Jump to content
IGNORED

Thoughts On Homebrews


NovaXpress

Recommended Posts

This is just me thinking out loud. I have no expertise on the matter and my opinion is no more valuable than anyone elses. I just had a couple thoughts on the subject and wondered what the rest of you think. . .

 

When choosing classic games to adapt to the 2600, I've been thinking that some of the efforts, though amazing, don't add much to the classic gaming world. Is there any point to adapting a game that is already easily available to classic gaming fans? Does that add real value to the hobby or could the time/effor be better spent on something that doesn't otherwise exist?

 

To make it really hard on myself, I'll use 2600 Ladybug as an example. The game is amazing, the programmer is a freaking genius. Absolutely brilliant work. On the other hand, what does the hobby gain from it in the long run? Ladybug is already available on two classic machines. The CV version is perfect. So the reward is simply the ability to play a somewhat scaled-down version on the 2600.

 

Now compare that game to his upcoming 2600 Rip-Off. Rip-Off isn't available on any console system or PC as far as I know (Vectrex is its own beast). There aren't even any "rip offs" of Rip-Off that I'm aware of. For most people, this will be their first chance to play any version of the game.

 

My question is: does the hobby benefit more when one breaks new ground and delivers an experience otherwise unavailable? Leaving all technical and creative feats aside, are we better off with a new experience than we are with a game that most of us already own for another, higher-end system? I don't have an answer and am just wondering if anyone has any views or if I'm just being an idiot for wondering these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the community benefits from both in different ways.

Those who have never played a game before (whether it was previously released or not) have the best experience in the world imo.

 

Not everyone has all the systems or even cares about them so for those people who may never have played Ladybug before it's a new experience for those who have played it on a different system but prefer the 2600 to say a Coleco, it's a chance to play a game we like on a system we enjoy more or a chance to own a game if they do not collect for any other system but the 2600. It's also a different overall experience as well with different systems (not to mention the genius of the programmer).

Since I love the game and the system it was a bonus!

 

New games of course that aren't on any platform are a real treat especially considering the age of the console and the looks I get when people ask what my favorite system/s is/are and I automatically say "Atari of course!" People almost always ask with an incredulous voice some variation of "wow, they still make games for that?!" and I reply with a smile saying "yep, there are really some creative and talented programmers out there - isn't it cool?" :)

 

There's my 1/2 a cent anyway. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're definately not an idiot for pondering about this dilemma. :) There are several points to consider about this issue.

 

The first is recognizability: If a homebrew author is going to slave away at a game for months for a commercially dead system with virtually no chance of getting any real monitary gain out of it, he's going to want maximum recognition for his work in the retro community. That's usually the main objective, and the best way to achieve it is through a good dose of anticipation-inducing hype. Announce that you're making a port of a game that everyone loves to varying degrees, and watch the sparks fly! In turn, this helps to motivate the homebrew author in pushing forward and finishing his work.

 

The second is playability (which is really an extension of recognizability): On retro systems, a good game can't depend too much on graphics. It must rely instead on good play mechanics to keep the player interested. Most homebrew authors choose to port existing games with tried-and-true play mechanics, so that there is nothing to proove in terms of replay value. If players have played your game before in his/her local arcade and liked it, chances are they'll like your port of the same game just the same. Port a game that everyone has tried (and liked) at least once, and you'll get everyone's :thumbsup: .

 

The third is what I call "The proof": Sometimes, a homebrew author will be interested in porting a game from another system (with respect to the first two points above) just to proove that it can be done. Opcode's Pac-Man Collection, and his plan to remake Donkey Kong on the ColecoVision (to recreate the arcade experience) are good examples of this. johnnywc's Lady Bug also fits that category.

 

The fourth is the risk factor: Plenty of nice ideas for new games pop out of the minds of programmers (and non-programmers too) all the time. But a neat idea needs to be developed into a real game and that's where the risk factor comes in. It's the old looks-nice-on-paper-but-doesn't-really-work theorem. Here's a quick example: Submitted to your approval is a game called "Benny Hill's Naughty Pursuits" (let's leave copyright issues out of it for now). In this game, you control Benny Hill as he runs along platforms (in non-scrolling stages reminescent of games like Burger Time) where he has to chase after girls while evading people of authority like policemen. Benny can open doors (à la Elevator Action) which can have different consequences: A screaming naked lady will give the player bonus points, but bad stuff can also come out of those doors, like extra people to chase Benny. Benny can also rig funny booby traps to stun his pursuers (a bucket of water hanging over an open door, pants set on fire, that kind of thing). Sounds cool, doesn't it? Well, it could indeed be a cool game, but it could just as easely be a turd of repetitive gameplay. Good game design is more than just having good ideas, there's a certain level of talent required to turn good ideas into solid games, and not everyone is a Miyamoto. And that's really the point I'm trying to make: There's always a certain level of risk in making a brand new game. It's true for commercial games and homebrew games just the same. When porting a popular game, this risk simply goes away, because the proof-of-concept has already been demonstrated.

