Game 81: Korean Dungeon Boy

There are like three different things that COULD be a title screen, I chose this one

Name:Korean Dungeon Boy / Chorongi-ui Moheom
Number:81
Year:1991
Publisher:Computer War System Soft
Developer:Computer War System Soft
Genre:FPS
Difficulty:3/5
Time:1 hour

What a title. What a company name. What a game. I guess they chose the right name, since System Soft and Soft System were/are taken. With a name like Korean Dungeon Boy, I'd think it was some cheap knockoff with a different name, but no, that's the original name. What is Korean Dungeon Boy? Its another Monster Maze-clone. Before I begin, I'd just like to talk about how this game emulates. Most games emulate in a typical window, about 640x400, this instead decides it wants to be something like the size of my screen, vertically. You can tell it from the screenshots, but it makes actually playing the thing a chore.

Behold, scenic wall

We're already starting off in a poor state, and the controls don't give one much confidence. Moving around is done with the arrow keys, but selecting items is done with the function keys, F1, F2, F3 control items, and F4,F5,F6 control weapons. Might just be F4 and F5, when I used F6 it crashed. You then activate them with enter and fire with space bar. Press the function key again to deactivate it, or press a different function key. Curiously, the map and the flashlight, without which the entire map is dark, can be turned on and off. I guess there's a reason for it, but if I could get to level 8 or so without running out of flashlight juice, you don't need to toggle it. That turns the game pitch black, which is an improvement I think.

Items are visible up-close, but question marks far away

Combat is done through a reticle controlled by the arrow keys, you can't move and shoot. The slingshot is weaker than the laser pistol, but there's more ammo. Enemies come in various shades from generic, to abomination. Probably the best thing about this game, if I do say so. Its not completely terrible, but that doesn't mean good. Its a lot better than previous "control the reticle" games I've played, but that's not saying much. Games with 0 points exist after all. Items, mostly ammo and batteries, can be picked up as you go along, along with addition time.

Hey, the PC is screaming at this thing, I never noticed

As to be expected, the gameplay consists of shooting things and navigating a maze. The goal is to find the exit, and your opposition isn't always easy. Your health meter is pretty big, its the thing that wraps around the game world. I managed to make it to level 8 before biting it. Despite being an inherently weak game, they do try to be clever. I was seeing bizarre enemies and trick doors when I reached the end of it. Its just not something that makes you excited.

I wonder where this place is supposed to be

Weapons:
Two guns, just with different damage values. 1/10

Enemies:
Generic enemies with one interesting one. 1/10

Non-Enemies:
None.

Levels:
Clever mazes, but still mazes. 1/10

Player Agency:
Takes a bit to get used to the item selection, and the shootings awkward, but the movement itself is perfect. 2/10

Interactivity:
None.

Atmosphere:
None.

Graphics:
I have to give this a zero simply because the game wouldn't display properly for me. 0/10

Story:
I have no idea. 0/10

Sound/Music:
I don't know what kind of sound is coming from my speakers, but I know I don't like it. 0/10

That's 5. Not exactly a shock. An early Korean title was never going to set the world on fire. It could have been worse. There are no other reviews to my understanding.

Next up, the long awaited, at least in my mind, Cybercon III.

Game 80: Faceball 2000

Name:Faceball 2000
Number:80
Year:1991
Publisher:Bullet-Proof Software
Developer:Xanth Software
Genre:FPS
Difficulty:3/5
Time:1 hour

The Game Boy, a system you wouldn't think would be capable of producing decent first-person action titles. You'd be right, actually. In fact, Faceball 2000 is not a good game by any measure, except nostalgia. It is a very strange title, however. Released in 1991, and even then the game credits itself as a port of 1987's MidiMaze for Atari ST. This game predates even Hovertank 3D. It shows in every possible way, but its bizarre just how modern it seems at times despite being a pile of dated crap. And it came out for quite a few systems, with enough changes to be different, technically, but not enough for me to want to handle those individually.

Let's start with the Game Boy version. Here, its a fairly normal FPS. Starts out with a ten level tutorial, following a 60 level campaign. This tells you all the fun things you can do, like shooting doors. The player has a generic gun, nothing special, one shot at a time, infinite ammo. Enemies so far take one hit. So then you start beating levels. Enemies start moving and eventually shooting. You'll get hit sooner or later. You're not a one-hit wonder, thankfully, but there aren't many medikits for a while. No, the primary method of regaining health is...regeneration. So, the first console game to have regenerating health is from 1991. This whole thing blows my mind. An inferior console...er...handheld port of a PC game with regenerating health, 10 years before Halo. Everything is a lie.

But as you play on it becomes apparent why this game never caught on. As much as gaming has declined in the past couple of decades, there is at least something in the endless mass market FPS games that this predates. This is once again another game that's really the bare minimum needed. We've got it all. Music, levels, shooting, its all there, its just not very good. Really, the only thing impressive about this is the year and that its a fully functional FPS, on several systems that didn't get any others.

