense I think Asteroids Recharged, being called Asteroids [something] must be much more like Asteroids than not.  But, like I said, the multi-player aspect and the power-ups add to it.  If the gameplay sucks, the game is a loser as a new Asteroids game.  Don't like that comparison?  Call it something else.  Especially if it were a new game that significantly changes the game and many aspects from gameplay to graphics, it's nowhere near the same game, calling it the same thing + Recharged only confuses people who know about the original.  The people who don't know/care about Asteroids won't be bothered by a different name, anyway.

 

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

That's what I think should have happened.  I recognize that for you once you bend far enough, it's an entirely new game.  Fair enough.  For me, as long as its reminiscent of the original, I would prefer to see radical changes if someone is going to spend the time, energy, and massive financial investment to make a new version.

 

You're saying you would not play your imagined radically changed game if it did not have "Asteroids" in the name?  Why?  If it was called Rock Crush or Space Miner, had all the changes you imagine, it would be a waste of time because of the name?!  I don't think I ever played/avoided a game because of the name, I only cared about how it played.  Are you saying that modern gamers care more about names and eye candy?

 

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

I don't necessarily think the developers and / or Alan-1 are attempting to cater to people like us who love the original.  I think they'd have more success leveraging the formula of Asteroids while catering to the modern gamer as well.  It's a business, and in the end they are in it to make money, not have guys like us applaud their faithfulness to the original.  Shaggy will be able to tell us soon enough how it fairs in the wild, since I believe he'll have a cabinet in his arcade.  I'm rooting for it, but I'm not sure I'm too optimistic about its financial prospects.

 

They must be, at least partly, or they wouldn't have wasted their time not only grabbing the Recharged home game, but also making it closer to the original arcade version and going on forums that cater to people like us who love the original (I saw posts about this on KLOV forums as well, and they fucking hate those modern "arcade games") to ask their opinions, right?  I have no idea if it will succeed but if it's a good game then it won't be the fault of Alan-1, it will be the fault of modern "gamers" who can't handle playing an actual arcade game with some bit of a challenge instead of simply being whores for flashy graphics and endless power-ups and redemption points/tickets.

 

I really wish I could transport a few of those "gamers" to the early '80s and watch them fumble around consistently getting the lowest scores in the arcades while crying about not being able to win because there's no power-ups.  You'll know if I invent time travel because that's one of the first things I'll do (that you'll hear about, hahahaa).

 

6 hours ago, TampaBay said:

As for Star Wars, obviously if you feel that the second screenshot of these two is not a leap forward, then we're not going to agree.  I totally get that graphics are not that important to you, especially relatively to game play.  I don't feel that way.  I'm looking not just at game play, but also an immersive experience.  You don't want to feel like you're "in the movie", but I do.  So the incredible graphics and stellar soundtrack for me personally, were a massive step forward to that end.  I think both games are great.

 

Ok, so now you're telling me that if the original vector Star Wars game was converted to raster with brand new, modern shaded graphics and unchanged gameplay that that somehow transforms the game as some sort of more immersive experience?  When you play that new Star Wars Trilogy game are you actually spending significant time sightseeing the various rendered objects that are in the background?  How can you last more than 20 seconds while gawking at what's flying around shooting at you?  I would certainly smile looking at all that graphical goodness watching someone else play the game, but once I started playing my only focus would be trying to shoot all the targets in time, I could care less what they actually looked like.  And if the gameplay sucked, to hell with that game, I'll watch someone play it to look for movie Easter eggs but, otherwise, yawn.

 

Quick question, if someone took that Star Wars Trilogy game and changed only the graphics/sounds to OG Battlestar Galactica graphics (Basestars, Cylon and Viper fighters, Cylon centurions shooting blasters at you) and added some of the TV series soundtrack, would you seriously love it because it was a different game that was immersive for that specific TV show?  Or would you, like me, shake your head and say it's the same goddamn game as Trilogy, they just changed some shapes and colors?

 

And, for the record, I totally feel like I'm "in the movie" playing the original vector version of Star Wars because it's first person perspective so I can easily imagine being Luke in that X-Wing, I think most kids in the arcades felt the same way.  Because the gameplay is convincing (enough).  No stellar soundtrack needed, the original had good enough music as well.  I do like the Trilogy version of the game looking at it again but I'd still rather play Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back.  They should have split those blaster fight and lightsaber duel sections into separate games with more appropriate controls (light guns, some kind of wired Wii type controller).