 

All these factors serve to explain why porting an existing game is more enticing than making a brand new game (or than porting a existing game few people know about).

 

But there is a certain practical solution to this problem, in my opinion: Sequels. If you're looking to create a game that has a brand new feel and introduces fresh ideas while still managing to generate a lot of interest in the retro community, making a sequel to an existing game is a good option. Here are a couple of examples to demonstrate my point:

 

- H.E.R.O. II: You still get to rescue miners like in the original game, but now the tunnels are big mazes with puzzle-style obstacles that must be solved along the way. There's a lot of potential right there for a great game that goes beyond the original.

 

- Pitfall III - Close Encounters of the Prehistoric Kind: It's essentially Pitfall Harry meets Jurrasic Park. Raptors chasing Harry around? I'll have some of that please! :D

 

I too wish homebrew authors would spend their valuable time and resources to make games that push the retro envelope further. Todays' systems (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, etc.) offer gaming experiences that are light years ahead of what the old consoles are capable of, but the Atari 2600, the ColecoVision, and all the other old gaming platforms still have a lot of charm and untapped potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am not interested in game design. I also have no musical or artistical talent. All I ever wanted to do is programming games, so creating a conversion is giving me precisely what I enjoy in this hobby.

 

The advantage of doing a conversion compared to some original idea is that I can play the original game straight away and can immediately see wether I like it or not.

 

Doing conversions is also about the challenge of making a game designed for another platform fit yours and filling the gaps in the library.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both things seems valuable to me, though in different ways.

 

I've seen enough people look at software and say "That would be great if it was available for (my system)", Something simply existing is not enough for many. All the recurrent interest in bigger and better versions of Pac-Man and Donkey Kong for the 2600, even though they're available for EVERYTHING else, including the 2600, seems to support that.

 

Using the Ladybug example, I've never played the Colecovision version, just th3 2600 and the arcade thru MAME. the 2600 version 'feels' better to me, though I don't have any strong connection to the arcade. I guess one could say homebrewers shouldn't bother porting anything, since the source games are probably available through emulation anyway, but I sure wouldn't want to.

Edited by Feralstorm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just realized that I not really answered the original question... :ponder:

 

Well, I don't make a difference between Lady Bug and Rip Off, since neither existed on the VCS before.

 

Redoing Pacman, Space Invaders or Donkey Kong I consider somewhat redundant. But when done with enough talent and effort I will enjoy those as well :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope no one thought I was getting down on certain games. Everything is great and worth doing and I admire the people who are capable of making so much as a pong game for the 2600.

 

It's just a thought I had that exclusive games like Rip-Off and Colony 7 will have an extra bit of value and importance for ME personally due to my individual outlook on classic gaming. I also have to admit that I don't get how a classic gamer doesn't have a Colecovision sitting around somewhere but so be it.

 

Thanks for the perspective, kids.

Edited by NovaXpress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too believe that there should be more original titles being produced as opposed to more conversions. It would be great to see some new ideas instead of re-hashes of the classics that we are already used to. I wonder why the trend thus far has been to predominantly create conversions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why the trend thus far has been to predominantly create conversions.

Probably because most homebrewers are better programmers than game designers. ;)

 

And, with only a few exceptions, I haven't seen any innovative, adictive game designs being presented here at AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Thomas: game programming and game design are two different skills, and it's very hard to come up with a totally new game concept (a least one that's actually fun). That's especially true on the 2600, where the most unique and original titles were built around new audio or visual effects that the programmers discovered. With the hardware almost completely exploited by this time, and with a library of hundreds of games, it's going to be hard to find new effects or to come up with new ideas on the 2600 that haven't already been done before (at least not without doing crazy unnatural things like putting 512K of ROM in a 2600 cartridge). That's why I'm focusing my homebrew efforts on the 7800 instead; there's a lot more room for growth and creativity there because it's a greatly under-utilized system.

 

Doing a carbon copy of another game can be a great learning exercise for homebrew developers because it forces them to stick to an unchangeable design and to find a way to replicate it using the limited resources at their disposal; an original game design, on the other hand, is a lot easier to fudge ("well, I can't figure out how to add this feature, so instead of learning how to do it right, I'm just going to drop it from the design"). Beyond that, I would prefer to see ports from coin-ops or from other platforms in only two circumstances: the game either has to be an unusual game that hasn't been brought to a home console before (I think Colony 7 is a great example), or the game has to build on the original in a way that doesn't ruin the gameplay but offers a nice upgrade (like the two-player cooperative mode in 7800 Centipede).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with anything new for a system. For example, there's no decent version of Asteroids for the Jaguar. Considering that other videogame classics are on the Jaguar (Missile Command, Breakout, Defender, Raiden, Pitfall - and of coure Tempest) and that Asteroids has appeared on every other Atari console, the Jag is absolutely crying out for a decent, complete version of Asteroids.

 

If someone offered a cart-based version of Jaguar Asteroids, I'd be all over it, even if it added nothing new to the formula.

