from this website, you can enjoy all of your favorite Atari 2600 games on your pc through the Stella emulator. it's very simple and easy
hope this helps you guys understand the history of game!
and remember
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Atari 2600 emulator!!
I looked for some information about Atari, and wanted to experience some games after class. I found a great website that has all the information I need for playing Atari. maybe some of you guys might know about it already.
"seeing once is better than hearing a thousands times"
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
STEAM
The Evolution of game purchasing
I don't think that anyone needs to be convinced that in the recent years the Internet has revolutionized the way people live, connect, share, access information, study and god knows what else. Well ever so subtly, the Internet also changed the way people shop - and with that, the emergence of digital purchases and downloads has dramatically increased.
Among many different ways that people can now purchase digital content from the web, Valve's STEAM has proved to be truly revolutionary. STEAM is essentially a digital distribution platform that allows users to purchase and download various games from many different developers and are able to play them instantly. Furthermore, even after the game is uninstalled it does not need to be re-purchased as it simply remains on the list for that particular user. As of 2010, there are over a thousand games available through STEAM that differ in genre and style. STEAM also allows to join virtual communities that further allow for socializing, connecting with people of similar interests and chatting. Recently, STEAM has also moved to Macs allowing for interconnecting between the two platforms which only further increased its popularity.
As of today, STEAM claims to control over 70% of digital game purchases and there is no stopping it in site..
Monday, September 6, 2010
A History Lesson Followed by an Adventure!
A Brief Summary of the reading: Racing the Beam by Nick Montfort and Ian Bogost
This book is supposedly the first of what the authors hope to be many publications on "platform studies," i.e. the technological analysis of the computer parts that make up a gaming platform and their interaction. They state that the platform is something that must be studied as it "influences, facilitates, [and] constrains" development of products. Without a platform, game designers would have to create their own platform, but a preexisting platform would provide standardized settings, hardware, and input options across multiple creations. But these benefits come at a cost, the platform you use was originally not created for the exact purpose you need it for, and that may make your work a little more difficult, as we will see later with Adventure.
The first videogames were graphically simple, on one static screen, and either presented an asymmetric challenge or were 2-player competitions. This was how the first arcade and Atari games were. Since then, many advances have been made. Now, game worlds are more than just the visible screen, graphics are more complex, and computers can simulate a second player. Many of these large steps forward occurred on the Atari 2600 (then called the Atari VCS).
The 2600 was the first commercially successful home cartridge-based console. Prior to the 2600, only specialized systems with just one game (Home Pong, for example) were available for use on your television. The 2600 changed this. Videogames had been around for a few years, but only existed in arcade cabinet form. As one of the arcade manufacturers, Atari saw an untapped market in people's living rooms and capitalized on it.
The 2600 sold in 1977 for $199.00, just a little over the manufacturing cost. Every effort was made to keep costs as low as possible to keep the console affordable. They found cheap but effective parts that could do what they needed the system to do. They spent a lot of money on R&D making the Television Interface Adapter, which allowed simple graphics to display on screen. The system had only 128 bytes of RAM. (Your computer probably has at least 10 million times as much RAM as the Atari 2600 did.) The main goal of the system was to be able to cheaply reproduce arcade experiences in the living room. The console had interchangeable controllers for different kinds of input. The authors state that the reason the Atari 2600 was so successful was because of its simplicity. The platform could do a few things very well: it could display three movable objects against a low resolution background and make some beeps and noises, but that was about all.
The authors then go on to describe six influential games in the life of the Atari, one of which being Adventure. Adventure was a ground breaking game. The designer of the game had played a text-based adventure game of the same name and had fallen in love with the game's complexity. He decided that he wanted to make a version of this game for the Atari, but ran into a few major problems.
The original game was text based (users would type "GET LAMP" or "GO SOUTH," and text would appear on screen to let users know what was happening) and this presented two big issues. The 2600 had no easy way for users to input text and no built in way for text to appear on screen as feedback to users. The 2600 did have the things it was good at, however. It could make environments (like rooms or a maze) and have three objects move around and interact. The designer's plans were simple, but innovative at the time. His plan was to "use the joystick to move around, show one room at a time on the video screen, and show objects in the room as little shapes." These ideas (with the exception of the first) were huge steps forward in games.
Previous to Adventure, games occurred in one space, and the players could all see the entire play field. Adventure had the player walk from room to room, allowing for a world much larger than in any other game. The story elements of text based games were able to be told graphically rather than textually. The other big development was making use of the three objects the platform would allow in unique ways. One was the avatar, one a trinket you could pick up, and the third would be something the trinket would interact with (i.e. a sword would kill a dragon, a key would open a lock).
