My very first 2600 design ever: R-C Tim-Bot!

[Pixelboy]

And it will probably also be my last.

 

I came up with this idea while travelling on the bus back from work, and since I had some free time tonight with nothing special to do, I decided to make a quick mockup of my game idea and to post it here, just for fun. I think it's the kind of silly little game perfectly suited to the 2600, but I'll let you be the judge.

 

The story in a nutshell, which is set during the Atari 2600 years (circa 1982): Timmy's dad, an electronic engineer, gave Timmy a custom-made remote-controlled toy robot for his birthday. Timmy was very excited at first and played with his new toy inside the house quite a lot, but it didn't take long for him to get bored. Then he went to play outside in the backyard, and saw some ants running around in the grass. Timmy suddently had an idea for a little game: How many ants could his mighty "Tim-Bot" stomp before the batteries went dead?

 

CONTROLS: You control Tim-Bot using a very rudimentary control system which is layed out at the bottom of the screen. There are five buttons on the remote (L=turn left, R=turn right, F=move forward, B=move backward, M=magnet) and the player can only press one button at a time, by moving the yellow cursor left or right and pressing the fire button to press the currently selected button on the remote. (Note that you could easely play this game with the Track & Field controller).

 

GAMEPLAY: The main objective is to stomp as many ants as you can with the toy robot before its battery dies (the battery's power gauge is located at the very bottom of the screen). You get 10 points for every ant you stomp. There is also an auxiliary objective, which is to catch the spare battery that's lying in the grass. If Tim-Bot catches the battery with his magnet, he earns a battery recharge that extends the playing time. The only problem is that the wily ants keep moving the battery around the backyard, so catching it with such rudimentary controls is quite a challenge. You must also make sure Tim-Bot doesn't fall into the ant holes that pop up in the grass, so be wary of ants suddently popping out of the ground right in front of you!

 

I could explain the game mechanics a bit more, but I think you can get a pretty good idea of the game from what I've written above, in addition to the mockup below. I don't have time to actually learn Atari 2600 programming, and frankly, I don't expect anyone here will ever program this, but just for the sake of argument, do you think a game like this could be done with Batari Basic?

Edited March 20, 2007 by Pixelboy

[+atari2600land]

That sounds kinda familiar...

[supercat]

CONTROLS: You control Tim-Bot using a very rudimentary control system which is layed out at the bottom of the screen. There are five buttons on the remote (L=turn left, R=turn right, F=move forward, B=move backward, M=magnet) and the player can only press one button at a time, by moving the yellow cursor left or right and pressing the fire button to press the currently selected button on the remote. (Note that you could easely play this game with the Track & Field controller).

 

In other words, you're going out of your way to make the controls clunky and annoying?

[Gregory DG]

Funny. I just bought a Lego Mindstorms NXT to learn this stuff for a summer kids class I'll be teaching. Maybe you could do something like that? Have the player build the robot and see what it does on it's own? A tough challenge on the 2600 for sure, but one that would be rewarding and well received.

[+batari]

CONTROLS: You control Tim-Bot using a very rudimentary control system which is layed out at the bottom of the screen. There are five buttons on the remote (L=turn left, R=turn right, F=move forward, B=move backward, M=magnet) and the player can only press one button at a time, by moving the yellow cursor left or right and pressing the fire button to press the currently selected button on the remote. (Note that you could easely play this game with the Track & Field controller).

 

In other words, you're going out of your way to make the controls clunky and annoying?

Yeah, an action game would be tough to play with that control scheme. I'd just make the controls simple, like Combat.

 

Aside from that, I think the general concept of the game could translate to the 2600, and even batari Basic using the multisprite kernel if you make a few small compromises.

[Pixelboy]

That sounds kinda familiar...

I drew this up quickly and didn't check for other similar games when I posted this. Any similarities with other games is purely coincidental.

 

 

In other words, you're going out of your way to make the controls clunky and annoying?

Yeah, an action game would be tough to play with that control scheme. I'd just make the controls simple, like Combat.

The controls could be more intuitive, but then the game would be extremely easy. Mastering rudimentary controls is what this game is all about. I know it wouldn't be a game for everyone...

 

 

Aside from that, I think the general concept of the game could translate to the 2600, and even batari Basic using the multisprite kernel if you make a few small compromises.

