Both Warlords & Food Fight Are Returning To Coin-op This Year

[Shaggy the Atarian]

Since I imagine many don't frequent the arcade forum very often, here's the story:

 

Atari’s Food Fight Frenzy Unveiled At Midwest Gaming Classic

 

The article is mainly focused on Food Fight Frenzy; The Warlords cocktail remake has been at some tradeshows since 2022, but news about it seems to have slipped under many a radar. It'll be released this summer

 

 

[+Zeptari]

Glad to see Food Fight coming back. I played it exactly one time back in the day at a local state fair of all places. Rediscovered it about 10 years ago when I was gifted a 7800 from a friend. I'm surprised to see them sticking with the original arcade graphics, happy to see they keep them. Thought for sure it would get a facelift. 

[Lord Mushroom]

I think these games will fail. They are too true to the originals, and not iconic enough to pull that off.

[TampaBay]

I absolutely love that some of these creator / producers are keeping retro at the forefront and making these games.  That's very encouraging.

 

As @Lord Mushroom mentions, I do wish they would bring at least a little something new to the party to make everyone want to try it, from retro enthusiasts to people totally unfamiliar with the originals.  Either way, as with all newer retro-style cabinets and cocktail tables, I'm rooting for them!

[Shaggy the Atarian]

21 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

I think these games will fail. They are too true to the originals, and not iconic enough to pull that off.

In the right retrocade/gamebar they can probably do fine but yeah, I'm not optimistic about either of these. I would love to see them do well; I'm excited for them as an Atarian, but so far I'm not interested as an operator.

 

I had a Warlords cocktail for several years. I mainly had it for nostalgia's sake, not because it made any business sense. When it worked though, it would average 75¢ a week (don't worry, I did sell it a few years ago - but I did end up keeping it for far too long). 

 

The only times it would go above that are when I took it to a gaming convention OR I noticed a group of people looking at it but unsure, so I'd convince them to give it a play and then they would go crazy once it "clicked." That's not something you can rely on for any location out there to do though. Same thing happened with Cosmotrons. It basically needed a carnival barker there to get people to try and understand the game. Arcades need to do that naturally for them to be a success.

 

The main thing that these both need is a much flashier cabinet. You need a marquee like Pac-Man Battle Royale has, and artwork and LED lighting plastering the cabinet. This can be done tastefully - otherwise, completely black cabinets in a dark environment are going to get overlooked.

 

Then, like was discussed in the other thread, you need more going on visually to grab people. In the video I linked to in the post, the designers wanted to stay true to the original. The problem is that 97% of the public has never heard of these games and have no nostalgia for them.  I doubt every Atari fan out there has even played Food Fight. As commendable as the sentiment from the devs is, it's just not going to work in today's market. The World's Largest Pac-Man and Space Invaders Frenzy did great, not just because of those names, but because you were playing the games on a giant 8' LED billboard screen. Put the same games on a normal 43" or 55" HD display and they wouldn't have done anywhere near as well. 

 

Aside from putting these onto a giant 75" screen or an 8' LED screen (or doing something else unique, like a dome screen), perhaps the compromise would be to have a "Original" and "Enhanced" option on startup (either on the game screen or have separate start buttons - or charge more for Enhanced, like "Insert another coin or swipe card again to play with ENHANCED graphics!") - or allow the operator to set which type of graphics that they would find appeals to their clientele the most. 

 

 

[Giles N]

On 4/6/2024 at 10:43 PM, Lord Mushroom said:

I think these games will fail. They are too true to the originals, and not iconic enough to pull that off.

Perhaps Warlords could be Recharged or Reimagined?

 

AI-generated conceptual take on Warlords.

With limited time/access, and busy with other AI projects, this is the best I got ‘handed-out’.

 

What do you you @Shaggy the Atarian think about this^ level of updating things, if gameplay is smooth and rewarding?

 

@ledzep

You have (very) strong opinions concerning the classic Atari originals. What do you think of the above re-conceptualization of Warlords…?

 

Edited April 17 by Giles N

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, Giles N said:

Perhaps Warlords could be Recharged or Reimagined?

Yes, such a game would have a better chance.

[Giles N]

3 minutes ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Yes, such a game would have a better chance.

I just have to ask - just out if curiosity: what gameplay elements do you think should added/implemented for it to feel both really like ‘Warlords’ (not some new or different game) but also bridging some decades of game-evolution and make it more up-to-date…?

