Intellivision Amico - Tommy Tallarico introduction + Q&A

Who remembers an old computer game called Math/Number Munchers?  I used to play this on school computers back in the day.  It was a fun game.  It would be cool if this was on Amico.  You had to solve math problems while being chased around by an enemy.

12 minutes ago, Papy said:

Triggered?

 

I'm a perfectionist. I'm one of the people who can play for high score. Not only this is why I have two bartop MAME machines, but this also why I had so much fun with a game like SpaceChem. Simply solving the problem was not enough for me, I had to achieve the best result in each leaderboards before moving on to the next puzzle. However, I don't pretend I'm someone "normal." I'm part of a tiny minority.

The big point I think you are perhaps missing is that regardless if a person buys and plays an Amico game for a few hours before tiring of it, or plays it for hours a week for years; Intellivision (and developers) will make the same amount of money off the game either way. There will be no DLC's, loot boxes, Season Passes, expansions, and the like. You buy the game, you get 100% of the game right there.

So play time on any given title is something of an irrelevant point as there is no various micro-transactions (thankfully!) with any of these games.

In fact, one could make an argument that Intellivision, et al. will make more money if console owners occasionally move onto buying and playing new and different titles rather then sticking to just a few favourites.

10 minutes ago, Tavi said:

In fact, one could make an argument that Intellivision, et al. will make more money if console owners occasionally move onto buying and playing new and different titles rather then sticking to just a few favourites.

So your point is that it's OK if Intellivision releases games that people won't care playing because it will make people buy other games? Really?

To quote a great intellectual : “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

Hey guys, I have been writing a book on an old typewriter. Here's an excerpt:

24 minutes ago, Papy said:

So your point is that it's OK if Intellivision releases games that people won't care playing because it will make people buy other games? Really?

 

To quote a great intellectual : “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

Hardly what I was claiming.

Tommy had already mentioned that there was a pretty strict game quality vetting process, so concerns about buying sub-par shovelware should be pretty much moot.

What I am saying, and it should not be that shocking of a revelation, is that more casual players who will buy and play a title and then eventually rotates to other additional games is a more profitable customer then someone who buys and plays just one or two games exclusively.

Especially on a system that will not allow various micro-transactions.

22 hours ago, mr_me said:

So what kind of video game would you make for a thirty-something mom rather than her kids.  The games we are talking about are for everyone but something to attract her attention.

a 30 something mom is ALL about her kids, so you dont have to attract her, you attract her kids and its sold. In your 30s, kids and their needs RULE your life.

4 minutes ago, Tavi said:

Hardly what I was claiming.

What I am saying, and it should not be that shocking of a revelation, is that more casual players who will buy and play a title and then eventually rotates to other additional games is a more profitable customer then someone who buys and plays just one or two games exclusively.

I don't see the difference. You are indirectly advocating for games that lose their appeal very quickly (so games that people don't care to play) in order for Intellivision to sell more games and make more profit.

Before I bought Nex Machina, I read some reviews about the game. One common review was that the game was much too short. There were people saying the game could be completed in only two hours. And those people were not casual gamers at all. Nex Machina is not something a casual gamer could even dream of playing.

Nex Machina is a big game with a lot of content. There are about 80 completely different levels, most having secrets. More than that, it's a game with a lot of ways to increase scores. In order to master the game and reach an honorable score, a player has to invest a lot of hours. It's certainly the kind of game that could be used in e-sports.

The problem is the vast majority of gamers are not interested in training simply to get a high score anymore. They are not interested in games like Nex Machina or Rezogun. So what they did was just click continue over and over until they reached the last level. And when they did reach the last level, they considered they had finished playing the game. To me this is absurd, but this is what gamers do now.

Nex Machina and Rezogun were fantastic reimagining of Robotron and Defender. I'm seriously impressed by the quality of those games. Yet, they flopped.

1 hour ago, Papy said:

o your point is that it's OK if Intellivision releases games that people won't care playing because it will make people buy other games? Really?