 

The graphics have to be good enough to convince me that I'm seeing what the game claims I'm seeing (intuitive).  I don't need any more than that.  So Asteroids with vector outlines of my ship and those asteroids?  Perfect, I understand what's going on.  Galaxian with colored ship and colored aliens (wings moving nice touch), also perfect.  Pac-Man, which I can't stand, perfect graphics, same for Donkey Kong.  Same for Star Castle and Qix.  Wasting time presenting me with "new" versions of those games that are nothing more than graphical updates, why not just put more effort into new games instead?  I think that is something that separates actual gamers (who prioritize gameplay) from watchers (who love graphics and big bright explosions).

[ledzep]

6 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I have always thought the graphics in Asteroids is supposed to show the actual things, and not a representation of them on a radar screen.

 

I meant more the perspective, life flying a plane remotely.  Yes, it's supposed to show the actual things but we don't live in a world where everything is just a neon outline of itself.  Using vector graphics adds a "control panel display" aspect to what you're looking at, whether it was the intent or not.  I think a game like Xevious, also top down with it's shaded raster graphics, is a better attempt at showing the actual things.

 

I'm biased, though, I think vector games always look better than the raster versions.  I don't pretend to be in the majority there, of course.  I just love those crisp lines, if you changed Red Baron to raster graphics I would still play it, but I would miss the vector representations.

[ledzep]

5 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Asteroids Recharged´s biggest problem is, in my opinion, that it has a steep learning curve. Steering, firing, thrusting and occasionally warping at the same time is difficult at first, especially for kids. I fear many will try it once, die quickly and not play it again if it is too difficult for first time players.

 

I don't understand that statement.  You are describing almost every arcade game in the late '70s/early '80s.  Every one of them, when they first showed up in arcades, were new to first time players who hadn't seen them yet.  Lots of kids played them as well.  I remember being baffled by Defender and Tempest, lots of others.  After watching a few people play them, though, ok, I'll give it a shot.  Dead, dammit.  One more shot.  Oooh, I lasted 3 levels!  One more shot... $10 gone, like that!

 

By your thinking all of those games would have failed because of the similarly steep learning curves, yes?  Robotron?  Joust?  Gravitar?  Ok, bad example, hahahaa.  Yet most of those games always had people waiting to play next (the quarters set on the marques).  I mean, if modern "gamers" are too feeble to handle Asteroids then I see what you mean, but otherwise, have a little pride!  Beat that damn game already, "gamer"!

[ledzep]

5 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Those games don´t have redemption, so they are not the kind of games Asteroids Recharged would be (mainly) competing with. Here is an example of a successful video redemption game:

 

Hahaha, I see those little stools and my back says "Oh, finally!".  That would be cool to play 3 player... if not for the shitty joysticks replacing the much better trak-balls.  And of course the minigun spray of bullets, you would think 3 players would add enough of an advantage against the centipedes.  We need to stop dumbing down games for modern "gamers", they need to understand that being challenged is ok, you can't dominate every game the first time you play because the weapons are so stacked in your favor all the time.  Participation trophy mindset sucks.

[ledzep]

5 hours ago, TampaBay said:

To clarify, in my FEC's, the redemption games are generally huge, wildly over-the-top caricatures of a game.  They seat multiple people, usually in some type of large cockpit or seating area, and most importantly, their primary purpose is to dispense tickets based on competition of the players.  The game itself (the development, detail, skill-level) is often secondary to the game just being loud and attention-grabbing to attract the most amount of customers.  Hence the huge displays, giant flashing lights, loud booming sounds, etc.  To my knowledge, Asteroids: Recharged is not really following any of that format, based on what I've seen.  It appears to be a much more "serious" game with a focus on gameplay.