Edited April 17 by Giles N

[Lord Mushroom]

8 minutes ago, Giles N said:

I just have to ask - just out if curiosity: what gameplay elements do you think should added/implemented for it to feel both really like ‘Warlords’ (not some new or different game) but also bridging some decades of game-evolution and make it more up-to-date…?

Powerups and different "maps" with different novelties.

[SoundGammon]

There is this version for Windows that has different backgounds, views and a bonus round to try to take out the dragon before he destroys your castle!

[ledzep]

2 hours ago, Giles N said:

Perhaps Warlords could be Recharged or Reimagined?

 

AI-generated conceptual take on Warlords.

With limited time/access, and busy with other AI projects, this is the best I got ‘handed-out’.

 

What do you you @Shaggy the Atarian think about this^ level of updating things, if gameplay is smooth and rewarding?

 

@ledzep

You have (very) strong opinions concerning the classic Atari originals. What do you think of the above re-conceptualization of Warlords…?

 

 

All of my views and opinions are based on gameplay, just to be clear.  Great gameplay beats great graphics any day (assuming a minimum level of graphics which the 2600 many times failed to reach).  So, if your textured 3D update doesn't play any different or plays worse, who cares?  Not picking on your idea, this is the reason I gave up on arcade games after the mid-'80s, they all started being the same games with updated graphics (and boring controls).  But most people accepted them as new or better so they were popular which spawned more of them, all I was seeing was similar simple games but with a lot of eye candy.  Not all games, Silent Scope was legit great to my eyes, because of how well it simulated being a sniper, I loved Cyber Sled, too.  But the rest?  Joysticks moving things around other things but now prioritizing fancy graphics.  In some ways the games got simpler.  Or, of course, they were driving/fighting sims which were legit better than before, but I could only play so many of those.

 

So, from your still image, I can't tell what would change with your Warlords Recharged idea.  If all it's going to do is add a bunch of power-ups and explosions, no thanks.  If the core gameplay is going to suffer (using a paddle to defend 2 sides of a castle from being hit by something bouncing around is required), no thanks.  It should still be hard to master and it should be analog.  That means paddles.  Warlords is just a variation of Pong, but if you have the dragon stay in the playfield and it shoots fireballs that bounce around 4-8 times and then they disappear, meaning the dragon is constantly flying around shooting new fireballs to keep the action going, multiple fireballs bouncing around the playfield at the same time, maybe have cliff/mountain walls around the screen edge so that the fireballs bounce back towards the players' castles, that could add a level of hard to the whole thing.

 

I'm not sure how I would "recharge" it.  Assuming you keep the basic paddle moving shield gameplay, all that could change would be the enemies or the effects of the shots.  Or, you change the paddle to a spinner, now you can have those castles be in different places in higher levels, maybe have them closer to the center so that you have to cover all 360 degrees of castle walls?  That would open up new strategies for surviving attacks from new directions, especially if there's a co-op option.  For power-ups I might add wider shields that can cover more area, swap the shield for a gun to shoot the fireball or whatever off-course and also maybe shoot the dragon itself, weaken it, or there are multiple dragons so then this gun could get rid of a few of them before the power-up runs out of time.  Also, I like the fog/cloud idea, you can have random fog banks float through camouflaging the dragon's position for a few seconds.  Otherwise, I don't think this is the type of game that can be recharged much, it's not designed for it.

 

As far as that A.I. image goes, you can't have any kind of angled view that obscures what can be seen, it has to be completely top down view, otherwise the dragon(s) can hide behind/below those lower castles and nobody can see where they are.

[Lord Mushroom]

1 hour ago, SoundGammon said:

There is this version for Windows that has different backgounds, views and a bonus round to try to take out the dragon before he destroys your castle!

Here is a video of it (starts at 7.20):

 

[Giles N]

6 hours ago, ledzep said:

 

I'm not sure how I would "recharge" it. 

You mentioned the dragon flying and spitting more fireballs.

 

What about the shields you move; they can be added up in lines, - a strategy that actually was used by soldiers in antiquity and later -, holding shields close together to make a larger protective unit.

 

What about accumulating shields (in a row that still can bend around corners) which give a broader defense?

 

Perhaps it could be a way to earn the shields by skill of precision-bouncing, or great mastery, rather than only getting a drop (which could happen once in a while).

 

Ok, so treasure drop:

- from time to time the drsgon does a flyby carrying some his typicsl dragons loot: the player who hits the dragon carrying treasure, gets the power-up or bonus.

