Arcade, at its core.

With “entire game on one screen”, my first thought was to make an arcade game. The same kind of game that you could play during the golden age of the arcades. So, what’s the main difference between those arcade games and most of the PC/console games? If I think of games like PacMan, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, etc. most of the golden age games don’t have ending, they only become more and more difficult, fast, until it’s game over. From the first “PC” game, SpaceWar! the objectives of those games (non arcade games) were to simulate a complex environment that the player will eventually master to some degree, then he will win. It’s the same thing today. But in an arcade game, you can’t win. The only winning you will have is to put your name on the scoreboard. All the people on the scoreboard are all losers, but much less than people who are not on it… So, what is at the core of an arcade game: chaos. But not absolute chaos, only the progressive chaos perceived in the eyes of the player who will inevitably lose control.

I don’t know if I succeeded in making this kind of chaos in my game, but you should give it a try and tell me!

http://ludumdare.com/compo/ludum-dare-31/?action=preview&uid=38770

imgJeu256

Comments

Lynx
11. Dec 2014 · 02:20 UTC
I believe you are completely true in your theory. The only contradiction I can come up with is the popular arcade game genre of rhythm and music, where (in most cases) you do have an end goal and the skill becomes trying to outrank others in your mastery of single period of gameplay time
Lynx
11. Dec 2014 · 02:21 UTC
But yes, you captured that concept 115.93% in your game, I “dig” it!
11. Dec 2014 · 18:57 UTC
You’re right. And in the 90s, most of the arcade games had ending. Street Fighters II have an ending. Even PacMan “only” have 256 levels. It was supposed to be infinite but, due to a bug, the original version stop at 256. And the 256th is buggy. But it turns out to be a way to beat the game with a perfect score.