Tommy has been over the 20-25% breakdown of the games for Amico ad nauseam  , There will be games for everyone ( except the hardocre under 30's) on this system.  At half the price of a pizza, these games will be easy to pick up and buy and not require a great deal of financial scrutiny.

2 minutes ago, Papy said:

I don't see the difference.

huh? if you sell 2 games people play for 700 hours you make 20 bucks.  Much rather sell 15 games people play for 700 hours.  its simple business.

I love the look of this H.E.R.O inspired game but maybe it's too pixel art for the Amico.  

I know Tommy has expressed a disinterest in having such retro looking, pixel art games for it.  It would be nice to have some though and I wonder what cooperative and competitive elements could be added for a possible Amico port. Like the look of Sigi and Plutonium Pirates from pixel.lu too.

On 2/23/2020 at 6:01 PM, mr_me said:

Pole Position has bad controls? 

Yes, it did.

3 hours ago, Atari_Master said:

Who remembers an old computer game called Math/Number Munchers?  I used to play this on school computers back in the day.  It was a fun game.  It would be cool if this was on Amico.  You had to solve math problems while being chased around by an enemy.

Magnum: I knew if he had a revolver he only had 6 shots. Course if he had an automatic he could have 7...or 8. Then he could have one of those 13 shot automatics. Or he could have two guns. Oh well....

4 minutes ago, Swami said:

Magnum: I knew if he had a revolver he only had 6 shots. Course if he had an automatic he could have 7...or 8. Then he could have one of those 13 shot automatics. Or he could have two guns. Oh well....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeMat_Revolver

9 rounds plus an extra round of shotgun.

1 hour ago, insertclevernamehere said:

I love the look of this H.E.R.O inspired game but maybe it's too pixel art for the Amico.  

I know Tommy has expressed a disinterest in having such retro looking, pixel art games for it.  It would be nice to have some though and I wonder what cooperative and competitive elements could be added for a possible Amico port. Like the look of Sigi and Plutonium Pirates from pixel.lu too.

love that look!

2 hours ago, bigdaddygamestudio said:

Tommy has been over the 20-25% breakdown of the games for Amico ad nauseam  , There will be games for everyone ( except the hardocre under 30's) on this system.  At half the price of a pizza, these games will be easy to pick up and buy and not require a great deal of financial scrutiny.

It doesn't matter how much the game cost. If I buy three games in a row that does not interest me, the chances that I will buy a fourth one are slim, even if the game costs only $10.

As for the 20-25% breakdown between genre, if Intellivision makes 20-25% of games for one demographic, then another 20-25% or games for another demographic, then yet another 20-25% for yet another demographic... then the whole concept of bringing the family and friends together will become only a pipe dream.

I can understand that a very limited number of games specifically designed for one particular demographic could be made. However, I believe those games should be exceptions.

2 hours ago, bigdaddygamestudio said:

huh? if you sell 2 games people play for 700 hours you make 20 bucks.  Much rather sell 15 games people play for 700 hours.  its simple business.

No, I was talking about the moral justification given by Tavi for releasing games that people won't find interesting.

2 hours ago, Papy said:

I don't see the difference. You are indirectly advocating for games that lose their appeal very quickly (so games that people don't care to play) in order for Intellivision to sell more games and make more profit.

 

Before I bought Nex Machina, I read some reviews about the game. One common review was that the game was much too short. There were people saying the game could be completed in only two hours. And those people were not casual gamers at all. Nex Machina is not something a casual gamer could even dream of playing.

 

Nex Machina is a big game with a lot of content. There are about 80 completely different levels, most having secrets. More than that, it's a game with a lot of ways to increase scores. In order to master the game and reach an honorable score, a player has to invest a lot of hours. It's certainly the kind of game that could be used in e-sports.

