Play Meter

COMMENTARY
Each game must be judged
on its own merits
By Don Traeger of Atari Games
After reading the July 15 edition of Play Meter 's
Critic's Corner by Roger Sharpe entitled " Paperboy and
Marble Madness Game Over-Not Good, " I was
compelled to respond from another point of view .
While Mr. Sharpe makes some good points and
shows a genuine concern for the design and imple-
mentation of good games for our playing public, I think he
is in serious error when implying that all good games must
have continuous, open-ended game design. This is
simply not the case .
Why should video games necessarily need to have a
non-ending game structure to qe successful and collect
long term quarters? In the old days when video game
design was in its infancy, this did seem to be the case.
Games would simply loop ad infinitum until the location
closed or the player was dragged away bleary eyed from
the machine.
Today's game player is much more experienced. He's
seen it all. He's looking for something new. He wants to be
entertained and amused . If he wants to spend all day in
front of a video screen, he'll probably opt for MTV.
Think about games throughout history. Checkers has
an ending . Monopoly may last for awhile, but somebody
eventually wins and the game is concluded . Why should
video game design be any different? One of the longest
earning games, Pole Position , has a finite game structure
that ends after about five laps around the Fuji Speedway.
Has an operator or player ever said that P9le Position is no
good because the game has no ending? I think not!
Last winter, I had the pleasure of attending a national
video game contest in Los Angeles sponsored by Walter
Day and the Twin Galaxies International Scoreboard . This
contest featured the best U.S. and Canadian video game
players . They told me to keep making games that end .
These players told me that well designed games with
plenty of action and variety (especially in scoring) and an
end are their favorites. They said that close-ended games
offer more of a sense of accomplishment and of winning,
if they can get through the whole thing . They saw no fun in
merely droning out in front of a video monitor for hours as
the game wraps itself around.
They also said a close-ended game allowed for better,
more concise challenges and competitive score
comparisons . Bes ides, why should an operator want
games that allow someone to tie up the machine for
6
hours? If the game is designed right, the same player will
play for the same length of time, but put in several
quarters and have more fun .
The key to a successful game is the fundamental
game play . A well designed game can earn longer,
regardless of its open or close-ended structure . In the
design of Paperboy, this and longer average game times
to influence repeat play , was considered very carefully . In
fact , these issues were some of our greatest sources of
discussion during the two years we were developing the
game. Hardly an attempt in development shortcuts in an
effort to meet deadlines, Mr. Sharpe.
The entertainment value is what counts . If it is a good
game. with variety and wide player appeal , the game will
earn good money longer. The few players that will get all
the way through , and do so enough to get bored , will not
influence the collections one bit .
Of course , the goal is coming up with a suitable game
that offers enough long term variety and depth to utilize
the close-ended design . It's simpler to just design a game
that lets someone play out forever. Paperboy, Pole
Position , VS. Baseball, and Hat Trick are all great
examples of games that work extremely well with close-
ended design .
I am not recommending that all games be close-
ended or that open-ended games will not work any more.
Many of our designers prefer the open-ended format and
are currently designing some great open-ended games.
However, others believe in the satisfaction a well
designed close-ended game can bring players. (Remem-
ber the enthusiasm displayed by those few who could get
all the way through and rescue the Princess in the final
encounter in Dragon 's Lair?)
I know that Mr. Sharpe has the best interests of our
industry in mind . As manufacturers of video game
equipment, I can assure him that we do as well. The
design of Paperboy was well thought out. In no way did we
lack the process of forethought in its development...look
at some collection reports!
To close , I would like to say that I feel it is healthy for
all of us who care to openly discuss issues which affect us
all. However, I would like to warn Mr. Sharpe against
lumping all games with certain features or design as
categorically bad . To say that close-ended games won 't
earn , I feel , is a grave oversight on his part. Every game
should be considered on its own merit .
•
PlAY METER. September 15, 1965