Because of the way the game is set up, I can quite easily go to the last group of levels and theoretically beat the game without having touched the first half. The game does try to throw some more interesting enemies, but because of central issues with the game, this isn't really fun? You have lives, and start off with 3, but it takes a few seconds for the game to respawn you and at that point I might as well start using save states, and if I'm using save states to save time, why am I even playing this at all?

The console versions are ironically, worse than the Game Boy version. The SNES gets a Quake 3-style campaign, embarrassing, while the TurboGrafx CD version doesn't even get that, just some kind of race mode and an arena mode. Oh, sure, they look better, don't have droning music and have better multiplayer, but this is something deeply amusing to me. Its all surprisingly bizarre.

Weapons:
A generic gun. 1/10

Enemies:
Various types of enemies in their most basic form. You go from targets, to randomly moving and shooting, to standing still, while tracking you down, going down a set path, and eventually waiting and then hunting you down. 2/10

Non-Enemies:
None.

Levels:
Even the biggest of levels are deceptively small in terms of action space. Maybe a quarter of Wolfenstein's level size? Thing is, this isn't very interesting. Sure, you have switches and doors, but its all so cold and clinically made. You can't really tell one level from the next really. 1/10

Player Agency:
The buttons don't do what I want them to do. I think making a decent shooter for the Game Boy was a bridge too far. You can't strafe, so you have to awkwardly try to run away from enemies, further, the shooting is REALLY awkward. It takes a second after my bullet disappears for another to fire. 1/10

Interactivity:
None.

Atmosphere:
None of the three versions struck me as atmospheric in any way, though I am curious as to why there's a skybox in the SNES version.

Graphics:
Simple walls, one color. Everything looks the same, view distance is poor. 1/10

Story:
I don't want to know.

Sound/Music:
There is only one music track for each section of the game, level start, level, level end. This drove me up a damn wall. The sound effects are fine for Game Boy. 1/10

That's 7. Hey, its Game Boy.

Reviews are mixed, from people who are like, huzzah, a Game Boy FPS, its amazing. To people who have a more measured approach and say its merely interesting for what it is.

Xanth Software will return sometime back in 1987, for MidiMaze, the original version of this, and 1984's GATO, which will appear never-ever. Bullet-Proof Software, interestingly enough, will also return sometime back in 1985, with Dimensional Fighter Epsilon 3, and maybe something else, I haven't checked thoroughly yet.

Game 79: Cholo

Name:Cholo
Number:79
Year:1987
Publisher:Firebird Software
Developer:Solid Image
Genre:FPS
Difficulty:I don't know
Time:1 hour

You know, I rarely make fun of a game's title, but who the hell names their post-apocalyptic shooting game Cholo? I don't know what's the deal with that title and I couldn't find a manual. Is it a reference to something or is it talking about the South American term for a kind of mixed-race person?

The story is that a computer that was supposed to monitor radiation on the surface has malfunctioned, trapping the remaining humans under the surface. The player is supposed to hack into the computer's droids, and find some way to shut down the computer. The game starts off with a Rat droid, which is an interesting choice. Later I understand more robots show up...but I gave up on this game kind of fast. You'll understand in a moment.

Starting up the game, the first thing that strikes me is the slowness of it. There's a difference between cautious and slow, and Cholo is slow. Very slow. There's a very short draw distance, undoubtedly so the C64 can render all this. There's no music either. So I'm sitting here, looking at a screen, while I move forward at probably 1 kmph or something. But its just fast enough that if I get bored and check something else, there's a decent chance I'll accidentally crash into a wall. This, in my opinion, is a very deadly combination. After a while, you're just wandering around hoping to find something. Well, I was, no way I'm making a map for this game.

Now the problem with the speed is the second you go forward, that's what you're doing. As far as I can tell in my manualless state, there is no stop button. Turning is slow, as can be expected from the era. That means the only way to stop is to crash into a wall. I haven't the faintest idea what I'm doing or where I'm going. This GUI is useless. Is that a map? Its not telling me anything at all. The only thing that moves is some strange pixel going back and forth. The rest of the GUI isn't telling me anything yet.

Eventually I find a computer which gives me a password list, I assume. That's some kind of progress at least. But it doesn't end up helping me. This game is a maze, and one I can't find my way around in. Like I said, the GUI is useless and this game has already tested my patience too much to make a map. I find another computer, but it seems like its the same one. I briefly tried running the Amstrad CPC version, but soon enough I realized, wait, this is basically the same thing, except slightly nicer and faster. That does give me some interesting information if the CPC is better than the C64, I only knew it was better than the ZX Spectrum and MSX. Score one for Cholo, anyway.

Weapons:
Generic laser cannons. 1/10

Enemies:
I did not encounter any enemies, but I know they exist. They're probably generic. 1/10

Non-Enemies:
None.