 

 

 

[ledzep]

3 hours ago, Giles N said:

Ok, so treasure drop:

- from time to time the drsgon does a flyby carrying some his typicsl dragons loot: the player who hits the dragon carrying treasure, gets the power-up or bonus.

 

That makes the most sense.  I think I listed a few ideas similar to yours, there's just not a lot of space to add things without fundamentally changing the game into something else.  Changing to a spinner would allow the castles to wind up in different locations per level, including not being crammed into the corners so that the shield might need to protect 3 walls or all 4, or the castles could have other shapes like an L or U or triangle shape, that would affect rebounds towards other players.

 

10 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

Here is a video of it (starts at 7.20):

 

 

This is exactly what I was talking about with '90s+ arcade games design priorities.  Ooooh, detailed graphics!  Wow, a little CG guy moving around randomly!  Textured shield wall sections!  The castles look like they're made of stone!  The moving shield changes to a hand or a giant pizza!!  So what?  The game mechanics are unchanged and, if anything, the game itself has been slowed down to accommodate those new, snazzy fireball streaks.  To what end?  The game is more boring than the original.  Yes, there are a few power-ups, oh joy, power-ups.  But otherwise?  It's nowhere near as engaging as the arcade original (a friend of mine has the cocktail 4-player version, that is very popular with visitors) even though the original has lesser graphics.  Part of that is also switching from the paddle controller to the PC mouse.  I'm glad they maintained the analog control but a mouse is less accurate than a paddle (or spinner) in terms of stopping movement to bounce the fireball.  Do younger players really prefer better graphics over better gameplay?  That's nuts.

 

No way I would pay money for this version, I'd rather fire up the 2600 version (or Castle Crisis, of course).

[+Stephen]

5 hours ago, ledzep said:

Do younger players really prefer better graphics over better gameplay?  That's nuts.

 

No way I would pay money for this version, I'd rather fire up the 2600 version (or Castle Crisis, of course).

The real question is, does it have a SynthWave soundtrack?

[Giles N]

17 hours ago, ledzep said:

So, if your textured 3D update doesn't play any different or plays worse, who cares? 

Fair enough. 
One could imagine: looks much better and plays equally well, better and/or with much more to do/get-to-grips with.

 

17 hours ago, ledzep said:

I was seeing was similar simple games but with a lot of eye candy. 

I don’t won’t to go ‘cheap’ on anything - I totally get your high gameplay-priority, but as one who really wanted to be(come) a graphics-artist back when I was 13-16, I think it’s extremely unrealistic to think that most people feel like  ‘visuals don’t matter that much, if gameplay is pure genius’. It’s a reason it’s called video-gaming. People are people; they like that what they play also look nice. And in many cases the game would break down or become a button-pushing sports, if you didn’t have graphics to present the game-world or game-concept.

 

6 hours ago, ledzep said:

there's just not a lot of space to add things without fundamentally changing the game into something else. 

Sometimes I think of you as a ‘purist’ (in a positive, descriptive sense of the word, which is also why I asked you), but I for my part do think that quite some changes couid be added without changing the core of the gameplay entirely. (I may be wrong of course).

 

We write 2024 now, and screens can be ridiculously large and have 8K resolution - giving room for quite a lot of things to be placed within the games’ play-field.

 

You mentioned ‘Pong’ as a predecessor, and I guess many would think along the lines of Breakout or a Breakout VS-type game.

 

I would believe that, given that the gameplay-‘core’, ie castles built of bricks/parts that are destroyed by somecbouncing projectile, is there, you could add lots of variation in every area of the gameplay without changing that core.

 

As long as you have 1) movable shields, 2) castles of ‘breakout’-bricks and 3) at least one bouncing projectile, you still have Warlords, and add as many other things as you wish: number of castles, types of shields (size, shape, speed and other properties/traits), castle-materials (here humorous easter-eggs like ‘rubber castle for 30 seconds’ could come in). Dragons could be different from level to level, starting with a little, lizardy dragon spitting only a lousy pebble all the way to some 6-headed winged Hydra firing off 6 fireballs, 3 of which have semi-glue-like substance which you’d better leave to your enemies, because they may stick to the shield and incinerate it if you don’t shake it off quickly (by meddling thine owne’ paddle in ways most vile to wrists thus mistreat’d, yet as victorious in bravery as ‘tis foolish in action severe)

 

All those factors would impact the gameplay, and then someone could feel its been changed too much.