 

I'm curious what you think of that 8-player Mega Pac-Man game then.  Yes, it's huge but that's due to the 8 players.  But from what I can tell (never seen it live) it plays like Pac-Man, new power-ups that seem fun and not excessive (no miniguns or smart bombs every 10 seconds, yes?), large screen, how is this game successful (if it is) when it's not some radically changed version of Pac-Man that's rendered 3D with crazy new perspectives?  It seems more like original Pac-Man even than Asteroids Recharged is to Asteroids.  Actually, I would love to see a 4-8 player version of Asteroids with a giant horizontal display like this game, loads of asteroids flying at various speeds, different saucers and occasional power-ups, maybe allow players to combine into a super ship with multiple guns or something Voltron-ish, hahahaa.

 

I know it's only one example but it seems to argue for being truer to the original while maintaining the same gameplay can work.  It doesn't have realistic shaded textures depicting prison walls or dry riverbeds or something else that is unlike the original, the dots are still dots, the ghosts still look like ye olde time ghosts, etc.  I wouldn't ever describe Pac-Man as "serious" but certainly this new version maintains the same gameplay from what I can tell.  If it is popular, how can that be if it looks almost the same as the original?

[ledzep]

5 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

In vying for attention in an arcade though, the less flash and noise your game makes, the less chance it has of getting played. Just like in movies, a good, fitting soundtrack to the action makes a huge amount of difference: 

 

 

In terms of arcades, there are some games which miss the audio mark but there are others where it just nails it and the sound becomes more compelling to bring players back than the graphics. I have a few games that do that - Dariusburst Another Chronicle, Maximum Tune 5, SpaceWarp 66 - all have great music and sound effects that elevate the games like John Williams elevates E.T. or Star Wars.

 

Ok, I understand that, but there has to be a limit, yes?  If a game comes out that's louder, won't the other games suffer and then they have to be louder in order to make money?  And then if they're louder, too, then the first game loses that advantage and has to be even louder, to the final result that you can't even hear yourself think inside the arcade?  "Enough" soundtrack and attract mode sounds should be good enough for all the games, they're all levelled out to be attracting but not deafening.  But there are games that need actual in-game sound effects to tell you what happened along with the graphics, right?  What happens if they're drowned out by overbearing music?  I've played games where I've died because the goofy game music was so loud I didn't notice an alarm or ship sound warning me of some enemy sneaking up on me.  At that point, turn down the goddamn music.  Unless you're not there to actually play the game, just listen to its music.

 

5 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

In regards to MC3D, keep in mind that it was designed for use with a VR headset, so you just looked around and could aim and shoot down the missile quickly. Since that headset wasn't released, the Jag version is lacking; Feels like it would have worked better with a trackball controller instead of the slow D-Pad.  

 

I understand, what I was saying was even without the headset, that first version was an interesting idea for a different point of view for the same basic game mechanics.  It could work with a Star Wars yoke, I think.  But if the gameplay isn't as good, meaning the controls don't let you be accurate enough to actually target and destroy the missiles, or the missiles look stupid as they're descending (meaning you miss them because they weren't represented accurately enough overhead) then the game will be frustrating.  But "VR headset" doesn't excuse the clumsy looking "mountains" or the low-rez cities.  A new arcade version would certainly fix those visuals, I think, and be a cool new version of Missile Command.  But hopefully not too easy or slow or too loaded with power-ups.  It would be cool to have the cities spread around, like a few are close to the player, others are farther away, so that the missiles come down in many directions, not just left/right like in the original, an umbrella effect seen from below.  But that would be challenging, which would repel modern gamers, which would result in poor sales.  Forget I said any of that.

[+GoldLeader]

FWIW,

 

My friend saw this at the Expo.  He said unfortunately it just wasn't much fun like real Asteroids.  He (like myself,  )  owns an Asteroids cabinet.  Now, it looks fun to me so I'd probably still give it a whirl...I mean I'll play it, not buy it...

 

 

He sent me a very short video of him and his friend playing it.  I'll try to attach the video here,  but no guarantees...I can do pics no prob,  but for videos,  I have horrible luck and a bad track record on stuff like this.  Most of the time I've tried to attach video (like to emails etc.  It has Never worked) also I can make the video not be sideways for me, but when I share it;  I'm sure it will be sideways... 

 

 

Edited April 5 by GoldLeader
EDIT: Holy Cow! It worked!! I should buy a Lotto ticket today!! Actually, True Story: I bought one earlier!