Thanks Batari.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

The controls could be more intuitive, but then the game would be extremely easy. Mastering rudimentary controls is what this game is all about. I know it wouldn't be a game for everyone...

Hm, so the whole deal of the game are the awkward controls which have to be controlled by normal controls? I don't think this is a good idea to start with.

 

If you want to limit the controls, then maybe something like morse-codes (e.g. one tap = turn left, two taps = turn right...) would work.

 

But generally IMO the game should be fun and not about controls-mastering.

[vdub_bobby]

I really like this concept, it's cute and fun. Of course, I have a weak spot for robots, so...

 

 

Anyway, I'll join the chorus: making the controls difficult is a very bad design choice. A Combat-style control scheme, like batari mentioned, is clunky enough to give the feel of remotely controlling a robot while still being fairly easy to use. There are many many other things you can do to balance the difficulty.

 

Nice idea and for the mockup!

Edited March 20, 2007 by vdub_bobby

[BigO]

I'm really not much of a true "gamer", but I agree that making the game about mastering an intentionally awkward control scheme isn't the best plan. Though, I understand the concept that it adds challenge and I think is intended to play in to the "homebuilt bot" story line. I disagree with the statement that the game would be nothing without this ill-conceived control scheme.

 

How about straight forward control of the bot with the joystick (which happens to have the 5 needed functions), but add some elements that will cause the bot to be more challenging to control. If I may brainstorm just a tiny bit:

* "It's a custom built robot, not yet free of bugs/operating glitches" could enhance the storyline. Maybe it speeds up or slows down or refuses to turn left for "random" periods of time. Play up the clunky homebrew robot angle. Make the dad be a nutty professor or basement tinkerer instead of an engineer. Use your pictured display panel to show malfunction indicators maybe? (Kind of contrary to the "clunky homebrew" concept but will help the player know that their antique joystick isn't failing intermittently)

* Bumps or obstacles in the field could cause it to drift off course: gophers, dogs, anthills, garden hoses, mud puddles, something that could be rendered with simple graphics

* Exceptionally skittery little ants might be hard to stomp (something for the Difficulty switches?)

 

The general concept seems like a basic, simple, fun game that could ultimately be made difficult to master. In large part, that seems to be the foundation of a good, addictive game.

 

On the other hand, I remember reading something where a member here was really happy about having a new kids game being created (a hack of an existing game, as I recall). Maybe there's a market for simplicity, too.

 

Don't be discouraged. From what I've seen, this place houses a whole lot more cheerleaders than naysayers. I wouldn't characterize this community as being willing to help folks like you but rather that they want to help and even seem to be on the lookout for any opportunity to do so.

 

Hey, what's the worst case scenario if this game fails? You learn something that you can use later to make your first successful game? You might even be able to help me when I get around to actually working on the game I've got rolling around in my head and scratched on a notepad.

 

Best of luck, Pixelboy.

Edited March 20, 2007 by BigO

[Pixelboy]

Thanks for all the feedback.

 

So the control scheme doesn't really work, eh? Originally, I thought the ants could move rather slowly, so that the clumsy controls wouldn't be too much of a handicap, but oh well, we can go with more "normal" joystick controls.

 

I agree with BigO that difficulty could be increased through other means. I really like the "glitchy controls" idea, as it could give a better reason for the display at the bottom of the screen (showing malfunctions instead of simply confirming button presses). In fact, how about having the ants attack the robot and cause the temporary malfunctions? That could be a funny twist...

 

I was also thinking about how the magnet could be used to do things other than just picking up the spare battery. I'm having trouble finding ideas that would be implementable on the 2600 though...

[+atari2600land]

How about using the Childrens' controller? Then you could have a few more options.

[BigO]

I was also thinking about how the magnet could be used to do things other than just picking up the spare battery. I'm having trouble finding ideas that would be implementable on the 2600 though...

 

Like retrieve and replace parts that fall off of the robot occasionally? Or upgrade parts to improve the iffy controls?

Or pick up a magnifying glass? They are ants, after all.

[supercat]

For a control scheme, how about pushing left on the controller to move the equivalent of up+left in Combat, and push right for the equivalent of up+right. So to march the robot in a straight line one would go left-right-left-right etc. Not sure what the fire button should do--maybe spin around rapidly on whichever "foot" is on the ground?