Let's Play (009) - Spacewar!: One Giant Leap for Video Game Kind

Release Date: 2nd of April, 1962

Platform: PDP-1

Genre: Multidirectional Shooter, Space Combat Simulation

Developer(s): Steve Russell, et al

Publisher(s):

We're now entering the 1960s - and things are starting to get good. The next few games mark some significant leaps both in technology and quality for video games. First up is what's probably the most significant game from this pre-industry era of video games: Spacewar!

As Spacewar! is best experienced with competition, I brought along a friend for this one. It may or may not be the same person I played Tennis for Two with. If it was, I may or may not have been out for revenge. For the sake of convenience, let's call this friend "A" for the time being.

By way of comparison to our last multiplayer game, Tennis for Two, Spacewar! presents quite a significant advance in game design. We're not just hitting a ball back and forth on a two-dimensional plane anymore. No, here we get to freely control spaceships across an entire star field! If you think to yourself "gee, that reminds me a bit of Asteroids," you're not far off.

Now this looks like a video game.

For reference, I'm using Masswerk's browser-based Spacewar! port. This includes several versions of the game, but the primary focus for us in this article is on what's generally considered the "definitive" version of Spacewar!, which is version 3.1 from September, 1962. I'll discuss the other available versions in brief later, as they do have some differences. The foundational game remains the same across all versions, in case you were wondering.

Spacewar! controls in a manner almost identical to the aforementioned Asteroids. The browser port uses the standard WASD/IJKL layout for players 1 and 2 respectively. A/J rotates the ships anti-clockwise, D/L clockwise; S/K engages thrusters, and W/I shoots the missiles/photon torpedoes/whatever you prefer to call them. Additionally, Q/U is used to engage the "hyperspace" feature. This causes the ship to instantly vanish, then reappear at a random place on the field a few seconds later. While great in a pinch, it's highly unstable, leaving the risk of your ship instantly exploding upon exiting hyperspace. Use with caution.

Oh, and the other important thing to mention that sets Spacewar! apart from like games is the small sun set in the middle of the star field. Its strong gravitational pull draws the ships into it from the edges of the screen (and the screen wraps around, too - first time seeing that feature.) One of the most important aspects of mastering Spacewar! is utilising the gravity to slingshot your ship - it's the only real way to build speed or change direction. The Newtonian space physics mean that you can really only suggest to your ship which direction to go in, which usually ends up being towards the sun anyway. Also, if you happen to run into the sun, your ship is not destroyed, but is instead teleported to the edge of the screen. Is this a sun or a wormhole?

I first spent some time with "A" practicing the game, as they hadn't played it before. After about 5-10 minutes, they had a hang on the controls, and we started in earnest. The browser port keeps score at the bottom of the screen, which is great for me - saves time on the video edit.

The rules for scoring are as follows. You blow up your opponent, you get a point. If your opponent blows up from using hyperspace, you get a point. If you blow each other up at the same time, it's a draw, and no points are awarded. If you blow up yourself... well, neither of us suffered such a dishonour, but I assume that your opponent would score a point in that instance. Or you'd lose a point.

I'll say upfront that I think I've redeemed myself from Tennis for Two. We called it after 25 minutes of playing, and I won 15-3. I very much learned the power of the gravity slingshot throughout, as my main goal in each round (I was the "Needle" ship starting in the top right) ended up being to aim my ship to get as close as possible to the sun without clipping it. Wasn't always successful, but it worked enough times. I also managed to get a run where I did three full orbits before slingshotting out!

I was having some fun with the gravity here. 1080 round the sun.

"A" didn't quite get the hang of the slingshot, but was a rather good missile shot. Defensively, they were able to stave off many of my missile barrages with sharp shooting, knocking out my missiles with their own. I also had some very close calls from their offensive barrages. My general preference was also to avoid hyperspace and rather shoot down the attacking missiles.

Some of the rounds went quite long, and through that we discovered that the ships do not have unlimited reserves of fuel or missiles. The game is very generous with these resources, but if you waffle around for long enough, you will run out. If this happens, the game calls a draw and resets for the next round to prevent a soft-lock.

Now, for the other versions. First up, there's the earliest public version of Spacewar!, version 2B from April, 1962. This has what's referred to as "Minskytron Hyperspace." Funky name there, but it's just referring to an animation that occurs when hyperspace is used that's not present in version 3.1. "Minskytron" was the nickname of one of the developers, I recall, and it was his animation. Some of the other graphics are less well-developed, and there's also a manual reset button present.

Hyperspace... more like funkyspace...

4.1f from February 1963 is 3.1, but adds a score graphic that appears after every round.

The first ever internal score counter.

4.2a from May 1963 appears to not be much different from 3.2. It doesn't have the score counter.

4.3, also from May 1963 includes the score graphic, and adds the option for "twin star" mode - a bizarre mode with moving stars, a ship stuck in between two stars and an almost fish-eye lens appearance. The needle ship's graphic is in the centre, and doesn't appear with the ship itself, essentially making it invisible. Very confusing game mode.