Levels:
A confusing mess of walls and wireframe objects. 0/10

Player Agency:
This honestly feels poor even in comparison to 1987. I know there are only like 3 FPS before this, but they all play like this or slightly better. I'm sure as I play other games from this era this is going to feel worse. 2/10

Interactivity:
You can activate a computer. 1/10

Atmosphere:
I feel nothing. 0/10

Graphics:
I don't mind wireframe graphics, but its clear they didn't do a good job of making this if I can barely see in front of me. 1/10

Story:
We're still at the stage where games keep their stories more in manuals than in-game. 0/10

Sound/Music:
Basic sound effects, typical for the era. 1/10

That's 7. Hardly any better than something from 1981.

Surprisingly, I am in the minority, even today. While I was searching for this game I came across quite a few positive opinions on the game. The thing is, I can see that. I'm sure it opens up once you get past the opening hour. The thing is, I spent about an hour playing this game and I didn't make any real progress. In an action game where you couldn't originally save, do you want to do that? That's a steep time investment and one I wasn't willing to make.

Next up, Faceball 2000.

Game 78: 1000 Miglia

Name:1000 Miglia: Great 1000 Miles Rally
Number:78
Year:1994
Publisher:Kaneko
Developer:Kaneko
Genre:Racing
Difficulty:3/5
Time:1 hour

I can't help but compare 1000 Miglia to Outrun. Both are arcade titles, (though this wasn't ported to home systems) both are arcade-style, not simulation, two people in the car, non-linear style, beautiful scenery. However, in just every way, this game is so much worse than Outrun. So. Much. Worse.

Taking place during the famous race of the same name, Mille Miglia, a race in Italy from Brescia to Rome and back again, which is 1000 miles, hence the name. That doesn't have much to do with the game here. This is a series of 1 minute tracks that feel like they want to be laps, but aren't. That's a great way to play an endurance race, isn't it? I beat this and it didn't take me an hour. I'm not saying I want Desert Bus as a racing game, I just feel weird about seeing an arcade racer using a endurance race as a back drop.

And arcade-style it is. Everything about this screams arcade. From the turning, to which doesn't even pretend to be realistic, to the cars on the road to the ramps. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any ramps in a real race like this. All of the game's difficulty, which isn't much, seems to amount to a strict time limit of a minute. None of this is exciting.

You drive along a set course, with quite a few turns. You get messages that pop up whenever you're about to hit a turn. You wouldn't make them otherwise, because you can't see in front of you. Its a sight whenever the game has you make a zig-zag or something, because the front wheels defy the laws of physics. Other drivers are there, but they're usually going slower than you. Hitting them or anything doesn't kill you, but you'd wish it did. You have a hard minute time limit, if you haven't reached the finish line, don't worry, you're not in a hurry anymore.

The whole game feels very weird, but not in a good way. I don't feel like my car is on the road. I don't even feel like I'm really driving it. I feel like I'm playing Dragon's Lair for cars. A very precise set of button presses and then I win. I guess my actions do have an effect on how things go, but it sure doesn't feel that way. I either make that turn or I crash. My speed seems to have nothing to do with it. That's not the way a game should make you think.

I keep forgetting it, but you have the option of picking your car at the start. I think this affects your top speed, but I only say that because some vehicles have your car make white lines pass by. I eventually settled on the Bugetti car, because that seemed cool to me and I'm on a French kick. None of them are really among my favorites, and even if they were these feel like butcherings of them, graphically at least.

Even the ending feels lame

And that's the game. There's not much to this. I think this is the kind of thing that puts me off playing arcade titles. There's not much to this beyond stealing your money with some okay gameplay to compensate. I'd be willing to bet the other 1000 Miglia from Simulmondo is a much better experience. Its probably better value for money compared to this game too.

Weapons:
None.

Enemies:
There are other cars on the road. They're all the same ones you can drive, which is nice. 1/10

Non-Enemies:
None.

Levels:
As the game wore on, it did get more complex, but not necessarily more interesting. Other issues affected that. 2/10

Player Agency:
I don't really feel like I'm in charge of this, acceleration on my part seems useless. So this is basically a game where I sometimes turn. 2/10

Interactivity:
None.

Atmosphere:
Just race dude. 0/10

Graphics:
While some of the backgrounds and items look appealing, nothing looks good at speed. And the cars never look good, there's something wrong with them. 2/10

Story:
None.

Sound/Music:
Everything sounds like it should, but there's no music. At least no music worth listening to. 2/10

That's 9. I don't rate games based by year, but that seems like crap for 1994. You had much better options back then. I don't think there's much point in mentioning other reviews. Kaneko, the company behind this, wouldn't release another game that would qualify for my list, with or without arcades.

Coming up, the last pre-FPS push, Cholo...which is actually still a FPS game.

1981 in Review

This can also be considered a general purpose pre-1981 thing, seeing as I have no desire to handle things before this year.

