INT - Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Haiku-Review:

intrepid heroes,
quest to mend the Crown of Kings-
a grand adventure

Additional Comments:

The continuation of the saga which I've come to brand: 2014. Lay waste to the games left undone by defeating them whole in the quest to Beat All Games. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons for the dear old Mattel Intellivision is the next unfinished victim to finally say goodbye to my list of shame. But alas, this game is brilliantly designed and fun to play, so wherefore would I ever dust this title aside for considerable time likened to a beauteous maiden behind lock and key in some long forgotten dungeon?

The answer, somewhat akin to that of Shenmue's initial woes: technical issues. However, unlike my Dreamcast issue erring on the side of laziness, my sudden issue with the Intellivision was a bit more of an actual problem, and still is. Shortly after playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and breezing through Easy, I upgraded my television. This became a problem for some of my older systems, namely my Famicom, 2600, and Intellivision. After some time fighting with the 2600 and procuring a new switchbox, I was able to make the 2600 compatible. I've yet to manage anything out of the Intellivision, although I have had a few moments of hope here and there. In the long run though, just haven't been able to make a promising connection.

As a result, I found myself having to rely on emulation for the time being - well, at least long enough to knock this game off the list. However, using, or attempting to use, an Intellivision emulator is no easy feat in itself. I'm fairly familiar with a large scope of emulators for all sorts of gaming devices, and rarely have I ever struggled to set an emulator up for usage. Certain standouts include Project 64 when I had to overhaul a bunch of settings for one game in particular, but still an easy job. The various PlayStation emulators are a bit of a pain in the ass, but usable. I've pulled my hair out over a few Spectrum and Amstrad emulators but eventually got stuff running - although mysteriously my Spectrum emulator no longer wants to play nice. Don't know what's going on there. And then there's the assorted Intellivision emulators. I would have never imagined that this would be the system to give me the most grief in emulated form. I think I read up on about four or five different emus and tried out at least three of them before I got something working. But then comes the real issue with emulating the Intellivision: how to best emulate that funky 80s carphone controller. There is no easy way, and I absolutely refuse to play any sort of game with a keyboard. So...how do I make my PS2 style Logitech function as an Intellivision 12-key? Crap.

So perhaps it's best to recall my initial playthrough on Easy mode back before the game ended up on my snub list. Unfortunately, it's been a while so I don't have the best recollection. Best memories I can call up are fighting with the Intellivision's clunky controller. How did anyone successfully navigate any sort of game with those things. It's not that there's an ungodly number of buttons, but that it's so awkward to hold; more so than a Nintendo 64 controller...by a long shot. Having to use two hands, I never found an appropriate grip for ease of play. I'll admit I could get by on Easy, but after ramping up to the second difficulty where speed became more of a factor, I found myself fumbling with the keypad.

However, I have to wonder if some of the game's clunky control is down to the decision of using the entire keypad as firing directions. In more modern consoles, i.e. anything post-1984, direction of fire would be solely based on the direction the character faces. I feel developers felt like they had to make use of the console's many buttons just because they could. Perhaps they chalked it up as realism. Whatever the case, it only adds to the already clumsy design of the controller and as you progress through the game and speed continues to build as a dominant factor in game difficulty, you've got to seriously question the decision. Though I have to think if the controller was designed in such a way that I could properly hold it with both hands, the whole issue would be moot. Data suggest this to be a sound hypothesis based on my latter difficulty runs via emulator using a PS2 style controller. I must state, however, that using a PS2 style controller is neither easier nor harder than the original Intellivision brick. Having the ability to hold the controller within both hands definitely made a world of difference though.

Enough about emulators, controllers, and other eccentricities that have little to do about the game in hand. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is a marvelous game and in my opinion, quite advanced for its time. Upon initial play I was impressed, but I didn't readily pick up on the details of why exactly this game deserves high marks. I simply saw it as an adventurous romp, imagining it to be a sort of spiritual predecessor to the likes of Legend of Zelda. Sure, it's basic, but for me far more engaging than other early console adventure games, for example the Swordquest series on the 2600. I like the Swordquest series, but every time I've played one of them, I just lose interest. Perhaps it's the total web of confusion that the series hoists upon its shoulders whereas Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is intuitive; very clear and concise regarding its goals. That's not to say that Swordquest may be as well if I gave it the old college try, but I've always found my mind wandering to other 2600 titles within twenty or thirty minutes of play. Here, however, I just wanted to keep going while other Intellivision titles were relegated to indefinite shelf time. Sadly, the time to complete the game is minimal once you understand the strategies required - which brings me to my next point.

Initially, I misunderstood the game in regards to strategy. Unaware that strategy was key and that a plethora of clues were scattered across each dungeon, I tackled each dungeon in a reckless burst of speed. Strange, considering I play nearly every game I come across as a carefully calculating protagonist. Rarely do I ever rush into a situation guns a blazing. In fact, if there's ever a chance to avoid confrontation, I'll make it so, which unfortunately lends to me taking far longer to complete games than it should. But when it came to this game: to hell with personal gaming instincts. Fortunately, I could afford my imprudent behavior on Easy and even Medium, but once I reached Medium-Hard, enemy speed and lack of ammunition showed me the errors of my ways.

I'm one of those rare gamers that reads manuals - which I should mention, it saddens me to no end that manuals have gone the way of the dodo. But that's a whole other mess that I could rant on about. Anyway, it's been some time since I started Advanced Dungeons & Dragons until now when I finally got around to finishing it off. I recall reading through the manual when I first started but chose to forego a refresher. As a result, I completely forgot those random sets of black pixels represented paw prints. At the same time, I was aware the other set of prints were prints, but neglected to realize the importance behind them. Oh, you mean there's a demon in the next room? Idiot here. Don't mind me. Just doing some casual spelunking with a total disregard for certain death. Aloof much? Sheesh...