 

But what is too much or way too little?

 

A completely new game without any change

at all?

 

If one really feels that some of these Arcades are too iconic to get any change, then one is left with getting the original and enjoy it.

 

If one feels it can be changed, but more subtly so, a description is needed, - or put it more precisely: the more detailed or elaborate the descriptions of whats wanted and whats to avoid, the better.

 

I’m of the opinion that many or all of Ataris biggest classics needs to get full official sequels which both are 1) faithful to the original game-world and setting and ‘spirit’,  2) gets so much difference as Super Mario Bros contra Mario Bros, or Street Fighter 2 contra Street Fighter 1 (ok, I know SF1 remained obscure, but the difference in content must be that much, that big).

 

For my own part I think these old classics have a unique ‘universal appeal’ that should be kept, like chess and other old table games does, but also that they are ripe for adding more content that gives depth to gameplay tasks/mission objectives/ways of mastering or winning the game, but avoid getting some forgettable, non-universal gimmick-take only appealing to outward style.

If its all style and no content, it’s better left alone.

But if one improves upon the actual gameplay content, you can add visuals and sounds that will truly amplify the quality of gaming experience. But if its only designed to appeal to those between 15-25 as of 2024 (with sales forecasts until mid-2026 at most), its easy to lose a great title to the ever-increasing pile of fads, forgettables and mediocre outlets, even easy to make it something that’ll look really, really akward in a short time. 
 

When that is said, - I think we just need to accept that modern gamers don’t want games where they ‘shoot pixels with other pixels’. The hardware just have gotten way beyond that, and very few people would want a chess-board of plastic with chess-pieces of wooden squares, all the same size and shape, marked with single-letters to identify what they’re meant to be, when you rather could get a chess table of solid mahogny with exquisitely made pieces, each cut of material ‘matching’ the role in the hierarchy: oak-pawns, granite-cut rooks, marble bishops, Metal knights, Silver Queen, Gold King.

 

They’d play exactly the same. With wood-block pieces you just need to look at the letter on-top: P, R, B, K, Q, K

 

But which one would you honestly like to sit down and play over a cigar (or cold Cola), with some good music on the stereo in the background, for an evening, or weekend, with a friend or friends…?

 

Ok, - some could say ‘I don’t care’. Fine, what would one think is the average take on this of every chess-player in the world…? How many would prefer the lettered wood-block-piece thing to the mahogny table with artistically made chess pieces of different matching materials ?

Edited April 18 by Giles N
typos

[+x=usr(1536)]

On 4/7/2024 at 1:47 PM, Shaggy the Atarian said:

In the right retrocade/gamebar they can probably do fine but yeah, I'm not optimistic about either of these. I would love to see them do well; I'm excited for them as an Atarian, but so far I'm not interested as an operator.

 

This, I think, is a very fair assessment of the overall picture.

 

Both of these are games that I've owned at one time or another, and while I like both, they're not games that really engage the casual game players.  If you put the time in to learn them, they're great - but there's more to both than the attract modes suggest, and building a following isn't really straightforward when nuance comes into play.

 

That said, I can see exactly why they might not do well on location.  Excellent games, but with appeal that pretty much requires players who are willing to spend time with them.

[ledzep]

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

Fair enough. 
One could imagine: looks much better and plays equally well, better and/or with much more to do/get-to-grips with.

 

At a certain point, too much detail and textures makes it harder to play a game like Warlords (or Asteroids or Centipede) because there's more visual noise getting in the way of trying to be accurate about seeing what is going on - the targetting pip, where exactly the enemies are, where their shots are, etc.  Imagine a new Centipede that is the exact same game but now with realistic looking centipedes and other bugs, realistic mushrooms and realistic textured dirt/grass ground.  I mean, have you ever looked at the ground where there are insects?  You know how hard it is to recognize them all, keep track of them?  They can hide in plain site depending on their coloration and shape.  But the original games are very stark, even the ones with some detail like say Bosconian or Sinistar or Rally-X or whatever, the playfield is usually one solid color (black, mostly), the enemies are the same consistent shapes with the same basic colors, the shots are simple and easy to see, etc.  The goal isn't to try to recreate reality, it's to try to make a fun simplified game that requires you to aim and shoot (or whatever, jump over things, grab things, etc.) accurately at things that you can easily pick out.  They're the video equivalents of shooting galleries or ring toss games, they're skills games, not visual treats.  Imagine being an air traffic controller with a radar display that had a bunch of high-rez textures for the ground and mountains and plants, of what use would that be when all you're supposed to care about is which planes are moving where?