1981 when everything is an arcade game or a text adventure. One thing I didn't mention was the text-based flight sims, because this is about action, ultimately, not simulation. Most of the army simulations from this year don't look too different from ones made in 1993, just less detailed. On the other end, everything else is basically an arcade adaptation, either official or unofficial. I've culled a lot of the fat in that regard. No one wants to hear anyone's opinion on some obscure TRS-80 Battlezone-clone. Or Pac-man, or something even more obscure. If you really want something of historical interest, just try one of those text-based flight sims, it'll be interesting even if its complete trash.

While I'm sure some purists are going to try to rain on my parade about this, but most of the arcade titles aren't worth the trouble. Definitely get an arcade collection and spend an afternoon or two playing the games if all you know is Fortnite, but otherwise you've probably played most of these in a brief form. Unless you actively enjoy those kinds of titles, its only worth it to recognize what minigame or phone game is ripping off what.

Further, I culled a lot of games that were clones or just looked like clones, and removed some systems entirely. Sorry, if you were interested in seeing what titles were on the Arcadia, the VIC-20 or the Dragon 32/64, but I've got some lines in the sand to draw.

Pictured, an MSX game, not my usual gaming haunts

On the other hand, despite the absolute hell I've gone through emulating some systems, I've seen some good. But overall the vast majority of titles are not worth the trouble it takes emulating them. You should take the time to read any FAQs or manuals before you start setting up an emulator. Better bored than enraged and wasting your own time. You'll have to read that manual sooner or later anyway.

Game of the Year: Castle Wolfenstein
The only must play title from this year. Castle Wolfenstein shows the beginnings of the sort of games we'd come to love and cherish, while also killing random demons. It has relatively coherent level design, separate aiming and moving, not that you'd deal with that, and items, some of which are useful. In a year of historical curiosities and arcade titles, I found it to be one of the few that felt like it was something more.

Worst of the Year: 3D Defender
3D Defender is a game that is everything I hate about old, old video games. Non-sensical controls, non-sensical graphics, and designed in a way to be unplayable to anyone who isn't the original developer. There were a few titles that were worse, but none I actively hated like this one. I played this one so long ago I never took any screenshots, not that you're missing anything.

I didn't really feel like tossing out a best and worst of the year, because everything is hovering near enough to the 5 mark it makes no difference. As you might be able to guess, anything that's 30+ on my ratings scale is a 5+ on a normal ten point rating system. But this scale is sort of biased towards shooters that have a meaningful atmosphere and friendly NPCs. Oh, and are generally first person shooters, not arcade coin-munchers. None of them actively appealed to me or pissed me off.

Of special interest are the FPS precursors, 3D Monster Maze and its variants. Probably should have given it its own entry, but I don't think its interesting enough to get its own entry, and others have talked about its history better. Voyager I, which technically fails my requirements, but its interesting. As a sort of gawking at the past. Less in a hostile way that's usually done and more in an interesting way they did it with inferior computers and little technical knowledge. I'm probably overselling myself.

There were a ton of titles I couldn't find, and to be honest I don't really care anymore. They're all Apple II titles. I'm starting to hate that computer and its sound system that makes screeching sounds on par with the PC Speaker. I didn't really care for that back in the day and I definitely don't care for it now. While it remains to be seen if those games can beat Castle Wolfenstein, I doubt it.

Next year I have 41 games to play. As I look through them, I don't really notice many games I'm interested in. I find that a problem. I've decided that moving forward, I'm going to reject any games that look like they're obviously under 10 points. This applies more to non-FPS games, but they're still at risk. This is to eliminate obvious shovelware and clones of games that don't add anything. With that rule in place, 1982 might just have less reviewed titles than 1981.

Speaking of the near future. I had a plan for the last FPS of 1993 and indeed the 100th game. Originally I had some 23 or so titles planned out for what would be the list of 1991-93. With one saved for later, Star Cruiser 2, my Japanese isn't up to snuff yet. As I write this I have finished a few games that bring my total up to 79. I am planning on aiming for that, however, I've also moved titles that aren't FPS games to later on, so I have 19 titles, giving me 2 spare ones for Halloween or just something interesting. There's always the possibility that future titles could get removed or bumped down to later, but either way, my plans are going forward, this blog is just going back to being FPS-heavy for a while.

Game 77: Outrun

Name:Outrun
Number:77
Year:1986
Publisher:SEGA
Developer:SEGA
Genre:Racing
Difficulty:3/5
Time:3 hours

For a guy with a lot of games to play, I sure find ways to add more to my trouble. I forget when it was, but I was thinking, hey, a lot of games you're looking forward to playing involve driving cars, so why not play some games that revolve around driving cars? Thus, another genre started to bloat up my list. I think my reasoning is sound at least. There are none that strike my mind as much as Outrun. There are earlier games and there are better games, but Outrun is a perfect balance of early and quality. And it was probably the first game of its kind I played. In my mind, these kinds of games are all Outrun-clones, even if it wasn't the first game in this style. I'll be playing the Saturn version, a first for this blog, though I've spent most of the time I've played Outrun in the past on Genesis. This is different from that version in where places are located.