Between tracking prints and listening for a lone monster's roar, a strategic hunt is born. And once I fully realized this I viewed the game anew as a beautifully conceived quest dependent on fastidious combat maneuvers - insomuch as can be performed on the primitive Intellivision. I already loved the game by this point, but suddenly my praise and adoration increased exponentially. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons definitely deserves merit for encouraging the player to focus on sound, and considering the game came out in 1982, that just seems like such a ballsy move. After all, the extent of game audio in the day consisted of noises equivalent to a dot matrix printer having a stroke. Still, it works, and not only that, it works well. The sounds used easily evoke the proper imagery thus making this one of the earliest examples of immersive gameplay that I've come across...and succeeding!

For any fan of the Intellivision, I can only recommend this game with great acclaim. A must play in my opinion. It's only downfall, as I mentioned, would be its length, or lack thereof - though that depends on what map you're on or what route you shoot for I suppose. Still... However, given that we're dealing with a time period that predates the capability for saves or password functionality, or heck, ability to complete a game considering a vast majority of titles resorted to arcade style high score runs, I can accept the length for what it is. A single sitting for anything longer could be considered asking a lot from the player, but then, I find myself thinking about that pesky Swordquest series again.

Rating: 4.5 purple mountain majesties out of 5*

*Unlike America's purple mountain majesties, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons' are demon infested deathtraps. Yikes!

INT - ABPA Backgammon

Haiku-Review:

checkers lined on pips
lie waiting to hit a blot -
where is my home board?

Additional Comments:

Huzzah! Intellivision lives! Ok, maybe Backgammon isn't the best game to herald it in, but the system's clumsy controller has so far gotten the better of me as I continue to try and tackle Advanced Dungeons & Dragons on the upper difficulties. So, until I can master akimbo-like prestidigitation, board gaming it is. Again, I'm sure there's something else I could have played through first, but honestly, I like backgammon. There's a certain nostalgia that comes with the traditional form of the game as I used to play it all the time as a kid - backgammon, acey-deucey, and I think possibly a couple other variants. Nowadays, it's become nothing more than a forgotten memory, so when I recently picked up a healthy stack of Intellivision games, I just had to pick up Backgammon as well. Maybe it's not quite the same experience as the real thing, but as long as the basic rules are in play, I've no qualms about facing off with a thirty-plus year old gaming machine no matter how trivial the game may seem in terms of today's video gaming extravagance.

Unfortunately, for the benefits of Beat All Games, there's very little to say about the game. It's backgammon through and through. The rules are in place, and regardless of difficulty, it's the next best thing to sitting down with an actual backgammon board. If I had to point a finger at anything, it'd likely be the one thing that most differentiates a digitized emulation of the game from the real deal: the dice. No matter the game and no matter the hardware, digitized die rolls just feel...phony. This especially becomes apparent in Backgammon on Mode 2 where the computer seems to have a fairly high percentage chance of rolling doubles while the player has nil to none. I played Mode 2 twice, having lost the first round thanks to a fortuitous doubles roll by the computer on the final play - a round in which I didn't roll doubles even once. Now, it should be said that I've really no place to complain because it's completely plausible to play through a real game of backgammon without rolling doubles even once. But to have a relative similar dice rolling outcome in both rounds where I really had to fight to overcome the computer's wrath of doubles, I do have to question the integrity of the dice rolling algorithm used in Mode 2.

The issue is that I'm not completely sure if that is what should constitute a higher degree of difficulty - as least on it's own accord. But from a programmer's perspective, perhaps it is the easiest way to present two difficulty tiers. To contrast the two modes, Mode 1 plays out more like a head to head race, solely reliant on high dice rolls. Very little is done regarding "combat" as blotting is nearly impossible thanks to the high quantity of doubles. Mode 2, however, is heavily strategy laden. Since the die results aren't there, you have to rely on sacrificial blots, tactical hits and the off chance to prime. While my first attempt at Mode 2 nearly ended in victory, and rather easily at that, I had to fight like hell in the second round. Hits were consistently traded off, and in the end I had to make prime to ensure that I could get my remaining checkers around the board before the computer could. Thing is, it was a thrilling round to play - felt more traditional to playing a real player because there was a lot more strategy involved throughout. Unfortunately, the strategy didn't necessarily come down to the computer being particularly wily. It was all a result of the computer's onslaught of doubles compared to my near absence of them. Hmm....

In the end though, there's no real reason to complain. The game works on a fundamental level as it should. The luck of the draw regarding dice can boil down to exactly that - luck. Sure, the law of averages would likely play out a bit more in real life, but it did lend for some great rounds nonetheless.

There is one other aspect of the game that bothered me. While not egregious by any means, the placement of the home board caught me completely off guard. Unfortunately, due to the nature of play, the home board can either be to your left or right depending on which side of the table you're sitting on. I often played the game sitting on the side in which the home board resided on my right. I guess out of instinct more than anything, I wrongfully assumed such is the case here. This led to a couple of bad plays on my initial game. My anticlockwise fixation got the better of me; more than once I might add rather embarrassingly. From my perspective, it just seemed natural that my checkers revolve thusly, and despite spending some time contemplating checker direction and home board placement - again, rather embarrassingly - it still felt off to move my pieces against the grain.

Nevertheless, ABPA Backgammon is a fine digital replication of a fantastic board game. Still, I'd rather play the game against an actual player, but in the meantime, the Intellivision manages just fine as a temporary replacement.

Rating: 4 pips out of 5