Re: Re: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1
I found one flaw right here: Since there is no such thing as an RPG that isn't also an adventure, or strategy, or action game, RPG becomes a sub-genre instead of a main one. There are certainly RPGs that aren't adventure (or other genre) games. Two off the top of my head are Telengard and Rogue -- two of my favorites. There is no story to speak of in these type of games...there may be a story hinted in the manual or maybe in the conclusion (some games are open ended and have no conclusion). Even if there is the slightest hint of a story, you said that .0001% (paraphrasing) content doesn't make it switch genre. These games are hack and slash games whose goal is to make your characters as powerful as possible and find lots of treasure. No serious action, strategy or adventure. I can dig up several more of these games. Generally you'll find them to be older games since story became more common as the industry grew. However, you could argue that a game like Diablo is still a hack-n-slash RPG. They throw in some randomized plot elements (quests), but it is quite secondary to the fun of the game. Again, if Half Life isn't an adventure I would say Diablo isn't, but it is definitely an RPG. Mobygames says it is action. I'd say that's debatable since the definition requires the main focus to be action. But Telengard and Rogue are definitely not action games. Hugh ---Original Message--- From: Jim Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/22/03 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1 Edward Franks wrote: The problem is that you can easily swap in role-playing games as a basic building block in place of Adventure. The same justifications work for either. The two are so close together (more than any of the other categories) that it is hard sometimes to see the unique differences. I completely disagree. All RPGs are adventures, but not all adventures are RPGs; because of this, RPG is a subgenre in our system. Before you debate further, here is our definition of Adventure (a main genre) and RPG (a subgenre). Please read them over before responding. Adventure: Denotes any game where the emphasis is based on experiencing a story through the manipulation of one or more user-controlled characters and the environment they exist in. Gameplay mechanics emphasize decision over action. Role-playing games (RPGs) are a common sub-genre of all adventure games, as are the classic Sierra Quest series of games. Text adventures (Interactive Fiction) are also, by definition, adventure games. Role-Playing: Denotes games where the creation and advancement of character statistics is a major element of gameplay mechanics. Inspired by traditional role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons. Players have specific attributes, hit points, etc. and a large part of gameplay involves improving your character(s) through experience. Examples: Bard's Tale, Wizardry, Might and Magic, Lands of Lore, Wasteland, Fallout, etc. (Does not have to be based in fantasy settings, but most are.) --- For extra credit, the MobyGames FAQ Why is your main category list so sparse? Where's RPG? Where's puzzle games? is answered like this: Our main list of genres -- also referred to as main categories -- are the most basic building blocks of game taxonomy. Meaning, they are intentionally basic and encompassing, such that any game in the world can fit into at least one of the main categories. A lot of people have asked us why some genres, specifically RPG, are not included in this list. That is because, for a game category to be included in the main list, it must stand by itself. Since there is no such thing as an RPG that isn't also an adventure, or strategy, or action game, RPG becomes a sub-genre instead of a main one. Here's an example clarifying how important the main categories are: Think about the materials we see around us. What's the common classification expression -- Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral, right? That's a pretty good example: I am animal, the taco I just ate was vegetable, and the toilet I will no doubt be visiting shortly is mineral. Asking for the RPG genre to join the main list is like asking for rocks to join the Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral list when it's clearly already a mineral. It doesn't matter if the rock is in the shape of, say, an animal; that doesn't change the fact that it is a rock. Hopefully by now you can see the importance we place on our main categories for the purposes of proper game classification. They may not match your specific definition of a game type, but that is sort-of the point. In order to properly classify games such as a scientist would classify a new element, we have to break the mold and classify them how they are supposed to be classified, not how they already have been for years. --- Now, if you see any problems in that logic, please let me know. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most
Re: Re: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1
RE: #1. Actually Spacewar was the first computer game...and it was an action game. But yes, computer adventure came before computer RPG. I'm not sure that is of any significance; however, since several other genres (besides action and strategy) also came after Adventure. #2. Fantasy is not a computer-game-genre-specific characteristic. Adventures can be fantasy, sci-fi, noir, reality-based, etc. Same with RPGs. The real differentiator between video game genres should be the essence of what makes it a fun game: - For an Adventure game, it is problem/puzzle solving. I contend that Adventure games are a sub-genre of puzzle games. Without problem/puzzle solving in an adventure game, you would have no game. You would have a story (even if that was fun, it wouldn't be a game). - For RPGs, it is character growth and item gathering. This makes it distinct and not a sub-genre. A game can have this as its only focus and be fun. See Telengard, Rogue, Temple of Apshai, NetHack, etc. Hugh ---Original Message--- From: Jim Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/22/03 03:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1 Hugh and Edward: You've presented some strong arguments and I'm going to have to think about them before coming up with a rebuttal. But first let me pose some situations and questions: 1. Adventure was the first computer game, yes? It was not an RPG. So computer adventure games came before computer RPGs, right? 2. The Adventure genre encompasses *all* fantasy-style gaming. So RPG fits into it, yes? If not, why? #2 is the dealbreaker. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive gaming database project. -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
