27 Jun
2007
27 Jun
'07
10 p.m.
On 6/27/07, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
_I_ agree with you.
I don't agree at the fundamental level, but I do make the assertion
that either a paper trail or a 2-dimensional textual display provides
for a much, much larger variety of games.
I'd say that if it can't play games (graphical
or at least a multi-line
text display), then it's not what I'd call a *home* computer.
Why do you need a multiline display to play games? Odd thing about me is that I actually prefer that sort
of game to the
more modern ones. About 12 years ago some friends instroduced me to
'Doom'. I played it for about 10 minutes and decided it really wasn't the
sort of thing I enjoyerd. But I've playes some of the HP67 games for hours.
I have played plenty of Doom, but I have also played uncountable hours
of computer games in a 40x25 or 80x24 text window that are entirely
unlike Doom.
Graphics are not a requirement for games, just as multiple lines of
text are not a requirement for games, but each level of display
sophistication encapsulates the varieties under it, and extend the
possibilities dramatically.
Contrast Lunar Lander on a calculator, or on a TTY, or on a PET
display, or on a vector display (Atari's arcade machine from the
1970s)... essentially, it's the same game - a simulation of landing a
spacecraft under 0.167g with limited fuel and potentially limited
landing zone opportunities. The only real difference is the extent to
which the machine can reproduce aspects of the view or at least a
representation of the controls. In all examples, you are queried,
either by typing in thrust values, or by pulling a lever that
translates to thrust values, then after a calculation phase, the game
re-presents the environment, either numerically or graphically. For
all that the premise and potentially the calculation engine are
essentially the same, they are all different games.
-ethan