The Four Rules Of Good computer Games (from 1983)

    Saw this on Slashdot: http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/i ... growup.php

    It's an article from 1983 about what good computer games should be. The four rules go as such:

    1. A home computer game should not be designed to minimize playtime - it should not be designed to take away quarters by making the game impossible to beat.

    2. It should use the full power of the computer - it should do things that only the computer can do well, and it should use all the appropriate resources the computer provides.

    3. It should be an excellent game, not just excellent programming - the play itself should be exciting and not serve merely as an excuse to show off the programmer's expertise.

    4. Above all, the game should be designed so the player controls and, to some degree, creates the game as he plays - I have little patience with games that play me, forcing me to follow only one possible track or learn one mechanical skill if I hope to win.

    So for the most part, the rules are all still valid. #1 is still one of the biggest critera for game reviewers. Players want play hours the double (or even triple) digits. #2 is obviously the reason we all have video cards that are probably worth more than most people's computers. #3 pretty much sums up the Xbox 360. You've got games that show off just waht the hardware can do, and then you've got Geometry Wars which is the best game on the system to play right now. #4 is the reason we have games like GTA, Katamari, and all the MMORPGs.

    Thought it was a fun read for all the old memories. Plus the article goes on to talk about have revloutionary and original this new studio called Electronic Arts is. Seems they're trying to make a game studio that doesn't crank out clones of other games or lots of sequels. Can't wait to see what they come up with in the next 20 years.

    partialy true indeed, seeing the fact we nowadays talk about totally different aproaches of "games" itself. these rules can not be aplied to most modern games for they are "new" genres that did not exist at the time this was written. also i dont think its really possible to make rules for that count for every single game because every game is different (or atleast supposed to be) all game devs have their own "rules" wich they aplie to their games

    well, when you think about it, tetris was using the full power of the machine back then.

    But even for the modern spinoffs, like Lumines, you dont need to push the envelope in terms of power in order to have a damn fine entertaining game.

    Quote from RD

    #1 violated by counterstrike#2 violated by tetris

    #3 violated by garrys mod

    #4 would be King Kong? I pick King Kong and not other FPS sinc its fairly linear and there is only one thing you can do at a time (Clear these bugs before you can move on, rinse and repeat). Unlike Civ4, GTA, Gun, where the player has the freedom to do what they want.

    Quote from Fletch

    3. It should be an excellent game, not just excellent engine graphics - the play itself should be exciting and not serve merely as an excuse to show off the engine's graphics ability.

    Fixed!

    i agree with all but #1. I don't think games should be made with the notion of making them impossible to beat!

    I feel better for getting so frustrated all those countless times playing rushn attack never being able to get by the 3rd level. lol

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login