Now here is another interesting video game for the Atari 2600, the game Dragon Fire consisted of two game screens, one which you ran across a bridge while fireballs were shot at you, you had to duck or jump over the fireball. This screen was a side-scroller style screen (although it doesn’t actually scroll), at the other end of the bridge was a castle door which you’d enter to get to the next screen.
The second screen was more classic “overhead but not really” screen where you ran around this black screen picking up treasures while a dragon at the bottom shot fire at you from below.
As the game increased in level jumping fireballs became more challenging (on the first screen) as you ran because they would come quicker, more often. The second screen would get very difficult very quickly as the dragon would increase in speed and fireball spitting. You could tell how hard the dragon would be as it would change colors from lighter to darker black as you progress stages.
When you finished collecting all the treasure an exit would pop up in the corner and you had to run to it without being burned by the fireballs, that dragon would turn from left to right nearly instantly too! Then, you’d jump into the exit and be back on the bridge again, but this time it was harder. You could die up to 7 times before the game was over (just to show you how hard it is, they gave you a bunch of lives).
The game was tough, frustrating, hard to replay because you were just so nervous and jittery from the last attempt. Graphics were “okay,” nothing to rave at but it was, after all, the 2600.
You can hear all we had to say about DragonFire for the Atari 2600 on Episode 79 of the TD Gaming Podcast!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Hi guys great episode!
I found Infamous to be a pretty easy game, if they make the third even more so just seems sad. Not a lot of games seem to be as difficult as the old 8-bit games. I do like the paper trail feature Jordan talked about and I know Rockstar has a similar thing though not quite as cool as unlocking more missions through using the website, you can still track your progress of various games on the site.
Hearing Paul spending 200 on in game purchases on a FB game just makes me sad. I know it’s his choice on how to spend his money but a lot of FB games really seem to encourage you to spend real money to get fake in game money just to speed things up and make the game enjoyable. The Foxtrot comic Jonah brought up is a good example of why I don’t like those games. I feel like it’s lazy game making and undeserving of my money. I know they got to make money to pay their bills but I don’t like what they are selling. I guess though if there is a demand for these type of games who am I to judge? I’ll stop beating the dead horse now.
@Occulus bought by FB: When I first heard the news I was like “Why?” I wasn’t the only one scratching my head at this. I really didn’t want to think of Virtual Farmville. I do like the idea though of remote classroom, though I know we already have video chat for that sort of thing. Is anyone going to really want to wear this thing on their head? It’s like a fancier virtual boy.
QOTW: I subscribe to Gameinformer, which can be read online now. It does seem like it’s less and less necessary now though given how easy it is to hear about gaming news.