Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!inria!mirsa!sardaigne.inria.fr!buffa From: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Game vs Multitasking Message-ID: <7959@mirsa.inria.fr> Date: 5 Jun 90 15:16:53 GMT References: <3930@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <7934@mirsa.inria.fr> <1990Jun1.174404.1378@kth.se> <15397@s.ms.uky.edu> Sender: news@mirsa.inria.fr Reply-To: buffa@mirsa.inria.fr Distribution: comp Organization: Inria Sofia Antipolis Lines: 63 In article <15397@s.ms.uky.edu>, phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) writes: |> Michael Buffa (I think; the quotes got thick and furry for a while there) said: |> >>HEY ! A GAME MUST BE ENJOYABLE ! That's all ! |> Yes, a game must be enjoyable. Which is for me, at least, one reason why |> a game that takes over the machine and doesn't exit cleanly loses out. Here's |> why. |> I do a lot of work on la machine. I'm a writer, for example, and I |> publish a magazine on Amiga systems (the LOW ORBIT mentioned in my .sig.) |> I also like to play games - but I do it, generally, during breaks, in |> between other jobs. I don't want to have to shut down my hard drive and |> reboot to play a game, then reboot and reload all my applications when |> I'm done. |> You see, if a game doesn't behave properly, then I won't be able to |> play it nearly as much. I'll only be able to play it when I'm not doing |> anything else - which isn't very often. So I lose enjoyment attainability |> with games that don't multitask and otherwise behave - so much, in fact, |> that I "enjoy" games like the PD asteroids I've got more than the far better |> designed and complex "Shadow of the Beast." I've played the latter _once._ |> So yes, a game must be enjoyable. But if the most enjoyable game in |> the world presents such a complex problem to play that one only gets to |> play it every few months, how much entertainment value have you actually |> received? Damn little, in my opinion. I understand, but there is a difference between a game you play when you want to stop working for a while and a game you are going to play for several hours. In the first category, there is for example Tetris, which I play on my Sun4 while I compile my applications, and that I can pause and iconify when I'm really working, and in the second category, there is Ultima games, arcade games like Battle Squadron (We understand clearly that this particular game can't exit cleanly because it is so giant and so addictive it's sure it takes all the memory, and anyway, we don't care because everytime you loose, you want to play again)... You talked about "Shadow of the Beast". That's a very bad example as this game is a very bad game. It's nice, but not enjoyable at all, much too difficult, no interest. In this case, of course, it's really a pain that the game crashes your machine, can't load properly, and so on..... In conclusion: if a game is really good and if it is necessary due to memory limitation or other reasons that it can't exit cleanly, can't be installed on HD, that's OK. If it's a very simple game like tetris, a simulation game, a game with a lot of disk access, it must be possible to install it on HD and exit cleanly; but it also be enjoyable. Anyway, a bad game will be always a bad game, and a good game always a good game, some of them better designed than others (but don't flame the authors of TURRICAN if their game don't exit cleanly, because they made such a good job) Do we agree ? ------------------------------------------ Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France Internet: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr Surface Mail: Michel BUFFA, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, 2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE Voice phone: (33) 93.65.78.39, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 65 ------------------------------------------