 

On the other hand sims can be detailed.  Even something like Virtua Cop that is old, it looks like a (primitive) movie scene but you're not doing anything really precise, you're just targetting bad guys with a lightgun, so you can have textured bad guys, walls, streets, sky, whatever.  Same goes for racing games because you're not doing anything on-screen like aiming/shooting, you're just using hand/eye coordination to avoid crashing into shit so having cars that really look like cars, sidewalks that look like sidewalks, etc., makes sense.  This gets even more "useful" with PC 1st person shooter/adventure games, all the detail is needed because you spend half your time walking around nothing important in order to get to specific fun areas, or you're exploring dangerous areas.  It would get boring if there was no detail, like those old video games where you're walking through a dungeon but it's just flat tile walls and ceilings that are all the same.  You could even get lost because all the hallways look identical.

 

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

I don’t won’t to go ‘cheap’ on anything - I totally get your high gameplay-priority, but as one who really wanted to be(come) a graphics-artist back when I was 13-16, I think it’s extremely unrealistic to think that most people feel like  ‘visuals don’t matter that much, if gameplay is pure genius’. It’s a reason it’s called video-gaming. People are people; they like that what they play also look nice. And in many cases the game would break down or become a button-pushing sports, if you didn’t have graphics to present the game-world or game-concept.

 

Yes, video gaming, not visual gaming, not graphics gaming.  "Video" just means a video display (I suppose as opposed to the previous electromechanical games that projected lights into actual physical cavities or onto molded shapes, or pinball) and we can all agree that original arcade CRTs weren't high-rez enough for detail we take for granted today.  Are you telling me all the original games are not fun or entertaining because they're not realistic or don't have textures?  Even something like Donkey Kong, are those realistic running/jumping animations?  Does the fire look believable to you?  Where are those platforms, anyways?  What the hell is a Pac-Man?  What are those maze walls made out of?  Nobody cares, just make fun games that are challenging, simple obvious recognizable shapes, accurate collision detection.

 

I'm not against better graphics, but they have to be there for a reason, otherwise you're wasting CPU cycles for bullshit.  Again, PC gaming can have all sorts of eye candy and Easter eggs and gigs and gigs of rendering world to explore, sit on your ass for hours at home (or work, hahaaha) figuring out your next moves.  An arcade game is something that should be making money and that means lots of relatively quick plays, right?  Kind of simple and repetitive, sure, with increasing difficulty.  So, gameplay first, gameplay second, eye candy after if there's time and it doesn't interfere with playing the game.  Get the right controllers, too.

 

The weirdness is these modern minimally interactive movies that many "gamers" want to spend money on, not much accuracy or challenge, just get to the bright colors and explosions and power-ups and goofy music.  There, I agree, you need more detail to keep them engaged because the gameplay itself isn't going to do it.  Shiny objects.  But is that Warlords?  No.  The only way you could "modernize" Warlords and make those clowns happy would be... a 1st person version where you are moving a warrior along a platform at the edge of the castle tower blocking fireballs that are coming down at you from the dragon flying above.  Could be fun, who knows, but it wouldn't be Warlords, not even close.

 

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

Sometimes I think of you as a ‘purist’ (in a positive, descriptive sense of the word, which is also why I asked you), but I for my part do think that quite some changes couid be added without changing the core of the gameplay entirely. (I may be wrong of course).

 

Guilty as charged.  My form of "purism" is insisting that the thing you present is the thing you say it is.  Period.  Otherwise, call it something else.  How hard is that?  This applies to movies/TV shows as well, especially adapted from known books.  Also to specific car models as well, usually.  The point being that, yes, you can change some things to the particular game, add this and that, so long as the core gameplay remains, if you're going to keep the same name but add Recharged or Super to it.  I think Marble Madness II is horrible because they removed the trak-ball control.  Heresy.  Space Duel is basically Super Asteroids in terms of gameplay but since the actual asteroids are gone (replaced with geometric shapes) and there are new bits of gameplay added (those dual saucers, the tethered ships, the bonus levels) they changed the name, right?  Galaga is very similar to Galaxian but different enough to change the name.  There's no hard rule there, of course, but you get the idea after seeing enough examples.