This game is a double-edged sword in what it succeeds in being. A first time player could be fooled into firing up the game, and getting distracted by the beautiful scenery. The game lets you pick what musical track you want, so what could possibly go wrong. You're driving at 180 MPH, in a Ferrari, a beautiful woman by your side, and as you pass by the sea, the music changes. One could be fooled into thinking Outrun is a very chill game right until the point your Ferrari hits something, and flips through the air like it was made out of paper. Don't worry you're fine. You probably won't make it to the next check point before you run out of time, but you're still alive. Which, come to think of it, would be some good shakes in real life.

So its a hardcore racing game, right? Well, it sort of is if you crank it to the hardest difficulty, and choose a particular route. Even then its just a hard arcade-style. On regular difficulty, you'll probably reach most of the areas after a few tries. One way or another, you're going to master the opening section and one of the two next sections. Actually, its kind of tricky saying this, since you have the option of choosing the overseas or the Japanese mode, which affect where sections are placed. I played the overseas, which is not the same as the Genesis release you might know and love.

I know the game is based off Europe, but this whole game feels very American in places. We've got scenic beaches, mountain ranges, vaguely savannah areas. Okay, we don't have an abundance of windmills and sandy deserts, but otherwise this is very buyable as America. Maybe we're driving across Mexico too.

Regardless of location, Outrun is a joy to drive...for the most part. Like I said, the difficulty isn't consistent and the point where you're going to care about it, you aren't going to know which way you should go. If you go down, you could be randomly driving along, when suddenly you're in some harsh hellscape. Well, in the Genesis version, or the Japanese mode on Saturn. The two opening paths on the overseas mode are about the same, both being more unforgiving than most. I thought I had it bad in the Genesis title back then.

One of the worst examples of the difficulty is the absolute top path. If you want to reach all the endings, its unavoidable, you can't skip past any of the top ones. The first is this grassland, where you pass by a series of arches that look kind of like Stonehedge. I kind of wish this road existed in real life, but I feel like that would be an accident waiting to happen, not to mention it wouldn't be as cool. But what makes it annoying in-game isn't those arches, its the turns towards the end of this area, which I seemingly always crash into some guy's windmill.

There's a desert area that isn't too bad. Its got some bendy turns, but it isn't too bad. This area doesn't really feel like it should exist in either Europe or America, both locations' deserts to my knowledge are more rocky than sandy. Sand dunes are more Middle East or Africa. I swear I saw a pyramid here too. That could be in America, apparently there's an abandoned set to some Egyptian movie just lying around, buried. Someone could have turned it into a tourist trap in the Outrun universe.

To the absolute hell that is this thing. It doesn't look like much, but this gave me the most crap. This one's so bad there's even a tree practically in the road. Yhugh. This one took me so many tries to get through. So many. I had my difficulty set so I had the least amount of cars on the road, but the least amount of time. The thing is, this section's idea of few cars is not my idea of few cars. Maybe the odd one I can pass, not three, sometimes even blocking my path like I'm stuck behind the trio from The Grand Tour.

But while that selection was hell, the rest doesn't tickle my rage nearly as much. You've got a scenic mountain with a castle in the distance; Villages next to rivers; Old castles. The racing part in some of these do approach that window dressing feel. Which honestly is all I really want out of a driving game. There's a river to my left, and a castle up over there. I can't necessarily drive to either of those, but it should feel like I can drive to those scenic places. So many driving games shackle themselves to mundane things like street racing or race tracks. That is the ultimate appeal of Outrun, driving somewhere not tethered completely in reality.

Weapons:
None.

Enemies:
Other cars on the road, not much worth speaking of. 1/10

Non-Enemies:
None.

Levels:
I'm not especially clear on how tracks are actually different from each other, but the scenery goes a long way towards making each area feel different. 5/10

Player Agency:
I don't care for how the car drives in this game. Its not quite arcade, yet its very obviously not realistic. That combined with the gear changing makes an unorthodox experience, that I ultimately don't have strong feelings for. 3/10

Interactivity:
None.

Atmosphere:
This perfectly captures what I like about driving games. Interesting scenery passing by, cool car and some nice tunes. There is just something about seeing every single gorgeous bit of scenery you can think of passing by. 10/10

Graphics:
The gorgeous scenery bit wouldn't work if the scenery wasn't gorgeous. Now, of course the game has some fuggly bits that have become obvious over 20 years, and sometimes the scnery can screw with your mind. But it does have it where it counts, amazing art direction. 6/10

Story:
None.