 

The problem is the vast majority of gamers are not interested in training simply to get a high score anymore. They are not interested in games like Nex Machina or Rezogun. So what they did was just click continue over and over until they reached the last level. And when they did reach the last level, they considered they had finished playing the game. To me this is absurd, but this is what gamers do now.

 

Nex Machina and Rezogun were fantastic reimagining of Robotron and Defender. I'm seriously impressed by the quality of those games. Yet, they flopped.

It seemed like sometime in the late 1980s and 1990s video games became more linear with content to get through.  They are completed and players move on to the next game.  I see sometimes people ask how many hours to complete a game as if they don't expect to re-play the game again too often or at all.  It was almost as if publishers were doing this by design to sell more games.

Games should be designed so people want to play them again.  People go out and play tennis and can do that every week for the rest of their lives, if they enjoy playing tennis.  People play solitaire over and over again.  There's no reason video games can't be similar.

I think high scores can be a detriment to replayability.  What happens when you can no longer improve your skills and improve your scores.  The way many golden age arcade games are designed, after lots of play time, the game can be easy to start only to become difficult and frustrating within a few minutes.  I like playing these old games but I don't bother with high scores I like to see what level I can do.  One of the changes I would make is a user selectable starting difficulty level.  Tetris is an example of a game that has this feature, Tempest did too.  The home video games I played most in the early 1980s weren't arcade style, no high scores,  just a win/lose outcome.  Like playing tennis or solitaire.

11 minutes ago, Papy said:

As for the 20-25% breakdown between genre, if Intellivision makes 20-25% of games for one demographic, then another 20-25% or games for another demographic, then yet another 20-25% for yet another demographic... then the whole concept of bringing the family and friends together will become only a pipe dream.

 

I can understand that a very limited number of games specifically designed for one particular demographic could be made. However, I believe those games should be exceptions.

I think that their intention is that most of their games can be played by everyone.  Some will be more specifically targeted but I'm not sure where you get your demographic breakdown of their games.

1 hour ago, Papy said:

It doesn't matter how much the game cost. If I buy three games in a row that does not interest me, the chances that I will buy a fourth one are slim, even if the game costs only $10.

 

As for the 20-25% breakdown between genre, if Intellivision makes 20-25% of games for one demographic, then another 20-25% or games for another demographic, then yet another 20-25% for yet another demographic... then the whole concept of bringing the family and friends together will become only a pipe dream.

 

I can understand that a very limited number of games specifically designed for one particular demographic could be made. However, I believe those games should be exceptions.

 

No, I was talking about the moral justification given by Tavi for releasing games that people won't find interesting.

 

I think the idea is that they are mostly, like 75% for the same purpose: fun for kids and fun or at least entertaining for adults. I am guessing from there being 25% table top and old fashioned puzzle games, 25% sports and rec, that at least 50% will be more fun for groups and I would expect most of the re-imagined games will also be more fun with groups. Then there is the difficulty levels and Karma Engine to make it more engaging for both kids and adults. Perhaps the other 25% of new games will have some candy crush and strawberry shortcake adventures along with games like Back Talk Party. I believe there will also be game show games, as well, but don't know quite where they fit in.

I understand the potential for the gulf between planning for great games and getting great games, but I believe they do want a little Intellivision fan service in some of the re-imagined games. 

1 hour ago, Papy said:

As for the 20-25% breakdown between genre, if Intellivision makes 20-25% of games for one demographic, then another 20-25% or games for another demographic, then yet another 20-25% for yet another demographic... then the whole concept of bringing the family and friends together will become only a pipe dream.

ok, you really dont understand the concept, and thats Ok. Tommy and his team does and thats what matters

1 hour ago, bigdaddygamestudio said:

ok, you really dont understand the concept, and thats Ok. Tommy and his team does and thats what matters

Since there is obviously some confusion, let me sum up the argument.

There are many people here who want remakes of a wild list of old games they played when they were children.

