From: MJV@brownvm.brown.edu (Marshall Vale)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Why walk throughs?
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:11:05 EDT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <1992Aug15.190440.3993@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
(Stephen Jonke) said:
>The only reason games like this have "secrets" is so that they can print
>what they are in video game magazines.  This increases sales of video game
>mags where the game companies place ads so that their sales increase as
>well, and around she goes....

   Nasty circle. I see it to often these days. The only way you can find
out about 'tricks' or 'codes' is buy the magazines, often put out by
the company that makes the game. Basically I view it as buying a hint book
with ads and nothing more. The questions and antics have gotten even
sillier since the days of EG (that's Electronic Games, r.i.p.). I noticed
that the 'hint' book for Zelda 3 was out as soon as the game. sigh

>Also, Klax is not entirely guilt free -- Klax does have an "ending" (there
>are 100 levels) and there simply is no reason for it to have one.  Why not
>continue on infinitely making up more difficult levels on the fly?  Having
>an ending fails to see the point of the game and I suspect was not the
>original intention of the designers.
>Steve

  Oh, you've touched more of my sore points (as RJ knows, sorry I never
got back but works been hectic!). I feel mighty frustrated by games that
have endings these days. It just seems that the developers see that by
putting in an ending allows them to not actually create a game but a 'puzzle'
as someone said earlier. I work all that way and I must defeat some boss.
That's it. Personally, I feel more satisfaction playing something
like Star Wars (arcade) and knowing that I can sit down and play it
forever. I have beat the game, it can never defeat me BUT it still has
playability. None of these current games seem to have any playability.
(Does anyone actually use that word anymore?)
  It's such a sore spot for me since I've had arguments about it with
some of my friends. One of my friends, a writer, says he only likes
games with an end since they have a story. He can't see the point of playing
something if it never ends. I feel that I should only pay about $5 to
watch a movie since this is what these games are.
   However, I must concede that some of my favorite games have endings
BUT they are not just memorizing patterns to get there. Blue Lightning
and Toe Jam & Earl come to mind. However, I rented TAZ this past week
and thought it was just utterly horrible. I hate games where you
must die before you figure out a pattern (the mine cart sequence was
just pitiful). In addition, if I hadn't had an EGM (borrowed thank god)
with me, I never would have figured out what the platform was in the
factory. It doesn't stand out. TJ&E and TAZ are just totaly different
ends of the spectrum in quality, yet both have endings.

   Maybe I'm just wishing for a return of those hard to grasp concepts
of playability and gameplay. Maybe it was because way-back-when (tm),
you didn't have cheap ram for huge bitmaps to atract the player, so
you spent time developing a game that would lure the player back and
back for more.

Cheers all,
Marshall "Who just wanted to rant for once" Vale
--mjv@brownvm.brown.edu
ps. Loved Road Rash though...