Re: RE: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1
Starting in 1986, I played most of these games on the Atari ST and/or Amiga. I seem to recall the graphics being improved over the Apple/PC/C-64 versions, and I recall using a mouse. Has anybody compared the originals to the Amiga/ST ports? That could have a big effect on Jim's technology concerns. I know that Karl is a big Amiga fan, and they might have had two very different experiences playing the same game. Hugh ---Original Message--- From: John Romero [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/21/03 01:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1 But the animations were incredibly crude because the sprites were inexplicably limited to half-horizontal-resolution sprites! And so were the backgrounds! I originally thought this would be for a speed increase or storage requirement decrease -- but on closer examination, the text boxes that pop up show that the game is running in 320x200, which is not half-horiz-res. And since the game backgrounds were all vector graphics, it would not have taken up that much more space to hold 320x200 coordinates. It drove me nuts to see, game after game, graphics created and displayed at 160x200 running in a 320x200 graphics mode! I believe the reason why the graphics on the PC were so low res is because they were merely ports of the Apple II games to start with. Then, when they moved over to developing the titles on the PC, they didn't change their engine technology because that resolution was the most compatible with the C-64 and Apple II systems of the day. The Apple II version of King's Quest was one of the early double-resolution 16-color games and subsequent Sierra adventures used that graphics mode. Double-res on the Apple II was 160x192 with 16 colors. Mixed-mode graphics on the C64 was 160x200 with 4 colors (from a 16-color palette) per 4x8 character block. It was just a logical decision to use the same assets and resolution as the other popular platforms. - John -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
RE: RE: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1
I remember playing the Atari ST version of Black Cauldron and it was a straight port of the 16-color Apple II version. - John -Original Message- From: Karl Kuras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1 Actually, I hate to say this, but until the 256 color versions of the games appeared, the Amiga and ST ports were 1-1 conversions of the PC games. No improvements whatsoever... in fact many of them ran slower. This actually goes to the issue of the lowest common denominator argument made earlier. They really did just cater to the lowest graphical platform (Apple II for several years until I believe Space Quest III or KQ 4 came out... not sure which was first). And then ported those libraries straight to other systems. As far as I know the C64 had no Quest games at all. I found a catalog listing KQ1 for the C64 once, but this was then corrected in later catalogs and never mentioned again. Not sure why this change was made, but ultimately it doesn't matter. Another side issue, if memory serves me correctly the original version of KQ1 (for the PC Jr.) did not have mouse support... this was only added later for those platforms that did have mice like the Amiga and ST. Can someone confirm this? Karl Kuras - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:39 PM Subject: Re: RE: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1 Starting in 1986, I played most of these games on the Atari ST and/or Amiga. I seem to recall the graphics being improved over the Apple/PC/C-64 versions, and I recall using a mouse. Has anybody compared the originals to the Amiga/ST ports? That could have a big effect on Jim's technology concerns. I know that Karl is a big Amiga fan, and they might have had two very different experiences playing the same game. Hugh ---Original Message--- From: John Romero [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/21/03 01:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SWCollect] King's Quest 1 But the animations were incredibly crude because the sprites were inexplicably limited to half-horizontal-resolution sprites! And so were the backgrounds! I originally thought this would be for a speed increase or storage requirement decrease -- but on closer examination, the text boxes that pop up show that the game is running in 320x200, which is not half-horiz-res. And since the game backgrounds were all vector graphics, it would not have taken up that much more space to hold 320x200 coordinates. It drove me nuts to see, game after game, graphics created and displayed at 160x200 running in a 320x200 graphics mode! I believe the reason why the graphics on the PC were so low res is because they were merely ports of the Apple II games to start with. Then, when they moved over to developing the titles on the PC, they didn't change their engine technology because that resolution was the most compatible with the C-64 and Apple II systems of the day. The Apple II version of King's Quest was one of the early double-resolution 16-color games and subsequent Sierra adventures used that graphics mode. Double-res on the Apple II was 160x192 with 16 colors. Mixed-mode graphics on the C64 was 160x200 with 4 colors (from a 16-color palette) per 4x8 character block. It was just a logical decision to use the same assets and resolution as the other popular platforms. - John -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/ -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available at: http://www.mail- [EMAIL PROTECTED]/ -- This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect' Archives are available