 

5 hours ago, Giles N said:

We write 2024 now, and screens can be ridiculously large and have 8K resolution - giving room for quite a lot of things to be placed within the games’ play-field.

 

You mentioned ‘Pong’ as a predecessor, and I guess many would think along the lines of Breakout or a Breakout VS-type game.

 

I would believe that, given that the gameplay-‘core’, ie castles built of bricks/parts that are destroyed by somecbouncing projectile, is there, you could add lots of variation in every area of the gameplay without changing that core.

 

True.  A giant screen, 8K or whatever, could allow for more players on a bigger playing field with more options, more castles or different shapes, more dragons that can be in more areas etc.  Much like that Mega Pac-Man game, bigger/more of everything.

 

Ya, Pong and Breakout combined.  I was thinking Pong more because of the bounce the shot at the other players aspect but of course there is the brick breaking aspect, too.

 

Keep the core, of course.  But most of these Recharged games don't.  Either they use joysticks instead of the correct controller (more heresy) or they slow down the gameplay in service of having more power-ups to deal with, they sometimes change how the enemies move (for the worse, usually), at some point, it's a similar game but not what the name said it was going to be (think really bad old 8-bit home ports of arcade games that really missed the mark).  You say without changing the core but "the core" aspect is a challenging game (if we're talking about updating an old arcade game), not a casual game for hoarding power-ups.  So long as you are not willing to acknowledge that, you will keep getting into arguments with people who are trying to explain to you why that game isn't the game it claims to be even though it's called that game and has some familiar shapes and sounds in it.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

As long as you have 1) movable shields, 2) castles of ‘breakout’-bricks and 3) at least one bouncing projectile, you still have Warlords, and add as many other things as you wish: number of castles, types of shields (size, shape, speed and other properties/traits), castle-materials (here humorous easter-eggs like ‘rubber castle for 30 seconds’ could come in). Dragons could be different from level to level, starting with a little, lizardy dragon spitting only a lousy pebble all the way to some 6-headed winged Hydra firing off 6 fireballs, 3 of which have semi-glue-like substance which you’d better leave to your enemies, because they may stick to the shield and incinerate it if you don’t shake it off quickly (by meddling thine owne’ paddle in ways most vile to wrists thus mistreat’d, yet as victorious in bravery as ‘tis foolish in action severe)

 

You are forgetting one of the key aspects, which is an analog controller.  Paddle or spinner.  Without that, forget it.  But, ya, there are many possible additions.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

All those factors would impact the gameplay, and then someone could feel its been changed too much.

 

But what is too much or way too little?

 

A completely new game without any change

at all?

 

If one really feels that some of these Arcades are too iconic to get any change, then one is left with getting the original and enjoy it.

 

If one feels it can be changed, but more subtly so, a description is needed, - or put it more precisely: the more detailed or elaborate the descriptions of whats wanted and whats to avoid, the better.

 

That is the challenge, isn't it.  Go too far, it's not that game anymore.  Go not far enough, why did you even bother?

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

I’m of the opinion that many or all of Ataris biggest classics needs to get full official sequels which both are 1) faithful to the original game-world and setting and ‘spirit’,  2) gets so much difference as Super Mario Bros contra Mario Bros, or Street Fighter 2 contra Street Fighter 1 (ok, I know SF1 remained obscure, but the difference in content must be that much, that big).

 

"Needs"?  Why?  What's wrong with the originals?  I think that some of the games do lend themselves to "recharged" versions that would be fun in a modern arcade, bigger screens, more players (co-op) for those games that were only ever single player at a time, more levels.  But then there's the argument of keeping the controllers/gameplay and adding on top, or changing the gameplay to that lazy power-up recharged mess that ruins so many of these older games.  My view of this is trying to imagine what a sequel game would have looked like if the early '80s never ended, we never got the newer CPUs and shaded textures and all that.  But that's not what the average arcade "gamer" wants today, apparently.  Where are my redemption tickets?  Where's the droning music?

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

For my own part I think these old classics have a unique ‘universal appeal’ that should be kept, like chess and other old table games does, but also that they are ripe for adding more content that gives depth to gameplay tasks/mission objectives/ways of mastering or winning the game, but avoid getting some forgettable, non-universal gimmick-take only appealing to outward style.

If its all style and no content, it’s better left alone.

