I'd like to add a couple potential titles: Mr. Do and Zaxxon.

And, a thought on the potential time-based limitations for various titles, I think any time limit chosen should be long enough to actually get into the "meat' of the game but also short enough to encourage participation. If a time limit is too short, then it becomes more of an exercise in trying to optimize scoring on the early boards of a game. If a time limit is too long, then that may discourage some players.

Originally Posted by dbh

I'd like to add a couple potential titles: Mr. Do and Zaxxon.

And, a thought on the potential time-based limitations for various titles, I think any time limit chosen should be long enough to actually get into the "meat' of the game but also short enough to encourage participation. If a time limit is too short, then it becomes more of an exercise in trying to optimize scoring on the early boards of a game. If a time limit is too long, then that may discourage some players.

RTM REPLY - thanks, Don !! I initially left those off as while I understand the games I was no expert on when things get dicey on each. I haven't played either since I think the old (VERY old) TG Atari/Coleco Console Deca from a good 17-19 years ago !!

Jimmy would likely destroy the Mr Do score no matter what the time threshold was. Most players can't last an hour, and maybe 15 minutes is too short. No law in having a 30 minute threshold for a title...sounds about right ?

Zaxxon...I'm pretty sure that 15 minutes is less meaty, using your words. Is this a title where 60 minutes is just right or too long, and if the latter, would 30 minutes also work best ?

Originally Posted by RTM

RTM REPLY -


Jimmy would likely destroy the Mr Do score no matter what the time threshold was.

Robert. You are MOST likely right. But that could be said to be most likely right for any player that has absolute high skills in a given game, like Jimmy on Mr Do.

For example my earlier post about not allowing million point jumps in ZK to count is still not enough to stop ME from getting a huge score simply because I can point press the game better than most.

I know this might be too hard, but have you considered a "handicap" for example, with the rules that I suggested for ZK, the only way I would consider it challenging against other players is if only HALF of my total score counted. That's just a hypothetical example. ?


john

.

Originally Posted by lexmark

Robert. You are MOST likely right. But that could be said to be most likely right for any player that has absolute high skills in a given game, like Jimmy on Mr Do.

For example my earlier post about not allowing million point jumps in ZK to count is still not enough to stop ME from getting a huge score simply because I can point press the game better than most.

I know this might be too hard, but have you considered a "handicap" for example, with the rules that I suggested for ZK, the only way I would consider it challenging against other players is if only HALF of my total score counted. That's just a hypothetical example. ?


john

.

yes!!! a point i make to people who crap on marathons or maxouts, is all games eventually turn into that. Its absolutely true when a game is mastered it stops being interesting for competion. the interesting competions are on games noone has mastered yet, but that cant last forever unless the game sucks and noone plays it, but even in that case the competiton ended cause of lack of interest

if the goal is to have an etenral event, while also having an event noone is a master at, those 2 goals contradict each other. You can rule out titles that currently have a new star, but if the competitoin takes off, new stars will be born.

new creative rule sets and ways to play can absoultley breathe fresh life into a game and give everyone a chance, but if those rules are to stay eternal, well, the new creative thing will eventually be an old hashed out thing.

i think eternal rules and consistent competiion is good. i think creative rules are fun. i dont think its possible to combine the two though. these are gonna be two seperate types of fun just due to their nature. only exceptions i can see is if the game is so random practice wont help (but i'm guessing thats not wanted here), if the games are so uninteresting noone masters them (also cant see that viewed as good), if the games are so dang tough people stay interested forever (this would be awesome but i think rather unlikely)

For both Zaxxon and Mr. Do, a 30-minute time limit might be a good compromise. Or, something like score after a certain number of boards (eg, end of level 19 in Zaxxon, end of level 30 in Mr Do).

Always love ideas that promote participation from many and not just "the top". :D

On the idea as a whole vs. the current scoreboard dynamics: is this not something akin to simply "an ESI table for a collection of specific tracks"? (Granted, those tracks may not yet exist.)

[Edit:] A new "platform" for this open-ended competition and ESI across the set of games on that "platform". (Just thinking path of least dev investment.)

Originally Posted by Pearl2hu

yay classic only while late 80's and onward arcade score attack is literally forgotten

:)

Yeah, somewhere TG is known as "the community of people only obsessed with the Golden Age coin-ops", lol.

Originally Posted by Luigi Ruffolo

Yeah, somewhere TG is known as "the community of people only obsessed with the Golden Age coin-ops", lol.

RTM REPLY - that's actually a biased assessment. In terms of accessibility, most modern-era arcade offerings are simply not available to the masses, especially some of today's multi-player offerings which include fishing rods, fire hoses and various weapons. They are either at your local arcade or you are likely not going to see them ever.

Titles such as "The Grid", which I actually like, are all but gone. The "golden age ops" have passed the test for longevity and fan-base. I have yet to see more than a single post on "The Grid", for example, on the TG forum, or for that matter on any of the relatively newer arcade challenges such as the one for "Ghostbusters" which is at Funspot.

Classic console is the same thing...you have a number of ways to play vintage classics like the Atari 2600 and so forth, including modern era "retro consoles". Good luck trying to play certain PC and MAC-based titles though which are specific to certain operating systems as you have compatibility issues galore. And some computer titles such as "Lemmings" are pretty much gone though console-based translations live on.

The purpose of this specific proposed transition is to create a legacy achievement competition open to the widest variety of arcade players possible of all skillsets, one that compares skillsets from golden era and modern era players to those of our future counterparts. As we will be unable to play titles created 40-50 years from now, those from a future era can see how they fare against their arcade predecessors, for apples-to-apples comparative purposes. And we may never know if today's legacy records and championship mantle may be overtaken decades from now, but more power to a player who can pull that off considering how much gaming excellence they would surpass in the process.

This is why there is so much interest in the records of the past, whether sports or other, are surpassed years even decades down the line. Should anyone, for example, beat "The Streak" in baseball (you know the one I am talking about) or becoming the next player to finish a standard season with a .400 batting average, beating the aggregate majors total of Jack Nicklaus, breaking the Olympic long jump record, etc...it is cause for celebration to be sure.

Fifty years from now odds are that there will still be gamers interested in the golden era classics like "Robotron", "Donkey Kong" and "Pacman", but odds are they won't care one bit about "The Grid" or even "Animal Crossings".

There is nothing wrong with a site that likes to explore what's current and what awaits all of us ahead while respecting and honouring that which has already happened years and decades prior.

I dont even mean late 00's or 10's Arcade, I assumed this was for MAME too, games past 1990 would be fantastic instead of strictly golden-age.

There are literally thousands of games to figure out for people

With all due respect, I view this proposal as being extremely limiting yet overly complicated, and very likely to make existing problems exponentially worse.

Case in point, the bulk of the discussion quickly began to focus on which titles to include, new v/s old, the rules for each, etc. Imagine what would happen if were actually put into practice. If you guessed more debate and/or more conflict, you're probably right.