Then there's... whatever this abomination is.

Then there's 4.8, which represents the "final" version of Spacewar!. It's essentially the plain 4.1f, but with the score graphic, and no twin star mode. There are a few more versions after this, but none more that are strictly original.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the first "proper" video game, since it's, in my mind, the first that resembles a lot of future games. Remember, the first arcade games, Galaxy Game and Computer Space were ports/heavily inspired by Spacewar!, so this game's fundamentally part of the DNA of video games, which I can't strictly say for anything we've previously covered.

On to the scores.

Scores

Time Played: 30 minutes

Difficulty: 4 (Mild)
A game I would argue is easy to learn, but has enough depth in its mechanics to make it more challenging to master than, say, Tennis for Two.

Gameplay: 8
We've got quite a bit to talk about here, which I'm pleased about. Not only do we have our first shooter, but our first multidirectional shooter, and our first space combat simulation, all rolled into one package. The simulator part comes in with Newtonian physics, making the movement of the ships feel very sluggish in the vacuum of space. However, the gravity of the sun compensates, being a vehicle for some funky tricks to help get your ship moving, both speed-wise and laterally.

The physics also affect the ship's missiles in trajectory and velocity, just to add an extra layer of depth to the gameplay. Not only does one have to wisely lead their missiles into the path of the other ship, but the timing varies based on the current trajectory of your own ship. Add on top of that that missiles can destroy other missiles, allowing one to defend themselves, and it can make for some tense moments, both in close range missile-spamming, and more long range sniping helped by the sun's gravitational pull.

It does keep going, though. You've only got a limited supply of missiles and fuel, and - although quite generous - doesn't mean you can just mindlessly spam your weapons and thrusters. You do have to think about it a bit, but you can still be aggressive with your resources. Probably best to not be aggressive with the hyperspace, though, as that has a tendency to be quite unreliable. It's a neat panic button that's another defensive option, but comes with a massive risk of causing you to immediately lose the round.

Genuinely impressive for 1962. Spacewar! really gives off the feel of a proper, well thought out video game. And it's, in my opinion, the first game to truly do so.

Controls: 7
Controls are a funny thing with Spacewar!. On the surface, the layout of the controls are simple, and easy to pick up, but the feel of controlling your ship is quite sluggish and stiff due to the Newtonian physics - but that is kind of the point. You are meant to use the momentum of the sun's gravity to better position your ship, and that works exceptionally well. As far as the intent of the control design is concerned, it works.

Sound: N/A

Visual: 5
Spacewar! is extremely impressive for 1962 on the graphical end. It combines real-time graphics with smooth animation (it occasionally has a frame rate drop), and impressive effects, with the perpetually animated sun, a generated star field background, afterimages of the ships and missiles, and explosion effects. The leap here is significant, and thus Spacewar! certainly deserves a score a couple of points higher than all other games played so far.

Looking back, I realise I was quite generous with the CRT Amusement Device's visual score. As I definitely think Spacewar! is the more graphically impressive game, this is going to be our first score revision in the reboot era. As I reflect on the knowledge gained from past games, I think that CRTAD falls a bit more in line with Tennis for Two or Pool graphically, so I'm dropping its visual score to 3.

Story: N/A

Functionality: 5
I haven't run into any glitches

Accessibility: 4
I don't quite give Spacewar! perfect marks here, since you need a second person to play properly. Otherwise, it's a highly accessible, simple game that anyone can learn to play quickly and enjoy. No reading, no convoluted controls, just fly and shoot.

Fun Factor: 7
Despite me talking up the gameplay, I do think that the overall speed of the game hinders the enjoyment somewhat. I know that it can be modified, but I base my scores off the developers' default settings. It does come across as a bit sluggish, especially after several rounds of the gameplay loop. Waiting for the ships to get close enough to the sun to start making moves gets a little dull and repetitive after a while. Still, once you get past that bit, things can get more interesting.

Overall: 36/80 (45 | D Tier)
Starting to get some relatively good scores showing up now. Granted, a weighted score of 45 is still a D tier placement, but it's a high D tier at least. And, as I often say, anything E tier or above is at least worth trying. Despite the low placement of Spacewar! in the overall scheme of the tier list, I'd say that this is a game every gamer should play at least one - and do it properly with a mate for the true experience. And expect this to be the highest rated game on the list for a while. I don't think anything'll get near it until we get back around to Mike Mayfield's Star Trek. This, for me, is where video gaming starts in earnest.

Video:

Up Next: The Sumerian Game

Tennis for Two: For Two | Part 2 + Scores

Release Date: 18th of October, 1958

Platform: Donner Model 30

Genre: Sports

Developer(s): William A. Higinbotham

Publisher(s):

I did not expect Tennis for Two to be my first multi-part game. "Surely," I thought, "my first multi-parter will be something like PLATO's The Dungeon/Pedit5." CRPGs will most certainly be that, but those are still a long ways away. This multi-part series is more down to timing and circumstance, rather than the nature of Tennis for Two as a game.