Sound/Music:
Unfortunately, here I think the Saturn version lags behind the Genesis one. You only have three tracks, and one of those tracks is inferior to the Genesis version. You get three arrange tracks, but they lack the charm, and in one case don't really sound like the original track. Still, it'll last you long enough. The sounds are fine, everything sounds like it should, and some decent engine roar. 5/10

That's 30. Taking the crown from The Sentinel as the highest rated since Freaks. Its not surprising that it got a high rating for a game with quite a few weak categories, its the 16-bit racing game for a good chunk of people. Checking Mobygames, all the bad ratings are for half-baked home computer ports. They're not even worth mentioning, because they're not worth playing today.

Next up, 1000 Miglia, an arcade racing title that I don't think I'm going to be doing justice to.

Game 76: Yars' Revenge

Name:Yars' Revenge
Number:76
Year:1981
Publisher:Atari
Developer:Atari
Genre:Top-Down Shooter
Difficulty:3/5
Time:1 hour

I came into Yars' Revenge expecting a lot more than I got, and I got something I didn't really expect. Instead of the usual pew-pew arcade shooters, this adds a couple elements of strategy to the fold. There is a neutral zone where you can't attack and most of the enemy's attacks don't hurt you. You also have to ram into the shield/enemy in order to charge up an attack that will actually kill him. I don't think I would have been able to figure that one out on my own, unfortunately. Which does make it stand out from a lot of otherwise very simplistic Atari games.

The goal of the game is to destroy enough of the enemy shield so you can aim one big attack at him without it bouncing off. To prevent you from doing this, he sends out a slow homing projectile, and sometimes a dumbfire rapid projectile, which takes the form of the enemy itself. This makes touching the enemy itself dangerous but worth it, since the shield is a tricky proposition.

Once you have enough drained enough energy, you return to the left side of the screen and spawn the big cannon. This is how you defeat the enemy, but you have to aim it carefully, since it kills you just as well as your enemy. Its not that hard to hit successfully, so long as you shot off or absorbed the shield beforehand. If you haven't, well, you have no choice in what you shoot, unfortunately.

And that's the game, it loops through two types of shields, I think, the first traditional, the second a big box that moves the areas you destroy around. That one's trickier, you have to destroy a good amount before you can make a successful shot.

The thing this this adds complexity, but it doesn't really make the game all that fun. It doesn't really feel that much out there to me compared to your more standard shooters of the time. The theme is weird, but not that out there in 1981. Its only nominally more interesting to me than its contemporaries.

Weapons:
The big energy attack using the player as a target was clever, but amounted to very little in terms of gameplay. 1/10

Enemies:
More like projectiles than real enemies. 1/10

Non-Enemies:
None.

Levels:
As far as I know, there are two variations on the level design. Which basically amount to different shields. 1/10

Player Agency:
Mostly typical, but it was very awkward getting pieces of the shield off, especially small ones. I just seemed to slide right off. 2/10

Interactivity:
None.

Atmosphere:
Compared to most Atari games, this gave me a very unsettling feeling, like something is very wrong here. I don't know what. 2/10

Graphics:
This is very noisey for the Atari, lots of colors seemingly randomly applied. 1/10

Story:
You're a bug killing...something. 0/10

Sound/Music:
There's a constant droning sound, like you're a bug. I guess that's the story. The rest is typical bloops and bleeps. 1/10

That's a total of 9. I didn't find it that interesting for the year. Curiously, another title that's had loads of print praise, yet nothing in the video sphere.

That's also the end of 1981. It took me less than 2 years at least, if barely. Of course, for a good chunk I was just meandering around. Expect an end of year summary soon.

As an aside, I am no longer entirely confused by arcade game emulation. What does that mean? It means I'm going to be playing some arcade games in the future. This all depends on what I can get running, whether I feel its a good fit for the blog, and other aspects that I'll apply selectively. I'm not forcing myself to play them is what I'm saying. This won't affect 1981, as I honestly doubt anything more interesting is hiding in the arcades.

Game 69: The Sentinel

Name:The Sentinel (AKA The Sentry)
Number:69
Year:1986
Publisher:Firebird Software
Developer:Geoff Crammond
Genre:FPS
Difficulty:2/5
Time: 4 hour 30 minutes

The Sentinel is the kind of game I have the wrong attitude for. What's this all about, completing games, seeing if they're good, pointing out why I think its good or not. The Sentinel is more of a puzzle game, like Sudoku or a crossword. You don't really complete all the ones that exist, you just beat one. Completion does nothing; The game loops. The developer didn't think someone would play all 10,000 levels. A fair assessment, though considering passcodes exist for the final level, that's not entirely true. But about as true as defeating the final level of Solitaire or Monopoly. It doesn't exist.

Its concept is sound, an advanced psychic being rebelling against a never-ending army of robot sentinels. He crosses the universe for all eternity, absorbing the energy of each sentinel he manages to reach, then using that energy to teleport further across the stars. His journey will never be over, he will never fall, but neither will the machines. Each time he dies, time rewinds. His victory assured, but it is a hollow victory. This battle will end when the last star in the universe dies. Well, the last couple of bits are my own inventions, but it might as well be canon for all the story matters.