 

But of course, if and when people bring out completely new games for a system, that's great too!

Edited by ls650
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why the trend thus far has been to predominantly create conversions.

 

I think you're counting it wrong. There seem to be just as much original titles in the store.

 

the game either has to be an unusual game that hasn't been brought to a home console before (I think Colony 7 is a great example)

 

Thanks! I enjoy trying to find such lesser known/forgotten/unpopular gems. I often find a game that seems to make a perfect 2600 conversion, especially amongst old Arcades. I mention Son Son every once in a while or Ninjakun or Water Ski or Space Beam or Rip Cord or Kaitei Takara Sagashi or Galaxy Wars or... Can't do em all on my own though... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. With it being pointed out that there is obviously a distinct difference between game design and game programming, why does there seem to be no collaboration between the designers and the programmers when it comes to homebrews? Seems rather unfortunate. There is a lot of talent on both sides of the fence. Why not work together to create a masterpiece? Surely this must make sense to someone..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. With it being pointed out that there is obviously a distinct difference between game design and game programming, why does there seem to be no collaboration between the designers and the programmers when it comes to homebrews? Seems rather unfortunate. There is a lot of talent on both sides of the fence. Why not work together to create a masterpiece? Surely this must make sense to someone..

Homebrew programmers working with other people...? As a "team"? What a strange and off-putting concept... :grin:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgetting about original designs, what about games that aren't otherwise available on a console (i.e. Rip-Off) There's a huge array of arcade classics that never made it home.

 

That was the rationale behind Death Derby. Picking a game that also can not be emulated is a good idea since it means nobody has seen it without playing the original (although arguably those early games are almost painfully minimalistic). It also makes it hard to study the original enough to port it accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. With it being pointed out that there is obviously a distinct difference between game design and game programming, why does there seem to be no collaboration between the designers and the programmers when it comes to homebrews? Seems rather unfortunate. There is a lot of talent on both sides of the fence. Why not work together to create a masterpiece? Surely this must make sense to someone..
Part of the problem is that there haven't been many thoughtful, structured proposals for new game designs. Sometimes, we get "I think it'd be great to combine Breakout and Space Invaders, now go code it for me and give me a 50% cut" posts. Or, at the opposite extreme, we get aborted projects like the ill-conceived Knight Rider 2600 from people who know more about writing reams of design documents and choosing snazzy company names/logos than they know about the capabilities of the target hardware. That's what prompted this much-needed post, which basically says that prospective game designers need to put more effort into learning about what the chosen platform can do and cannot do and coming up with designs that can work within those limitations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think in the area of emulation that there is a more exclusive slice of entertainment to provide an original game idea. While it is satisfying to see the 2600 pull enough tricks to do a decent port of a game, you're only one step away from playing the original in emulation if you want to. That's why, for instance, while I appreciate them all, I still think the original 2600 Space Invaders is better than the more accurate Space Invaders homebrews, because by deviating from the playbook, it makes it more of its own thing.

 

I definitely think there should be more collaboration between a designer and a programmer. I just don't know how many programmers would be willing to completely give up creative control from start to finish. We do come close to this, however, when a homebrewer starts a game and it is very undefined. He shares it and gets a lot of ideas from the community on how to evolve it. The end product has a lot to do with these ideas, but it's still an outshoot of his original rough idea. (Universally, developers who trust and respond to this feedback make the best games.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can weigh in for a moment here, I think you basically have two separate things driving programmers to create 2600 games:

  1. They want to prove that it can be done. A lot of arcade and computer conversions fall into this category. Would Conquest of Mars exist without the Caverns of Mars failed conversion? Possibly not. Conquest of Mars was a stellar attempt to prove that the 2600 was capable of handling this excellent Atari 8-bit title.
     
  2. Someone has a gameplay vision that they think would be a good fit for the VCS. So they pound it out to make a fresh new game for the platform.

In both cases, the games tend to evolve. I'd imagine that there are a few homebrewers who set out to create a complete game up front, but I think in a lot of cases it's something simple that grows into a complete game. e.g. Hunchy grew into Hunchy II. Go Fish 4K grew into the official Go Fish cartridge. Deimos Lander started as a one level demo that grew into a 4K Lunar Lander clone, that is growing into the latest entry into the small pool of 32K cartridges.

 

Of course, once a demo is complete, the initial driving factor to produce a complete game is gone. So what helps drive games forward? A few drives are:

  • Contests - If it takes just a little more to make a game suitable as an entry, most programmers will do the extra work.
  • Positive feedback - Believe it or not, every "Wow", "keep going", and "I want to see a cart version!" you guys post is helpful to homebrewers. It gives them a lot of confidence in their ability to finish a game, even if development is getting long in the tooth.
  • Fame and Fortune - Nothing says, "I'll finish it" like realizing that you're *this close* to finishing a title and having your work forever immortalized in saleable chunk of plastic and silicon.

Those are my thoughts anyway. I'll let other homebrewers confirm or refute my observations. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...