We're here because I was able to bring a friend alongside to play Tennis for Two in its intended form. For the sake of privacy, we'll call this friend "M" for the remainder of this article (and any others they may appear in.) M is an interesting case, as their gaming experience is severely limited, but I think this provides a crucial perspective that I'm not able to provide as a gamer of 25 years. We can see how these games fare when played with someone who is relatively inexperienced with video games, and I think that's valuable in determining how easy it is for new gamers to pick up and understand especially games designed for multiplayer.

As a tangent, I was first made aware of the importance of this new-player perspective when I had a non-gamer friend try out Super Mario Odyssey a couple of years back, and saw them struggle at what I considered a game friendly to new players. I quickly realised through that experience that my knowledge as a lifelong gamer made me a poor judge of what games are good introductory games for someone who's never played a video game before.

So, with that being said, how did M fare with Tennis for Two? You might be surprised to find out that they picked up the game incredibly quickly. I spent the first couple of minutes of our 20-minute session teaching the controls, and it didn't take long for M to get the hang of it and start developing a working strategy.

M also exposed a bit of a flaw in Tennis for Two's game design that I completely missed during my solo session. They discovered that a working strategy was to take a conservative/defensive approach, leaving the dial roughly centred and basically setting and forgetting. M focused instead on making returns, and waited for me to take risks by being the aggressor. At this point, I haven't edited the footage and added a score counter, but I'd hazard a guess that M may very well have beaten me by sticking to this strategy. My own strategy became hitting lobs closer and closer to the baseline, then coming forward to the net to finish the point off with smashes, but M was up to the task of defending against my strategy. It kind of speaks to the accessibility of this game that someone who is not a gamer can so quickly grasp Tennis for Two and start winning through their own skill. I was very impressed with both M and the game itself.

I'd say that we thoroughly enjoyed the session, and I can certainly see why Tennis for Two was so popular when it was displayed - but of course, that story is for another time. 

For now, scores.

Time Played: 30 minutes
This is my overall play-time across both parts. The session with M was ~20 minutes.

Difficulty: 2 (Very Easy)
Judging difficulty looks quite different with competitive multiplayer games. It's more about judging the difficulty of learning and mastering the game, rather than the designed challenge presented in single-player/cooperative multiplayer games. Tennis for Two is a game that sits on the very easy spectrum of challenge - very easy to learn, and also quite easy to quickly get good at, as discovered during my time playing with M.

Gameplay: 6
It's like Pong, but with a few differences that change the strategic makeup of the game. It's far more about positioning and angles, like real Tennis - just on a 2D plane. Even still, it's far more complex mechanically than any other game we've encountered post-reboot. Yet it accomplishes such complexity through a very simple control scheme. You've got to consider not just the angle of your shots, and where you return from, but you also have to make sure your shots stay in, and you've got to consider where your opponent's returns are coming from, and judge whether they're in or out. I'm actually quite impressed, considering this is a 1958 game.

That being said, M did discover some flaws during our playthrough. M realised early on that one could mostly ignore adjusting the angle of their shots, keep the dial roughly centred, and just focus on getting returns in, forcing one's opponent to take risks while remaining quite safe. This is where the lack of a speed-up / shot power mechanic negatively affects the gameplay, as this kind of conservative loop can go on mindlessly forever if you allow it to. Definitely the biggest flaw in Tennis for Two's design, and it really makes me see the necessity of Pong's speed-up mechanic to keep the game moving.

Controls: 7
For an early video game, the controls are excellent. Very reminiscent of simple, early paddle arcade games like Pong and Breakout. M was able to pick the controls up rather quickly.

Sound: N/A
Apparently there was meant to be sound, according to RDZ's blog, but it does not appear during gameplay.

Visual: 2
Almost analogous to Bouncing Ball in visuals, so the same score is appropriate here.

Story: N/A

Functionality: 5
Could potentially be a 4, as there were a couple of moments where it appeared that the ball should've gone out, but we hit it at what must have been the last possible frame, which caused the ball to briefly disappear and reappear. It doesn't materially affect the gameplay, though, so I'm content to leave it at a full 5/5.

Accessibility: 4
M picked up the game extremely quickly, suggesting that this is a very accessible game for anyone to pick up, play, and get good at quickly. A point off for antiquity.

Fun Factor: 6
Tentatively awarding a parallel score to gameplay. I had a lot of fun playing this both solo and with M, and is significantly ahead of every other game on the rebooted tier list. I suspect this may be highly likely to change as the tier list grows, and scoring becomes more defined. But I'll update scores as relevant.

Overall: 30 (weighted to 37.5)
It should come as no surprise - Tennis for Two is the best game I've played so far. A weighted score of 37.5 awards it our first D-tier placement in the reboot era of OGC. It's only a low placement, but remains sufficient to display the chasm between this and previous games.

That being said, I expect the chasm to grow wider with the next game up.

Here's the video playthrough:

Up next: Spacewar!