The game itself is a weird quasi-FPS/strategy/puzzle game. Your objective is to take out the highest sentinel. You don't move, apparently advanced psychic beings have non-functional legs. Instead, you make boulders out of energy, then spawn a replica of yourself atop that boulder. From there, you absorb your old body, find a new spot to repeat the process. Along the way you avoid the sight of Sentinels and absorb energy from trees. Eventually you get high enough to absorb a sentinel, and your life becomes so much easier.

This managed to entertain me for about 4 hours. The reason why a game that has 10,000 levels in 1986 is because of procedural generation. Shocking, I know. All of these are completable, but some are much harder than others, which is where the strategy kicked in...except not really because I could brute force those really well. So its more of an FPS, right? Well, the only shooting you do is point and click. This is where I'm glad I'm playing the Amiga version instead of the BBC Micro original. That would have ended badly.

What makes this game shine here is the atmosphere, another Amiga plus. David Whittaker did the music, and it is amazing. I'm pretty sure its only 10 minutes long, but oh, wow, does it give a mood. For a brief moment, it can really feel like you're that psychic being locked in eternal conflict against machine. A sci-fi wistfulness that you wish the galaxy was a better place, but those thoughts must be stopped for now. Violence is unavoidable.

Its a shame the game doesn't have the substance to go along with that. This is a coffee-break game, before coffee-break games were a thing. The thing about those is, you were never going to get any decent gameplay out of those. If that is your requirement, then this comes with the highest honors, otherwise, well, I'm afraid you'll have to look for something more.

Weapons:
There's no real weapon, only falling under the label of FPS by the loosest of definitions. 0/10

Enemies:
There are basically two enemies, Sentinels, who slowly drain your health, and Meanies, who instantly drain your health. Not much variety. 1/10

Non-Enemies:
None, really.

Levels:
I think I lasted around 30-40 levels before giving up. There are a few types, but the differences become minute as you get used to the game. 1/10

Player Agency:
As cool as the concept is, its got some very obvious flaws. You don't really move, you just sort of teleport. Turning is slow, very slow. You get a 180-degree turn button, but it doesn't help much if you're under attack. 2/10

Interactivity:
None.

Atmosphere:
This game may not have set out to do it, but it has a very specific and interesting alien mood. It captures the spirit of two invincible entities fighting each other for all time. I want to see this mood in something else. 9/10

Graphics:
I like the whole unearthly feel of this game. Untextured polygons are my thing. Here it feels like some strange alien world...if that alien world suddenly stopped at designated edges. Its very effective for 1986. 2/10

Story:
It doesn't have an impact on the game. 0/10

Sound/Music:
Top notch stuff, musically. Would actually listen to. The rest of the sound effects are solid. 6/10

That's 21. The highest rated game since Freaks. In ranking terms, its below two of the lesser Catacomb games, and above Lethal Tender and Blake Stone.

Reviews of the game are generally positive, from greatest game ever, to unrateable to mere indifference. My comparisons to Sudoku are not unheard of, one compared the game to chess. This popularity has not extended to videos on the game, though there is a walkthrough on the ZX Spectrum...which is part 1 of 7 and clocks in at nearly 12 hours. That's just great. Seeing as I've seen video reviewers complain in the past that there aren't enough games to review, this strikes me as a glaring omission considering that this game has had no shortage of print praise.

Next up, Cholo another weird proto-FPS published by Firebird.

Game 73: Dark Castle

Name:Dark Castle
Number:73
Year:1986
Publisher:Silicon Beach Software
Developer:Silicon Beach Software
Genre:Side-Scroller
Difficulty:5/5
Time:1 hour 30 minutes

I couldn't do it, I couldn't beat Dark Castle. Its one thing to be unreasonably hard, but its another to mess with what little progress I can make. I've seen about 75% of the game, but taking that last 25% and actually beating it is just soul-draining. But let's not kid ourselves, if Dark Castle was good it would have some kind of trick so you don't feel like you're pointlessly playing the same screens over and over again. It doesn't, so I don't feel like I missed much.

Dark Castle does deserve plenty of credit. Most of its contemporaries had either had no aiming or simple 8-directional shooting. While I'm sure something later could prove me wrong, by what has survived in public conscience, Dark Castle is the first on a path to the kind of system something like Abuse would eventually use, the ideal side-scrolling shooting system. As it plays, it shares more with artillery style games like Scorched Earth than anything else.

It was a necessary misstep, however. While the extreme trial and era wasn't uncommon in the era, especially in Mac games, mouse aiming was uncommon. Its hard to imagine why someone wouldn't just try point and click, but such things would be more complicated with the way arcing works with rocks in this game. So in a way, that misstep was mandated by the artistic choices the developer made. At least that's what it looks like without understanding the true technical issues of such things. Today, its obvious that a Dark Castle-style game would take more effort, but that's not necessarily true then.