While this game may not seem very complex from our perspective, it was a good example of someone pushing the limits of what the platform was supposed to do. The Atari was made to play games like Pong, and the creators of the system never expected anyone to be able to make a game like Adventure with the tools they had been given. What this developer had done is akin to making a huge, elaborate dungeon out of a ping pong table with two paddles and a ball.
This book is supposedly the first of what the authors hope to be many publications on "platform studies," i.e. the technological analysis of the computer parts that make up a gaming platform and their interaction. They state that the platform is something that must be studied as it "influences, facilitates, [and] constrains" development of products. Without a platform, game designers would have to create their own platform, but a preexisting platform would provide standardized settings, hardware, and input options across multiple creations. But these benefits come at a cost, the platform you use was originally not created for the exact purpose you need it for, and that may make your work a little more difficult, as we will see later with Adventure.
The first videogames were graphically simple, on one static screen, and either presented an asymmetric challenge or were 2-player competitions. This was how the first arcade and Atari games were. Since then, many advances have been made. Now, game worlds are more than just the visible screen, graphics are more complex, and computers can simulate a second player. Many of these large steps forward occurred on the Atari 2600 (then called the Atari VCS).
The 2600 was the first commercially successful home cartridge-based console. Prior to the 2600, only specialized systems with just one game (Home Pong, for example) were available for use on your television. The 2600 changed this. Videogames had been around for a few years, but only existed in arcade cabinet form. As one of the arcade manufacturers, Atari saw an untapped market in people's living rooms and capitalized on it.
The 2600 sold in 1977 for $199.00, just a little over the manufacturing cost. Every effort was made to keep costs as low as possible to keep the console affordable. They found cheap but effective parts that could do what they needed the system to do. They spent a lot of money on R&D making the Television Interface Adapter, which allowed simple graphics to display on screen. The system had only 128 bytes of RAM. (Your computer probably has at least 10 million times as much RAM as the Atari 2600 did.) The main goal of the system was to be able to cheaply reproduce arcade experiences in the living room. The console had interchangeable controllers for different kinds of input. The authors state that the reason the Atari 2600 was so successful was because of its simplicity. The platform could do a few things very well: it could display three movable objects against a low resolution background and make some beeps and noises, but that was about all.
The authors then go on to describe six influential games in the life of the Atari, one of which being Adventure. Adventure was a ground breaking game. The designer of the game had played a text-based adventure game of the same name and had fallen in love with the game's complexity. He decided that he wanted to make a version of this game for the Atari, but ran into a few major problems.
The original game was text based (users would type "GET LAMP" or "GO SOUTH," and text would appear on screen to let users know what was happening) and this presented two big issues. The 2600 had no easy way for users to input text and no built in way for text to appear on screen as feedback to users. The 2600 did have the things it was good at, however. It could make environments (like rooms or a maze) and have three objects move around and interact. The designer's plans were simple, but innovative at the time. His plan was to "use the joystick to move around, show one room at a time on the video screen, and show objects in the room as little shapes." These ideas (with the exception of the first) were huge steps forward in games.
Previous to Adventure, games occurred in one space, and the players could all see the entire play field. Adventure had the player walk from room to room, allowing for a world much larger than in any other game. The story elements of text based games were able to be told graphically rather than textually. The other big development was making use of the three objects the platform would allow in unique ways. One was the avatar, one a trinket you could pick up, and the third would be something the trinket would interact with (i.e. a sword would kill a dragon, a key would open a lock).
While this game may not seem very complex from our perspective, it was a good example of someone pushing the limits of what the platform was supposed to do. The Atari was made to play games like Pong, and the creators of the system never expected anyone to be able to make a game like Adventure with the tools they had been given. What this developer had done is akin to making a huge, elaborate dungeon out of a ping pong table with two paddles and a ball.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Modding
When a video game is released, the developers put out a product that they created with their own idea on how it should be played. After awhile, people will start making mods of the game, if possible, that can alter many aspects of the original video game to increase the replay value. They can change graphics and game play elements. In major mods, people can turn the game almost completely new. By changing elements within a game, modders have taken the developers’ concept and turn it into their own game. The question is modding a really bad thing to do.
In a way, modding is an important part to the gaming industry. Even though modders change aspects of the products, the industry can benefit on what the modders do. Just by modding, it can create interest for the games. From personal experience, there are huge amounts of mods for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. There were basic mods to replace vehicles, weapons, and clothing. There were also add-ons for new game modes or animations like racing to simply smoking a cigar. Lastly, there were some mods that used the engine and graphics of San Andreas and applied to past GTA games like Vice City and GTA III. These mods added more game play and depth to the game. San Andreas has been released for quite awhile but the mods keep on coming.
