Inverted video games [entries|reading|network|archive]
simont

[ userinfo | dreamwidth userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Sun 2007-04-15 00:20
Inverted video games

One way to invent interesting new kinds of video game is to take an existing video game, and invert it, in the sense of having the player take the part of what was previously the bad guy or monster or antagonistic force of nature. Perhaps the clearest example of this was Dungeon Keeper (1997), which inverts the general D&D theme of a party of adventurers wading into a dungeon and hacking and slaying; now you're trying to keep the dungeon in good order and these pesky adventurers keep coming in and making trouble.

I was recently idly wondering whether any of the real golden-oldie games could usefully be inverted and hadn't yet been. Space Invaders could just about be, for example: it's fundamental to the nature of the game that the invaders move in a fixed pattern, but you could control their firing by clicking the mouse on an invader to have it drop a bomb, and your aim would be to try to fire bombs in the right pattern to box the defending ship into a killing zone. That doesn't sound like a particularly interesting game – certainly not interesting enough to motivate me to sit down and write it – but it illustrates the point. Qix might be a more interesting one to invert, on the other hand; and I've actually seen a quite playable inversion of Asteroids.

Another one I was idly wondering about the other day was Pac-Man: there surely, I thought, must be scope for a game with a slightly RTS-like interface by which one player controls all four ghosts and tries to box in the computer-controlled Pac-Man?

But just now I realised why it wouldn't work: there is in fact a trivial strategy by which four intelligently cooperating ghosts can guarantee never to let Pac-Man finish a level. Each ghost moves directly to one of the four power pills, and sits on it. When Pac-Man comes near that pill, the ghost moves one step towards the direction he's coming from, so as to cover the adjacent dot. If Pac-Man circles round and comes at the pill from the other direction, the ghost has ample time to move two steps back and cover the other adjacent dot. Hence, each ghost can reliably protect the power pill and the two dots next to it, and Pac-Man will eventually run out of other dots to eat.

(I suppose if you adjusted the winning condition so that the ghosts had to kill Pac-Man rather than merely preventing him reaching the next level, that might become more interesting again.)

LinkReply
[identity profile] christhomas123.livejournal.comSat 2007-04-14 23:30
What about Weebl's Inverse Shoot'em up?

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/games/inverse+shoot+em+up/

You control the 'baddies' and have to kill the shooty flying thing.

Link Reply to this
[identity profile] fluffymormegil.livejournal.comSat 2007-04-14 23:36
Inverted Qix would be seriously weird. But then, Qix itself was a little... peculiar.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] mooism.livejournal.comSat 2007-04-14 23:43
Or you could have more power pills than ghosts.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[identity profile] songster.livejournal.comSun 2007-04-15 00:04
Or you could have four players, and the ghosts are competing with each other to eat Pac-Man
Link Reply to this | Parent
[identity profile] tackline.livejournal.comSun 2007-04-15 03:02
Four Pac-Persons (a whole family of the spherical blighters), and one ghost that has to commit genocide.
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] gareth-rees.livejournal.comSun 2007-04-15 09:56
The ghosts cannot stop moving (or reverse direction) in Pac-Man. So "sit on the power pill" wouldn't work.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontSun 2007-04-15 10:51
Ah, they can't reverse either? That would make a difference; I had thought of them being unable to stay still but decided oscillating back and forth would be an adequate imitation.

Mind you, under those restrictions an RTS-like interface would be harder to arrange; they'd have to have in-built intelligence to do something sensibly default while you weren't giving them orders, and that something would have to be simultaneously not clever enough to catch Pac without your help and yet not stupid enough to have them wander miles out of position and be unprepared for your next order.
Link Reply to this | Parent | Thread
[personal profile] gerald_duckSun 2007-04-15 14:38
Suggested interface: each ghost follows a circuit, which resets to that ghost's default circuit at the start of each level. Change these circuits by choosing a ghost then mousing (or equivalent) a legal path from somewhere on its current circuit to somewhere else on that circuit, or to somewhere on the new path. The ghost continues on the old path until it reaches the point where the new path diverges, then follows the new path. Thus one can either substitute a segment in the ghost's current circuit, or ask it to follow a route to another part of the maze then begin a new circuit there.

The above semantics would prevent the creation of circuits that crossed or touched themselves, but that might be the kind of arbitrary restriction of which interesting gameplay is made…
Link Reply to this | Parent
[personal profile] gerald_duckSun 2007-04-15 14:30
Space Invaders might work in reverse, actually — let the player click on individual invaders to make them fire and waggle a joystick to move all their remaining invaders around as a block. Limit their firing rate. At any time you can make a mothership set off across the screen from either side, but then you no longer control its motion, only its firing. Scoring as usual, objective is to minimise how many points they score before you kill them.

Looking at the original Pac-Man maze, my hand-waving hunch is that the game is a lose for Pac-Man rather than just a stalemate. I think there are too many ways to partition the maze by placing four ghosts, and Pac-Man is in serious trouble if the ghosts separate him from all the remaining power pills and at least one dot.

When I was an undergraduate, some mathmo friends of mine established that Tetris was a win for the computer, by the way. This is the case even if the computer only gets to choose a stream of bricks in advance, not react to how the player places them.

Of the games that don't start out symmetric, possibly the most readily invertible would be Missile Command?
Link Reply to this
[identity profile] tombee.livejournal.comThu 2007-05-03 21:36
Donkey Kong^-1 might also work reasonably well: playing Kong, you have to click on the various ladders etc, this action altering the future course of the descending stream of barrels (so they either use the laders or ignore them): the aim being to direct an unjumpable sequence of them at whoever it is who keeps stealing your girlfriend/stash of bananas. No-one likes a fast-moving Barrel...

A similar mechanism might work with Pacman^-1.

And of course, many of these would work as two player games. And of course, happy birthday.
Link Reply to this | Thread
[personal profile] simontThu 2007-05-03 21:50
No-one likes a fast-moving Barrel...

Hee hee :-)
Link Reply to this | Parent
navigation
[ go | Previous Entry | Next Entry ]
[ add | to Memories ]