[TampaBay]

5 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

My friend saw this at the Expo.  He said unfortunately it just wasn't much fun like real Asteroids.  He (like myself,  )  owns an Asteroids cabinet.  Now, it looks fun to me so I'd probably still give it a whirl...I mean I'll play it, not buy it...

 

 

The video worked great!  So yeah, similarly to what I've seen in other videos, I think they did a fantastic job of turning the home console game into a cabinet.  Whether or not people consistently pay real money to play it in an arcade, that is TBD.  Based on my experiences as a frequent arcade visitor and knowing what's out there and what everyone is drawn to, I'm just not sure how successful this is going to be.  Time will tell.

[Lord Mushroom]

10 hours ago, ledzep said:

I don't understand that statement.  You are describing almost every arcade game in the late '70s/early '80s.  Every one of them, when they first showed up in arcades, were new to first time players who hadn't seen them yet.  Lots of kids played them as well.  I remember being baffled by Defender and Tempest, lots of others.  After watching a few people play them, though, ok, I'll give it a shot.  Dead, dammit.  One more shot.  Oooh, I lasted 3 levels!  One more shot... $10 gone, like that!

 

By your thinking all of those games would have failed because of the similarly steep learning curves, yes?  Robotron?  Joust?  Gravitar?  Ok, bad example, hahahaa.

It is not just about dying quickly. When the game is complicated, you die with a feeling of being in over your head.

 

The first time you play Pac-Man, you die quickly, but you don´t have any problems with the controls or understanding the object of the game. So you still have some feeling of mastering the game. But if the first time you play Asteroids Recharged, and die quickly because you have difficulties making the ship do what you want it to do, you feel like a clumsy idiot.

 

Back in the day, Asteroids succeeded despite this because the gameplay was really good compared to contemporary games. People were willing to put up with initial failures because they could see how fun it would be when they mastered the controls. Now there is no shortage of straightforward games with good gameplay amongst video only arcade games, so people won´t bother mastering a game that by today´s standards has mediocre, at best, gameplay.

 

Amongst video redemption games, on the other hand, competition in gameplay is much less fierce.

[Lord Mushroom]

Pac-Man Battle Royale Chompianship has some advantages over Asteroids Recharged:

1) Fancy cabinet with one huge or two screens.

2) Supports more players.

3) Is based on a game with a character more young people are familiar with.

4) It is competitive. From what I understand, there will be a competitive element to Asteroids Recharged, but because it is a video redemption game, it will probably be limited to who gets the most tickets from playing a co-op game the best.

 

Asteroids Recharged´s advantages over Pac-Man Battle Royale Chompianship are:

1) Redemption.

2) Higher appeal amongst very old school players due to being more similar to the original (see next paragraph).

 

I think Pac-Man Battle Royale Chompianship is more different from the original than Asteroids Recharged for the following reasons:

1) The cabinet as a whole is much more different from the original than the Asteroids Recharged cabinet is.

2) It is now competitive as opposed to "beat the game".

3) The ghosts are much less important, whereas in Asteroids Recharged it is still all about the asteroids and UFOs.

Edited April 5 by Lord Mushroom

[Shaggy the Atarian]

16 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I think the music in Dariusburst Another Chronicle is terrible. It is boring, depressing and artsy-fartsy. I would much have preferred something upbeat and catchy, like this:

Failing that, I would have preferred scary music. But I agree that most games get better with appropriate music.

Well, I should have used the world "subjective" - being produced by the world famous Zuntata, there are a lot of people who would disagree with you there. I think it's fantastic, and Taito did enough to release the game's soundtrack on CD. But, it also is something you have to play on a cabinet to fully appreciate. When certain things happen with the music, they were synced to events in the game, so when you just listen to the music apart from that, it can sound strange.

 

The sound system on a DBAC cabinet is also crazy good, with a pair of subwoofers in the seat. I once experimented with the bass levels and when the walls started shaking, I had to pull back a little.

 

The main point is that there's nothing like getting the full audio/visual experience from an arcade cabinet where everything has been crafted for that specific game and feel...something that's lost at home where everyone has different TV and speaker setups.

 

26 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Asteroids Recharged´s advantages over Pac-Man Battle Royale Chompianship are:

1) Redemption.

2) Higher appeal amongst very old school players due to being more similar to the original (see next paragraph).

