Let's Play (008) - Tennis for Two: For One | Part 1

Release Date: 18th of October, 1958

Platform: Donner Model 30

Genre: Sports

Developer(s): William A. Higinbotham

Publisher(s):

Ahh... multiplayer games. The bane of my pre-reboot existence. At the first, I did not know how to deal with this class of game. I had no friends to play them with, and therefore couldn't experience them properly. That, and I was hesitant to try, on account of my poor history of multiplayer experiences. My inner control freak didn't get along well with others.

Fortunately, I've matured since then. The observant reader will also note that the former paragraph was written in past tense. This has significance, along with the "Part 1" in the title, which I'll delve into at the end of this particular article.

For now, let's discuss Tennis for Two for a brief moment.

This was thought of as the first video game for a long time, being first rediscovered in the 1970s and 80s during Magnavox's lawsuits against the entire industry. Poor old William Higinbotham was even dragged into court to testify during one case - but that story is for a later time. Of course, we know now that this wasn't the first video game (otherwise I would've started the reboot series with it!), but it retained this crown until the internet age, when we began to discover the video game experiments that preceded it.

Speaking of the internet, the other boon it provides us with, along with the preservation of history, is the ability to recreate these early video games. That's where we are once again, today. We are with our reliable friend, Retrogame Deconstruction Zone, once more - and sadly, for the last time. His Tennis for Two simulator (TeTS) is the last of his works we'll be using on OGC.

Farewell, old friend.

RDZ's simulator is, while not the only version of Tennis for Two floating around the internet, is distinct in that RDZ built in a solo-play mode against a computer opponent. This was not present in the original Tennis for Two, which, while not authentic, is of great service to me for this project.

Tennis for Two is highly reminiscent of Atari's Pong with regards to gameplay. Although, Tennis for Two plays the game of Tennis from a side-on angle, rather than Pong's more top-down, Table Tennis-like appearance. Note here also, that Tennis for Two had zero influence on Pong. Tennis for Two was completely unknown in that day, despite having the appearance of an early 1970s arcade game. As far as I'm concerned, with this and the next game up, Spacewar!, we're entering into "real" video game territory. These games would comfortably fit in with the league of 1970s arcade hits.

Think of it as side-scroller Pong.

We'll continue on with the Pong comparison, as I suppose that's the best way to describe Tennis for Two's gameplay. As, while similar, they have subtle differences that drastically affect how the games play. Tennis for Two has no paddle - instead, it uses a button, allowing you to time your returns, either aggressively up at the net, or more conservatively at the service line. 

As for the angle of your returns, that's managed by a dial - rotate clockwise for lower angle smashes, counter-clockwise for lobs and service line returns. Complicating things further than Pong is the net in the middle of the field - something that Atari's later Volley would utilise. You must make sure your shots pass the net, or you lose the point. The ball can also go out, if it does not bounce within the baseline. 

Attacking from the net.

Another extra layer of strategy above Pong - you can risk leaving the ball if it looks like it will go out. One thing Pong has over Tennis for Two is that the ball does not gradually increase in speed in the latter. Lower angle returns do go back faster, and lobs slower in Tennis for Two, but the absence of speed-up permits some absurdly long rallies, if both players are on top of their games.

But what about the computer? Is it at the top of its game? The short answer is... no. It's a perfectly serviceable AI opponent, but its no Roger Federer. For a bit of fun, I kept score in my playthrough this time. I would've played for about 7 minutes, and the scoreline ended at 3-1 (40-40) my way in a first set. We had several lengthy deuce rallies - the computer has its moments of greatness, just like any pro tennis player. However, it also had some moments I'm sure it'd rather forget, were it a real person. Multiple serves straight into the net, and just flat out choosing to not return some safely in balls. To be fair, I did the same a couple of times. There were also many missed opportunities on my end to get points from balls that would've gone out that I instead returned.

The computer is not the best server.

Even from this brief run against the computer, I can safely say that this is the most fun I've had with a game post-reboot. It's genuinely competitive, even with just the computer. It's great design-wise, in the sense that there are most of the standard positioning strategies in real Tennis are somewhat replicable here. Tennis for Two really feels like a huge leap forward in game design. Given this comes ~4 years after our previous game, Pool, it does make sense.

Now, back to what I hinted at at the beginning of the article. I said that I previously could not play multiplayer games, and therefore wouldn't be adding them to the tier list. This has now changed. I will be giving multiplayer-only games scores now, and adding them to the tier list. However, the one stipulation I have - in my desire to be as authentic as possible - is that I require myself to play these games with another person. Solo, or versus a computer opponent, is not sufficient to provide the full experience. Recently, I have developed new friendships, and these friends are willing to participate in this mad experiment.

Naturally, this comes with its own set of logistical troubles. Some friends are quite a distance away, and others quite busy, so organising times may be sparse. This simply means that games with multiplayer components may not get their scores immediately, and will have to be added at a later date, after I've been able to organise a session with friends to play them. This will be the case for Tennis for Two, as there will be no scores at the end here. I'll wait until I've played it with a friend.

As always, here's my video playthrough:

Scores to come at a later date.

Up next: Tennis for Two - Part 2 (Multiplayer)

Let's Play (007) - Pool: Real-Time Sporting Action!

