Thomas Jentzsch Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 Xype Hot Action Pak Nice name. But that would only work if there is at least one more game from a different XYPE author. And then games still had to be approved by XYPE first and I don't expect that will happen. Onscreen game select would be nice Hm, a nice menu would probalby require more space than a whole game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjk7382 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Pretty cool - I managed to get 1016 using z26 - this would be much better with a joystick Don't use a joystick, I use a converted NES controller. Never have been a big fan of the joystcks. I have posted this along with pictures in other threads. Down with joysticks J/K - They are okay for some games. Like Cave 1k where you don't use anything but the button Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Boy, do I suck at this. But it sure is fun. I agree it should be put on a cart. It's as much fun as many older games are. If you don't think it'd sell well, how about getting a collection of 1k games and putting like 6 or 7 on a cart (leaving 1 or 2 k for a menue system) That'd certainly sell I'm sure. BTW, is it possible to have the screen scroll at a smother rate? I know the 2600 only shows 40 pixels at once, but scrolling 1 pixel at a time instead of all 40 seems like it would be better IMO. Of course, it may be a bad Idea, or require to much editing. : Would be cool though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 1, 2003 Author Share Posted November 1, 2003 Boy, do I suck at this. But it sure is fun. I agree it should be put on a cart. It's as much fun as many older games are. If you don't think it'd sell well, how about getting a collection of 1k games and putting like 6 or 7 on a cart (leaving 1 or 2 k for a menue system) That'd certainly sell I'm sure. I don't care that much for sales, but 7 or 8 minigames is definitely out of reach for me. BTW, is it possible to have the screen scroll at a smother rate? I know the 2600 only shows 40 pixels at once, but scrolling 1 pixel at a time instead of all 40 seems like it would be better IMO. Of course, it may be a bad Idea, or require to much editing. : Would be cool though. With some major changes to the kernel that would be possible. Though the kernel will probably become much more complicated then and therefore too large for 1K. But I just had an idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Xype Hot Action Pak Nice name. But that would only work if there is at least one more game from a different XYPE author. And then games still had to be approved by XYPE first and I don't expect that will happen. It would be interesting to see a few different homebrew authors (XYPE or not) contribute several 1K games that could then be assembled into a single' date=' menu-driven cartridge. Especially if they are all as enjoyable as Cave 1K and Splatform. Doesn't need to be a XYPE-branded cart. Onscreen game select would be nice Hm, a nice menu would probalby require more space than a whole game. That's what bankswitching is for! Imagine how many 1K games you could get into, say, a 16K cart! Btw, I did play this for a bit and it's definitely more difficult than Cave 1K. I think it would be easier to play on a real 2600, but I have only played it in z26 so far.. ..Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 1, 2003 Author Share Posted November 1, 2003 That's what bankswitching is for! Imagine how many 1K games you could get into, say, a 16K cart! I don't think this is going to happen soon. (and the people probably don't want to wait a few years for a cart) Btw, I did play this for a bit and it's definitely more difficult than Cave 1K. Sure, you have to choose between two directions now. I think it would be easier to play on a real 2600, but I have only played it in z26 so far. I haven't too, but I don't think it plays very different on the real thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 I think it would be easier to play on a real 2600, but I have only played it in z26 so far. I haven't too, but I don't think it plays very different on the real thing. What I should have said is that I think it will be easier to control with an Atari 2600 joystick, as opposed to using the keyboard on my PC. ..Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEBRO Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 It would be interesting to see a few different homebrew authors (XYPE or not) contribute several 1K games that could then be assembled into a single, menu-driven cartridge. Especially if they are all as enjoyable as Cave 1K and Splatform. Doesn't need to be a XYPE-branded cart. Hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuddy Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Damn this game is addictive. I'm all for putting it in cart format. Current high score is 1508. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 BTW, is it possible to have the screen scroll at a smother rate? I know the 2600 only shows 40 pixels at once, but scrolling 1 pixel at a time instead of all 40 seems like it would be better IMO. Of course, it may be a bad Idea, or require to much editing. : Would be cool though. With some major changes to the kernel that would be possible. Though the kernel will probably become much more complicated then and therefore too large for 1K. But I just had an idea... I know a lot of people may say it's not possible to have a 2600 game scroll sideways. But the way I look at it, early GameBoy games, that featured large graphics, scrolled the background around four pixels at a time, which would be around the same speed as atari scrolling one pixel at a time. I never noticed it bothering anybody, and I never minded it. So unless some really weird programming would be envolved to make the 2600 scroll sideways, I see it as fully possible. After all, the game already scrolls sideways, it just does it in large chunks rather than slowly. As for the it being larger than 1k in size, unless this port is for a contest or something, why would it matter if you made it a 2k, or 4k