Redemption being an advantage depends entirely upon what Alan-1 does with this. If it's tacked on and an afterthought like it was at the show, I don't think it's going to make any difference. It has to have its own mode and set up that way for it to work.

 

#2 though, I think we as Atarians overvalue what the public thinks of Atari's IPs. There's no way that Asteroids is going to have broader audience appeal over Pac-Man. Asteroids has barely existed in the public conscious since the '80s, whereas Namco has kept PM alive with one game after the other. That doesn't mean that Recharged has no chance, but I think that the Alan-1 team should approach it like they were making something original and do what feels natural to the game, rather than obsess over making a miniscule segment of the market happy (which, from some comments I've already read criticizing AR, they're not going to be happy with anything other than an exact 1:1 Asteroids remake with a vector monitor, which would be a massive flop)

 

13 hours ago, ledzep said:

Ok, I understand that, but there has to be a limit, yes?  If a game comes out that's louder, won't the other games suffer and then they have to be louder in order to make money?  And then if they're louder, too, then the first game loses that advantage and has to be even louder, to the final result that you can't even hear yourself think inside the arcade?  "Enough" soundtrack and attract mode sounds should be good enough for all the games, they're all levelled out to be attracting but not deafening.  But there are games that need actual in-game sound effects to tell you what happened along with the graphics, right?  What happens if they're drowned out by overbearing music?  I've played games where I've died because the goofy game music was so loud I didn't notice an alarm or ship sound warning me of some enemy sneaking up on me.  At that point, turn down the goddamn music.  Unless you're not there to actually play the game, just listen to its music.

That's what volume controls are for  

 

I do totally agree that a game has to have a great sound mix, but it can be done. This is one place where I think that Alan-1 can greatly improve on AR. At present, there is no distinctive sound for when UFOs appear, there's no tension from the JAWS-like heartbeat thump that the original had. The thump could be the music or they get a song that integrates that, without being too loud. 

 

Quote

I understand, what I was saying was even without the headset, that first version was an interesting idea for a different point of view for the same basic game mechanics.  It could work with a Star Wars yoke, I think.  But if the gameplay isn't as good, meaning the controls don't let you be accurate enough to actually target and destroy the missiles, or the missiles look stupid as they're descending (meaning you miss them because they weren't represented accurately enough overhead) then the game will be frustrating.

A yoke might be OK, but IMHO, a trackball is the only way to play MC, unless you did have the headset w/ tracking.

 

Quote

  But "VR headset" doesn't excuse the clumsy looking "mountains" or the low-rez cities. 

That was just an issue with the Jaguar

Quote

A new arcade version would certainly fix those visuals, I think, and be a cool new version of Missile Command.  But hopefully not too easy or slow or too loaded with power-ups.  It would be cool to have the cities spread around, like a few are close to the player, others are farther away, so that the missiles come down in many directions, not just left/right like in the original, an umbrella effect seen from below.  But that would be challenging, which would repel modern gamers, which would result in poor sales.  Forget I said any of that.

Any game should follow Nolan's old motto: "Easy to the learn, difficult to master," although in today's market, you do have to keep it from being frustratingly difficult. Spread the cities too far out and when its raining nukes, I'm not sure that would be very fun to manage...although I've never cared much for Missile Command anyways as it kind of hits that energy in later waves

 

The one game in the series I've liked the most was Missile Command 3D (although I don't play Plus mode much, more the VR mode, where you have the lasers). Super Missile Command on the Lynx was really good too. Either way, it's all about balancing, and you can make a game that's challenging that appeals to modern gamers (see Elden Ring). With most games though, you can't hit them with DEFCON 1 difficulty right off the bat or jump from DEF5 to 1 after one round, and expect them to keep playing. 

[ledzep]

1 hour ago, Lord Mushroom said:

It is not just about dying quickly. When the game is complicated, you die with a feeling of being in over your head.

 

The first time you play Pac-Man, you die quickly, but you don´t have any problems with the controls or understanding the object of the game. So you still have some feeling of mastering the game. But if the first time you play Asteroids Recharged, and die quickly because you have difficulties making the ship do what you want it to do, you feel like a clumsy idiot.