Release Date: 1954

Platform: MIDSAC

Genre: Sports

Developer(s): William Brown, Ted Lewis

Publisher(s):

Time to enter the sporting realm - for the very first time in video game history! Maybe not with the first game one might expect, either. Pool marks a pretty big shift for early video game development, as this is also the first real-time video game.

Once again, this game is playable thanks to the work of Retrogame Deconstruction Zone. We're still not done with his work yet!

Ol' reliable.

We're not done with the firsts yet! On first look, you might notice that this game uses a joystick! Real-time action, joysticks... we're well and truly in video game territory now.

Pool takes a very barebones approach to the sport - you'll notice that the balls are neither numbered, nor coloured - the game is fully monochrome, but at least the cue ball is white to distinguish it. The standard 15 balls are all present and accounted for as well. My other immediate remark on the visuals is that the cue stick itself looks more like a Q-tip than a cue-stick...

Cue stick or Q-tip??

Rules are of no concern to this game, either. Want to shoot before all the balls have stopped moving? Go nuts. Maybe you want to course-correct the cue ball? Well, you can do that, too. It gives the feel of having a casual round on your backyard Pool table, without a care in the world for rules and regulations. Just go and have fun!

In that spirit, the game also only has one power option for your shots: MAXIMUM POWER. Truly, this is backyard Pool - no care for rules, and the only objective is to hit the cue ball hard enough in the general vicinity of the other balls, and eventually they'll go in. Which honestly isn't that bad here, as accuracy is not the game's strength. I would complain that the joystick's sensitivity is too high to precisely line up your shots... but the position of the cue doesn't even matter! Only the angle matters, which is controlled by a dial. So the joystick's purpose is ultimately moot. That's a shame.

All. The. Damn. Time.

And, true to the real sport, it's a pain in the arse to line up anything precisely. The number of times I'll think I've lined up a shot correctly, only for the ball to bounce around the edges of the hole and depart for the other side of the table is like the sand on the sea shore. Maybe I'm just terrible at judging angles, as I've always had this problem, both with this game and in real life. The last couple of balls also take forever to sink, giving me flashbacks to trying to break the last few bricks in Breakout. It's a bloody nightmare. Most of my playthrough time was spent dealing with the last couple of balls.

Well, that's embarrassing.

Thankfully the game does speed up the further you get in. Because the technology Pool ran on was so antiquated, achieving a stable framerate was a mere pipe dream. According to RDZ's article, the framerate fluctuates between 40 and 8 FPS. On the initial break shot, once all the balls are in motion it feels like you've been hit with a slow spell, as all space and time around you appears to slow down along with the game.

Entering the Matrix.

There's no scoring system present in the game, so you can either keep track of it yourself, or not bother with it. I, however, do have a scoring system, and I will be bothered with it.

Time Played: 15 minutes

Difficulty: 1 (Brain-dead)
There really isn't any challenge, since there is no fail condition.

Gameplay: 2
While I'd say the real-time gameplay here is more compelling than, say, a fixed logic game like OXO, there's not enough for me to increase the score above a 2. This comes from the fact that this game merely simulates Pool - but it doesn't really do anything with it. It's more like a tech demo than a full game. In that spirit, there is also a complete disregard for the rules of the game - you can freely cheat, as you don't have to wait for the cue ball to come to a stop before shooting again.

Controls: 4
While the controls are starting to more resemble something that looks like a video game with the first joystick, it's a bit fiddly. The sensitivity of the joystick in the simulator is quite high (not like it really matters.) Precision is not this game's specialty.

Sound: N/A

Visual: 3
It's more-or-less the best looking game since CRTAD by default, thanks in part to its displaying a dozen objects at once in real time. Even if the frame rate drops to 8 FPS when they're all moving. The afterimages on the balls as they move is probably the nicest touch. The pool cue looks like a Q-tip, which I find amusing.

Story: N/A

Functionality: 5
Unless you want to count the frame rate plummeting when all balls are moving on screen as a functionality issue, there aren't any technical issues here. That's more a limitation of the technology, making it more a feature than a bug.

Accessibility: 4
With a control scheme that looks more video game-y, and from being a easily identifiable sport, I'd say that Pool is a fairly easy game to pick-up-and-play, for 1950s standards.

Fun Factor: 3
Even if the gameplay isn't much to write home about, it's still Pool, and a little, mindless fun can be had with it. Often I find that trying to be precise in such a game is pointless, and going fast and frantic is a much more enjoyable route to take. It's like playing an IRL round of Pool by yourself and just goofing off, especially considering the lack of care for rules.

Overall: 21/80 (26.25 | E Tier)
21 is the same score Bouncing Ball got. Funny that the first two real-time video games end up that way. I think the "tech demo" feel of the game is probably the biggest downside, when it comes to actual game design. Of course, the guys who made this didn't know what game design was at the time, so some grace can be extended there. We're still in the territory of technical experiments and testing of technological limits in the 1950s - games aren't being made purely for entertainment yet.

Here's the video playthrough, for those interested. I added some background music this time, which I thinks makes things more engaging. Let me know what you think!

The next game up, however, was made for entertainment purposes.

Up next: Tennis for Two