But the big problem here is the difficulty. The way the game is set up, everything kills you and its going to if you're not careful. Except a few falls which teleport you to a different room. That is when the game switches gears from difficult to obnoxious. But the thing is that without the massive difficulty, I would have beaten this already. So I understand why its there, a game that costs over 20$ needs to have something that makes it cost that much. But honestly, for most of it, I didn't feel that bad about the game. Its just the series of rooms, Trouble, that pushed me over the edge.

There are four series of rooms, named after where they take you to, Fireball, Shield, Black Knight and Trouble. Fireball and Shield give you items, Black Knight is the final boss. Trouble is exactly what it sounds like. Unlike the other series of rooms, the end goal is the door you start off in. You're supposed to go down some stairs, climb up a rope, jump across some more, knock out a special guard, take a key that isn't trapped (its random) and return to where you started. Along with the usual assortment of vermin and skeletons. The fun part is that everything that would be a pit trap in a different game, takes you to the last part of Trouble. So you can't avoid this screen.

But let's examine that difficulty, outside of that part. Its still very cheap in places. Oh, sure, everyone and their dog were making the player a one-hit kill back in the day, and this game does offer a few situations where you can escape instant death. But enemies respawn, which is a no-no in my book. Enemies that you stun are honestly easier to fight than enemies you can kill. Then there's the player character himself. He mostly controls well, except...he falls over everything. knocked out enemies, gaps in the floor. Is the intent humor? I probably take games too seriously in general, since I'm not much for the humor in most games, but, I could probably handle this situation better than the character I'm playing as. I don't mean that as a tough guy take either, this PC is a joke.

Now there are ways to alleviate some of the difficulty, as later you get a shield and a fireball attack...but by the time you've gotten those you're well on your way to actually winning the game, so you've already figured out how to pass most of the levels. When you need those you're getting assaulted by noise and enemies you don't know how to deal with.

Dark Castle is known more for its ports to other systems. Most of these all make the game measurably worse in some aspects. The DOS version, to my understanding, while looking impressive for CGA, uses keyboard aiming, which isn't ideal. The Genesis and CD-i versions limit the controls, making moving around harder, aiming harder, and arguably make the game look worse. The CD-i in particular looks awful and doesn't even show the full screen. The rest all at least look worse. Dark Castle is one of those games that only looks good in B&W.

Weapons:
You get rocks that are later upgraded into fireballs. With the latter, you can kill enemies you couldn't before. But either way, these are all just temporary solutions, since enemies respawn like crazy. 1/10

Enemies:
You have a nice variety of enemies, with one tiny flaw. Most of them just exist as things blocking your path. They either sit around or jump around the screen, and everything's a one-hit kill. 2/10

Non-Enemies:
None.

Levels:
Its nice figuring out all the little tricks you need to do to win levels, but some aspects make this game really frustrating. There are pits on several levels, and instead of killing you, like the long falls elsewhere, you get deposited in one specific level you need a key to get out of. 3/10

Player Agency:
The player has reasonable freedom of movement and aim, although the clockwise aiming function is awkward to use. What isn't good is how our hero is constantly getting dizzy or tripping over things, like some kind of bad precursor to cinematic platforming. I shouldn't have to jump over a small dip in the ground. 4/10

Interactivity:
Rare interactions with the environment, usually for puzzles. 1/10

Atmosphere:
The spooky castle environment loses its special castle charm whenever you start fighting enemies. Most of the enemies feel too cutesy to be here, and the general stupid humor tone ruins whatever they were going for. 3/10

Graphics:
Very nice B&W graphics. Most of the ports lose this, but some pick up their own charm. The background is moody, but doesn't quite capture the feel of the old horror movies its trying to emulate, too much white. The monsters are simplistic, but well-animated. 6/10

Story:
Is the story about some random dude, or a prince, taking out the Black Knight. It doesn't really matter, since it doesn't show up in-game. 0/10

Sound/Music:
The only music is Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. Depending on what version it is, you hear it throughout the game. The rest of the sound is mostly weird voice samples and strange sound effects. Some of them feel borderline trolling. 1/10

That's 21. I'm going to dock 2 points because this game is using difficulty to extend its length way beyond what it needs to be. So, a final rating of 19. Putting this in the realm of solid, but very noticeable issues that can ruin it for some. As this got ported to other systems its qualities became gradually removed. Usually either the graphics or the controls suffer, but the CD-i version is notable for being worse in both respects. Huzzah for that.

Glowing praise is not rare for this game, usually on the Mac, no surprise there, since this is a big nostalgia game there. There was one on the Genesis that astounded me, given that it is worse on the Genesis. But this gets vicious in the negative reviews. Beyond the infamous Angry Video Game Nerd video, we have a whole host of comparisons that I don't really feel like repeating here. Suffice to say that a lot of people did not care for this.

Next up is...I dunno. I feel like playing a racing game.