On my part, although I am in big part a retro gamer, I believe that the old arcade-style kind of gameplay has been superseded and very few people are still interested in this gameplay now. I believe that if reimagined games are remakes instead of spiritual successor, that is if they are based on the same gameplay, but with more bells and whistles and some kind of multiplayer modes tacked on, then those games will interest only a minority of people. I implied that Intellivision shouldn't do true remakes. Spiritual successors are fine, but not remakes.

As a counterargument you replied that "Tommy has been over the 20-25% breakdown of the games for Amico ad nauseam, There will be games for everyone"

Considering the context (a rebuttal to my point that only a minority of people would be interested in remakes), this implies that, in your mind, it's OK to make games targeted at a minority of people because each demographic will have its own 20-25% of the games. You implied that the 20-25% Tommy talked about was categories of games implicitly targeted to different demographics.

When I said "if Intellivision makes 20-25% of games for one demographic [...]," I was repeating your implicit argument.

-

Again, my point is that if reimagined games are only remakes (same gameplay with better graphics and more bells and whistles), then this will most probably hurt Amico badly. This is why I said that reimagined games are a great idea, but remakes are a bad idea.

7 hours ago, GrudgeQ said:

I can imagine the key difference would be:

Single Player Oregon Trail: "You Have Died of Dysentery"

Multi Player Oregon Trail: "You ALL Have Died of Dysentery"

I wouldn't want it any other way.

And I also think it's very interesting that an edutainment game could be so fun. I never thought I would say that, but it really is an interesting game. Of course, being from Alaska, we had Yukon Trail on our school computers, too.

38 minutes ago, Papy said:

Since there is obviously some confusion, let me sum up the argument.

 

There are many people here who want remakes of a wild list of old games they played when they were children.

 

On my part, although I am in big part a retro gamer, I believe that the old arcade-style kind of gameplay has been superseded and very few people are still interested in this gameplay now. I believe that if reimagined games are remakes instead of spiritual successor, that is if they are based on the same gameplay, but with more bells and whistles and some kind of multiplayer modes tacked on, then those games will interest only a minority of people. I implied that Intellivision shouldn't do true remakes. Spiritual successors are fine, but not remakes.

 

As a counterargument you replied that "Tommy has been over the 20-25% breakdown of the games for Amico ad nauseam, There will be games for everyone"

 

Considering the context (a rebuttal to my point that only a minority of people would be interested in remakes), this implies that, in your mind, it's OK to make games targeted at a minority of people because each demographic will have its own 20-25% of the games. You implied that the 20-25% Tommy talked about was categories of games implicitly targeted to different demographics.

 

When I said "if Intellivision makes 20-25% of games for one demographic [...]," I was repeating your implicit argument.

 

-

 

Again, my point is that if reimagined games are only remakes (same gameplay with better graphics and more bells and whistles), then this will most probably hurt Amico badly. This is why I said that reimagined games are a great idea, but remakes are a bad idea.

If you have no interest in remakes or updates of classic games, it was mentioned that Intellivision classic game bundles would also be released for the Amico at some point.

If I recall correctly, they just did not want to do it immediately after release to avoid the system being mislabeled as another retro Flashback console.

So you should be able to buy and play straight ports of classic Intellivision games at some point as well. Which is something I am interested in as well.

17 hours ago, Steven Pendleton said:

Co-op Oregon Trail

8 hours ago, GrudgeQ said:

I can imagine the key difference would be:

Single Player Oregon Trail: "You Have Died of Dysentery"

Multi Player Oregon Trail: "You ALL Have Died of Dysentery"

An Italian Cooking show starring Tommy: Oregano Trail

Just now, Swami said:

 

An Italian Cooking show starring Tommy: Oregano Trail

I think we need this. But make it an Amico game instead.

8 minutes ago, Steven Pendleton said:

I think we need this. But make it an Amico game instead.

That would be the tie-in to the show: A Burger-Time remake with Tommy being chased by spaghetti and meatballs and he throws oregano at them.