From: vgriscep@wam.umd.edu (VGR (Craig Pell))
Subject: Re: Dragon's Lair and pattern based games (Was: Video Game Renaissance)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:58:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205711.13760@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.174508.3890@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, brackney@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry J Brackney) writes:
>> 
>Dragon's Lair was even LESS then stimulus reaction -- it was pattern based
>and a simplistic, repetition memory game that guarantees you'll eventually
>"beat" it (as with most of todays games and for sound economic reasons --
>see following.)

Not necessarily.  Dragon's Lair had a pattern, but I would not compare it
to the mindless, scripted games so common today.  Especially a Dragon's
Lair machine on the hardest setting.
For one thing, you need reflexes.  There are some places where you need to do
more than just memorize.  You need to be *fast*.  And no amount of money will
do the job.  I can name the specific rooms, if you like.
A very important difference is that in Dragon's Lair, you must complete the
game with one credit.  You *cannot* use money to replace your lack of skill.
I think you'll find that many people's timing and steadiness tend to 
degrade before they reach the final sequence.  Especially on the game's hardest
setting!

I might also point out that Dragon's Lair II is different, in that you can
memorize it, but you can also play it as a novice and go quite far;  it is
entirely a game of reflexes.  It *is* possible to go through the entire without
memorizing it.  Just keep your eye on the whole screen and watch for the
flashes.  This works!

>The point is that ANYONE who plays the game will do well at it with very
>little effort even if the game seems impossible at first.  That makes
>people happy (after all, what's better then a feeling of accomplishment?)
>and happy people spend money.  They achieve this goal with minimal expense
>of time, effort and money.  The same argument can be applied to the
>reasons behind the existence of so many pattern based games for home
>systems as well.

Sadly, you're right.  There is no point to having skill;  the game doesn't
care how skillful you are.  The pinnacle of this is Ataxx, because no matter
how good you are, when your time has run down, you're screwed.

It makes me sick that someone could feel a sense of accomplishment from 
winning a game with $30 in quarters.  That is no accomplishment.  Yeah, I
know, it makes money.  So does slave labor.  So does Jimmy Swaggart.

   VGR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Let's see what you can do."
    "This one's a milk-run, kid;  so let's see how quickly you can do it!"
    "Don't waste time on this one!"
    "Stay low to follow the river;  and don't cut those corners too tight!"
    "Choose your attack route carefully!"
    "Watch those TV closeups;  use your missiles for the dangerous targets!"
    "Take out the jets on the runway *before* they get airborne!"
    "Let's go!"
    "Stay high to avoid some nasty squeezes!"
    "Take out the jets on the runway *before* they get airborne!"
    "Stay low to avoid the bogeys;  and save some missiles for 'em!"
    "Trust your radar in the fog!"
    "This is your final exam, kids;  good luck!"

Xref: sparky rec.games.video:20362 alt.games.lynx:854