What Do The Best Games Have In Common?

[Ranthulfr]

Can you identify a common characteristic shared by your favorite Atari 2600 games?

 

Lately I've realized that my favorite games offer something unexpected in later rounds. I like knowing that there is something new to discover if I keep advancing, even if it's just a new color scheme.

[Robert M]

I can think of 2 things:

 

1. Responsive player control. Visible lag is no good.

 

2. When you die, you can see that it was because of something you did or failed to do, not because the game "cheated" or blindsided you. That way you are motivated to try again because you know if you play better you will get farther.

[JB]

Can you identify a common characteristic shared by your favorite Atari 2600 games?

They're fun to play.

[bjk7382]

Good game = FUN

 

Bad game = no fun

 

plain and simple

[Godzilla]

i think if the games have caramel in them, they are good, otherwise they suck.

[Gamemaster_ca_2003]

the only thing most of the 2600 games I like have in common is that they are common. I like some rare games but not often.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

Can you identify a common characteristic shared by your favorite Atari 2600 games?

 

A silver label

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[JB]

i think if the games have caramel in them, they are good, otherwise they suck.

Heh.

[Video]

For the most part, a lot of the games I love, have simple concepts. Pong, Breakout/superBreakout asteroids, berzerk, combat, pac-man, etc. Or simple gameplay, like Pitfall. I've seen a lot of games that I didn't like because they were to complex, they tried to do to much at once, which was probably an attempt to wow the consumers back then, but really, I love the simple stuff.

 

Over all, the game has to be easy to pick up and play (no instructions necessary) Hard to put down, and not overly easy/hard.

[Xot]

The common thread in the games I love comes straight from Atari themselves:

 

Simple to learn, diffcult to master.

 

A simple concept and difficulty that ramps. That's most of it right there.

[DuckandCover]

Over all, the game has to be easy to pick up and play (no instructions necessary)  Hard to put down, and not overly easy/hard.

 

Although there are a few exceptions (F-14 Tomcat, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Crypts of Chaos) for the most part, there is a real beauty to the plug and play simplicity of many 2600 titles that's hard to beat. The outstanding gameplay that the best 2600 carts offer has enabled them to endure and be enjoyed by discriminating (and nostalgic) gamers decades later. In a day where 3D graphics and "immersion" rule most game designs, I wish more designers would recognize the value of solid gameplay.

[Ranthulfr]

Over all, the game has to be easy to pick up and play (no instructions necessary)  Hard to put down, and not overly easy/hard.

Simple to learn, diffcult to master.  

 

I agree that some of the most popular and successful Atari games reflect that concept: Space Invaders, Pitfall and Demon Attack to name a few (I haven't been able to master those anyway - but that's not saying much). You definitely have a point there.

[birdie3]

I think the games that keep score in a vs. mode (ie: Sky Diver, Artillery Duel, Pong, California Games, Kaboom etc..) are best because they are the most competitive and they end with one winner and one can naturally gain some skill from practice. More importantly, the simpler the better in most cases.

 

Games that repeat over and over and just basically get harder and harder with no ending are monotonous and kind of pointless (ie: Missle Command, Tron Deadly Disks, Mario Bros. etc..). Head to head where there will always be one winner will always be the best. Two player 2600 games are the most fun. It is quite obvious that this system was not designed for one player only although some games are fun like Pitfall II, Frogger, and Secret Quest.

 

Sorry if your favorite game was bashed.