 

Back in the day, Asteroids succeeded despite this because the gameplay was really good compared to contemporary games. People were willing to put up with initial failures because they could see how fun it would be when they mastered the controls. Now there is no shortage of straightforward games with good gameplay amongst video only arcade games, so people won´t bother mastering a game that by today´s standards has mediocre, at best, gameplay.

 

Amongst video redemption games, on the other hand, competition in gameplay is much less fierce.

 

I agree with your assessment about playing new games, but I don't see Asteroids Recharged as having worse gameplay compared to original Asteroids, it's basically identical in terms of controlling the ship and shooting moving targets.  I just wish the smaller asteroids (and saucers) would move faster than the big asteroids.  That's a basic part of Asteroids, it makes this Asteroids Recharged easier to play.  So I can see where new gamers will see is as meh compared to the eye raping new games with so many explosions and power-ups, though when I look at those games I just see modern versions of Scramble or Galaxian that are way too easy because of the super guns.  That is mediocre, at best, gameplay, but they're just interested in biggest guns or something.

 

Back in the day people were more up to the challenge of beating a new/hard game.  I would watch people try over and over to beat Robotron, Defender, Sinistar, Tempest, other games, in order to proclaim themselves "the best" or whatever.  I don't know what has changed today that "gamers" care more about redemptions and power-ups.

[ledzep]

13 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

I do totally agree that a game has to have a great sound mix, but it can be done. This is one place where I think that Alan-1 can greatly improve on AR. At present, there is no distinctive sound for when UFOs appear, there's no tension from the JAWS-like heartbeat thump that the original had. The thump could be the music or they get a song that integrates that, without being too loud. 

 

I was trying to find a link to that parody version of Asteroids with the Van Halen sounds (Assteroidz) but it seems to be gone.  Too bad, that bass thump was perfect!

 

14 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

A yoke might be OK, but IMHO, a trackball is the only way to play MC, unless you did have the headset w/ tracking.

 

True, but I think a version of Missile Command where you are looking up over your own head as missiles come down (almost straight at you) might work better with a yoke to give you a better sense of "up" and "down" along with left and right.  It would also give more of a sense of aiming a gun directly at the missiles vs. trying to set a targeting pip.  I mean, if modern "gamers" can't handle a trak-ball for something simple like new Centipede games, using a trak-ball for a VR-looking version of Missile Command will crack their brains.

 

16 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

That was just an issue with the Jaguar

 

I understand but you were still touting that as a massive improvement ("completely new visuals") whereas all I saw was the horrible "3D" graphics.  The '90s were terrible in terms of video game graphics because they had abandoned the simple representative shapes of the older 8-bit games and were attempting to look photoreal, and missing the mark terribly.  I think it worked better for things like side-view fighting games where the fighters now looked more like people instead of LEGO statues.  Didn't really help ships or cars much, either, until more recently.  Now you have graphics that are better than some low-budget movies with weak digital effects.

 

I still think the idea would be cool, almost from the point of view of standing on the ground looking out at cities and up at incoming missiles, talk about immersive!

 

25 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Any game should follow Nolan's old motto: "Easy to the learn, difficult to master," although in today's market, you do have to keep it from being frustratingly difficult. Spread the cities too far out and when its raining nukes, I'm not sure that would be very fun to manage...although I've never cared much for Missile Command anyways as it kind of hits that energy in later waves

 

It would play out the same as the original, it would just look cooler having missiles flying away towards the farther away city, you would still have to target it and shoot it out of the sky with the same control scheme as before.  I think the missiles coming almost straight down at you towards the cities close by would be more impressive now with modern graphics, talk about big explosions, hahaaha.

[Shaggy the Atarian]

Love or hate early 90s 3D, I think it's easy to say that the jump from single-color 2D objects to low poly textured 3D would technically be considered a massive improvement  

[ledzep]

45 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Love or hate early 90s 3D, I think it's easy to say that the jump from single-color 2D objects to low poly textured 3D would technically be considered a massive improvement  

 

True, you couldn't get to what we have now without pushing the miserable graphics back then beyond what they were capable of.  And I like the changed viewpoint of that Missile Command game where it feels like you're standing on the ground and looking up at the actual missiles coming down towards the cities.  I bet a game with updated graphics with that viewpoint, using goggles or a yoke, could be pretty fun.  And also very hectic in later levels, hahaha.