Modding takes out the full potential of a video game. It does alter the original product but does create renewed interest for a game. Mods bring in more players to the game. I see that modding does not hurt the game industry as well because of those reasons. Plus, I do not essentially lose money from the mods either.
-Vircell Dayap
Postigo: Modding
I have personally always found modding to be a fascinating part of video game culture. I love the fact that it allows you to contribute your own ideas or spin on your favorite game that you have spent hours and hours playing. In the beginning of Postigo’s article when he talks about the motivation of modders I would have to say that I lean on the side of the argument that says it is more about hobby or expression than as a way to get into the industry professionally. (not that some don’t try to do it that way) I personally have done small mods for one of my all time favorite games (Super Mario World) and for me it was just a labor of love. It was a way for me to make new levels and experiences for a game that I have played for years and have tremendous nostalgia for. It was something fun to play around with and show off to my friends.
Now when developers, like Epic, release tools for modding like the Unreal Development Kit, it seems like they are really looking for a way to make a profit on the modding community that has developed from one of their own game properties. They see this big number of modders making new games with their engine and see a way to profit off that if a small number of them make successful games. I don’t see these development kits helping modding because they don’t allow them to use things made in the development kits in their games, like in the case of the UT3 modders mentioned in the article.
Modding: A Positive or Negative Effect
On the topic of Modding, one thing that I grew to become very interested in was the topic of game fans that are a potential threat to the industry because they get excited to make new games. Since gamers now do not have to build a game from the ground up, and instead can create a new game from the basis of other games, then I do not see why this actually is not happening more often.
There are two sides to the issue which include either it is considered free labor or participatory culture. Now, allowing people to actually produce versions of games can actually be a huge negative and I agree with that as well. This is because I can see regular people making more crap versions of games , then actual interactive, mind stimulating games that appeal to the general public. I am not saying this because I do not think highly of our gamers, but I am just trying to be realistic. Yes, I am sure that there could potentially be games that come out of this, but I envision more junk than not.
For example, this happened when the video game to ET came out. ET was a hit movie, so why did someone think it was automatically going to be a hit video game? I believe that videos and games are intertwined in some senses, but for the majority of the part are extremely different in the sense of how a user views a video and a game. I can see more people falling asleep with movies than with videos because games are simply more interactive. However, back to the ET topic, unfortunately since the ET video game was so horrible it tinted the credibility and the outlook on the games system Atari itself. I would not be so willing to let people make different versions of my games and run the potential risk of having my entire game system flop. I do not think that it is worth it in the least bit. What Apple is doing, by controlling the applications that people are starting to make, is a very smart decision on their part. Sure, they could potentially be missing out on some really great ideas, but for the most part at least they do not run the risk of having one horrible application taint the image of their brand and name. Brand loyalty is what brings consumers coming back to a specific product, and when you have diminished your brand loyalty, you have diminished everything else.
Michael Chan's post
From the article: "As a thought experiment, one could imagine we are modders of a different sort; we are not game modders but Web modders....We are invited to participate, to take an active role in constructing profiles, tweets, videos and knowledge bases. Many of these infrastructures are owned by large media corporations and so, like modders modding games, we shape the face of commercial products, extend their market lives and give them dimensions that the original designers of the systems did not anticipate."
This is a great way to put it. A new game comes out, people buy it, play it, share it, and eventually shelve it. This happens with most games, and when you think about it, it kind of sucks. Games aren't cheap these days and many gamers expect more out of them. Modders provide this service. They take the original game and change things to make it new and exciting again, maybe even more fun.
This is especially true with DOTA. I personally don’t usually play games anymore, but this was an exception. I saw my older brother playing DOTA this summer and I was intrigued. I snuck a few games in when he wasn’t home and I admit it was fun, definitely addictive. I eventually bought Warcraft III for myself and played whenever I had free time. This shows how mods can really improve how well a game sells. Warcraft III is not a new game, it’s like seven years old now. The only thing that made me buy the game was a user created mod, and tons of people are still playing it seven years later.
But Blizzard didn’t pay a single penny for people to create DOTA; they just raked in profits. DOTA wasn’t exactly a mod because it was created using map editors, but the following question from the article holds true: are mods just free labors for gaming companies, or are they part of participatory culture? It’s definitely both. Blizzard no doubt made profits from people buying Warcraft III just for DOTA. Valve made profits from Half-Life because of people wanting to play Counter-Strike, and eventually making even more by putting a price tag on it. But it’s also a participatory culture because those users didn’t mod the games looking for profit. They loved the games so much they wanted to do more with them—eventually making great additions to them.
Thank you!
Michael Chan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)