But if one improves upon the actual gameplay content, you can add visuals and sounds that will truly amplify the quality of gaming experience. But if its only designed to appeal to those between 15-25 as of 2024 (with sales forecasts until mid-2026 at most), its easy to lose a great title to the ever-increasing pile of fads, forgettables and mediocre outlets, even easy to make it something that’ll look really, really akward in a short time. 

 

Agreed.  The really good arcade games I think are timeless.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

When that is said, - I think we just need to accept that modern gamers don’t want games where they ‘shoot pixels with other pixels’. The hardware just have gotten way beyond that, and very few people would want a chess-board of plastic with chess-pieces of wooden squares, all the same size and shape, marked with single-letters to identify what they’re meant to be, when you rather could get a chess table of solid mahogny with exquisitely made pieces, each cut of material ‘matching’ the role in the hierarchy: oak-pawns, granite-cut rooks, marble bishops, Metal knights, Silver Queen, Gold King.

 

So long as it's a video monitor, it's shooting pixels with other pixels.  Just more of them and more detailed shapes/colors/textures.  The question is do you want to play a skills game that isn't very deep (because it's in an arcade) or do you want to immerse yourself in some type of adventure game with a wide open world?  You cannot have both.

 

I'm not much of a chess player but I don't think I've ever cared what the pieces looked like or were made of so long as they were distinguishable.  My strategy and skill were never affected by the pieces or the board materials.  Do you think that would even matter?  Sure, to brag, look at my amazing chess set, but otherwise, chess is chess.  This the solid gold bathroom fixtures problem.  So what.

 

6 hours ago, Giles N said:

They’d play exactly the same. With wood-block pieces you just need to look at the letter on-top: P, R, B, K, Q, K

 

But which one would you honestly like to sit down and play over a cigar (or cold Cola), with some good music on the stereo in the background, for an evening, or weekend, with a friend or friends…?

 

Ok, - some could say ‘I don’t care’. Fine, what would one think is the average take on this of every chess-player in the world…? How many would prefer the lettered wood-block-piece thing to the mahogny table with artistically made chess pieces of different matching materials ?

 

Exactly, though I have no idea what most chess players prioritize in terms of game pieces.  Now, if you want to update the game, that would be cool but it wouldn't be chess anymore.  Chess is a simple analog of warfare, I always wondered how adding off-board artillery would change the game, hahaaha.  Or, something like Archon, which was like halfway between chess and dejarik.

 

I think I could make many "new" arcade games or updates to existing arcade games that would be fun/challenging, but they would always be arcade games, not these recharged, sleepy, over-rendered, slow animated messes.  Which is to say, probably not very successful in modern arcades.  But my friends who grew up going to arcades would probably love them.

[TampaBay]

Maybe this will be the next Atari arcade cabinet 😀

 

 

[roots.genoa]

45 minutes ago, TampaBay said:

Maybe this will be the next Atari arcade cabinet 😀

It's a Metroid-like game so I kinda doubt it, but who knows.

[TampaBay]

8 minutes ago, roots.genoa said:

It's a Metroid-like game so I kinda doubt it, but who knows.

 

Agreed! 

 

I was more making a bit of a joke since this new game has almost nothing to do with Yars! Revenge and some discussion above was about how far you could stray from the original and still use the name.  This is definitely stretching it! 😀

[Giles N]

Another attempt (not more) at illustrating what it could look like in the middle of the action:

 

 

[TampaBay]

25 minutes ago, Giles N said:

Another attempt (not more) at illustrating what it could look like in the middle of the action:

 

 

Looks great!  I'd play!

[Giles N]

Another attempt (remember - new stuff can done, rebuild walls etc + remember 2, itd just concept-art)

 

 

[ledzep]

1 hour ago, Giles N said:

Another attempt (remember - new stuff can done, rebuild walls etc + remember 2, itd just concept-art)

 

 

 

Too busy with the ground textures but, I like the idea of the extended blue castle (or maybe more the orange castle).  I can see some type of power-up or achievement where your castle is extended.  Not to the degree in your concept art, but maybe a bit more, which means it takes longer to kill you off (knock out all your bricks) but at the same time it becomes harder for you to defend all that extra real estate.  Double-edged sword, I guess.  Definitely need a spinner controller to handle that extra Tempest type shape change.  There could also be the addition of an inner keep bonus or power-up (the little central square room in the center) that could add extra bricks that now must be knocked down if/when the outer wall is completely gone.  Sort of like an extra mini life?

 

I don't see any Breakout type bricks or sections to be knocked out in that image, either.