game? I think it would be cool myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Sure there is...you could use a player object for the platforms. Those can be positioned at any screen location. But you'd have to watch it so that the platforms are always on different scanlines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 2, 2003 Author Share Posted November 2, 2003 Sure there is...you could use a player object for the platforms. Those can be positioned at any screen location. But you'd have to watch it so that the platforms are always on different scanlines. Yup, that's exactly what I will try to do. The limitation to one platfrom per row seems to be acceptable. And I will have to blank the first 4 or 8 pixels, to hide the HMOVE blanks, but that shouldn't matter that much too. This will require a completely new kernel and a lot of other code changes, so it will take some time. Be patient, please. But before I'll do the switch I'll post a last update of the current version soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 2, 2003 Author Share Posted November 2, 2003 this port is for a contest or something, why would it matter if you made it a 2k, or 4k game? I think it would be cool myself. Yup, like my Cave game this is also planned for next years Minigames Competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 2, 2003 Author Share Posted November 2, 2003 Hi, before I try to change modify the whole game for smoother scrolling, here is a last update (see first page of thread). Changes: pressing FIRE starts a new game [*] added some friction to horizontal movement which should make stopping easier now [*] the plattforms nicely scroll in at the start of each level/life [*] one additional sound when level is finished [*] slightly higher gravity (making the game little bit faster) [*] the difficulty is now limited after 10 levels [*] some small bugfixes [*] due to some generator changes the levels are all different from the previous version Currently the game is just over 1K (+14 bytes), but that's only temporay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjk7382 Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 I like version .91, it is more challenging than the previous version. I noticed one bug in it though The high score isn't saving after the button is pressed and the new games starts, version .90 even saved the high score after reset was pressed. Just thought you would like to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 2, 2003 Author Share Posted November 2, 2003 I noticed one bug in it though The high score isn't saving after the button is pressed and the new games starts, version .90 even saved the high score after reset was pressed. Just thought you would like to know. Thanks a lot, I'll check that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjk7382 Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Here is my high score for Ver. .91 Anyone want to challenge that? edited - New score posted below Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuddy Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Aw man, I just scored 2774 in 0.90, then I noticed a new version came out with a better high score... oh well, I better try this new one out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjk7382 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I think .91 is a little harder. (smaller platforms) but it is a little bit easier to control, so it evens it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 NOOOoooo, I was meaning use Background pixels...But yeah, a sprite for a line would work (or missiles/balls, which if both were used would allow 3 lines in a row, with no mirroring technique. Hey, I thought of something else that would be cool, chop the screen in half, top to bottome. Then you could have a two player game, one plays the top screen, one plays the bottom screen. Either who gets to the end first (and best out of 10 levels wins) or have a continuing level and whoever lives longest wins. Whatdo you say? I think that would be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjk7382 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 My New new score for version .91 looks like I will just have to beat my own score again because I guess people arent playing like I am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Some of us are still playing it. Just too embarassed to post scores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjk7382 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 It might be easier for me, I am using a NES joypad and actual hardware. And I have put about 60 games down, some ranging from screwing up right from the beginning, and most of the time I get over 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 3, 2003 Author Share Posted November 3, 2003 NOOOoooo, I was meaning use Background pixels... But that kind of scrolling wouldn't look smooth at all but like e.g. Vanguard. Hey, I thought of something else that would be cool, chop the screen in half, top to bottome. Then you could have a two player game, one plays the top screen, one plays the bottom screen. Either who gets to the end first (and best out of 10 levels wins) or have a continuing level and whoever lives longest wins. Whatdo you say? I think that would be awesome. I don't think that would fit into 1K, but the major problem would be that the available height for each player would IMO be way too limited. Currently there are 18 visible splatform rows plus ~6 empty rows at top of them. That's 24 rows now. For two player I'd only have 12 rows each. Minus 6 empty top rows, there would be only 6 splatform rows. That's IMO not enough by far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jentzsch Posted November 3, 2003 Author Share Posted November 3, 2003 And I have put about 60 games down, some ranging from screwing up right from the beginning, and most of the time I get over 2000. Since you are definitely playing this game even more than I do, any suggestions about the physicals and controls? BTW: Are you memorizing the platforms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.