This is a weird one to cover. While it appears in both the original 1973 and updated 1978 versions of Ahl's 101 BASIC Computer Games, it is completely different in both books - the code and presentation of the games differ significantly, barring the description, which remains almost entirely untouched. All that was changed in the 1978 description is that the game simulates an American roulette wheel instead of a European one. It does make me wonder if these were completely different games to begin with.
As far as I know, that question cannot be definitively answered. The only credit we have for the game is W. C. Hoffer, who converted the program for its 1978 Compucolor I release, naming it European Roulette in Color, which will receive its own separate review. The 1973 101 BASIC Games description claims Roulette had been around for many years at that time, but that its original author was unknown. The 1978 edition of the book doesn't even bother including that much. I find it perplexing, as my databases don't list these two versions as separate games, despite them being completely different.
This abnormality presents me with a conundrum to solve: do I treat these as separate games, or deal with them in this one article? The fact that I'm writing this article should give away my decision - I'm covering both in this one article. Vintage BASIC's collection only contains the 1978 version of Roulette, so that's the version I'll be playing and basing my review on. The 1973 version appears to remain missing, sadly. To compensate, I'll be contrasting and comparing both versions of Roulette throughout where I can, so we can get an idea of how different the two games are. It's a bit tricky to do so since the 1973 release is missing, but there is enough information from its entry in the 1973 edition of 101 BASIC Games to facilitate the comparison.
For reference, from this point on I'll be referring to the version of Roulette in the 1973 edition of the book as the "original" version of the game for convenience - even if it may not be totally correct in saying that it's the original.
Upon booting up the 1978 version of Roulette, it asks for the current date. I find it amusing playing this game in 2024 when the example date the game provides in in 1979... It's an odd way to open the game - but it does have relevance later on. The original version of Roulette does not include asking for the date.
The 23rd of January, 1979 was a Tuesday.
The game then offers its instructions to you, first presenting a visual representation of the betting layout. The original has this graphic, too, but it's been simplified in the 1978 version. I much prefer how the original looked - some effort was put into making it look nice, whereas the 1978 version just feels a bit lazy, indicating the red numbers with an asterisk instead of having a nice table with the colour directly under the number.
Compare this...
To this. Much nicer. (Sourced from archive.org)
You may notice from these two pictures that the numbers themselves are slightly different, with the original having 0 - 36, and the 1978 version having 1 - 35 with 0 and 00 at the end of the table. As mentioned earlier in the article, the 1978 version of Roulette was changed from European-style roulette to American roulette, and this here is the key change between the two variants, according to the game's intro page in BASIC Games. Apparently the American version gives the house better odds, and was thus becoming the more popular variant of roulette. What a surprise...
The remainder of the instructions explain how to make bets, what bets are available, separated into groups based on payouts. Single number bets pay out 35:1, whereas the other two groups are either 2:1, or even.
All the standard betting options are here.
Absent from the original are the options to bet on number ranges: 1-12, 13-24, and so on. More choice is good, I suppose, and it makes things a little more realistic. That being said, it doesn't make much difference when it all comes down to luck. I feel like I've said that line a lot during this Prehistory series. Lack of player agency and irrelevant choices in wholly luck-based games is becoming a real pet peeve of mine.
I initially had some trouble inputting my bets. It asks for how many bets you want to make, which didn't immediately register with me, as the instructions don't mention the fact that you have to choose how many bets you want to make first before inputting said bets. Hence I tried inputting a bet with the required formula of [bet],[amount] with no spaces to repeated error messages until I realised my mistake. It would have been helpful for the instructions to specify that there was a step before putting a bet down.
I recreated the scenario just mentioned, and found an additional piece of text telling you off for trying to make the same bet twice.
Here above I recreated what happened in that first playthrough I didn't record. I noticed that the game then skipped asking me again and went straight to asking for bets. I decided to follow this through, as I wasn't sure what the game was doing at this point. In total it made me input 37 bets. What the game ends up doing is ignoring every input past the first number and accepts that as the number of bets to make. I selected 37 as the first number, and therefore it assumed I wanted to make 37 bets. Much to my amusement I actually made some money overall from that set.
Anyway, that was just a little aside. Eventually I figured out my mistake, and was able to input bets correctly.
This is how it's supposed to go.
The manual provides a "good strategy" in the form of what it calls "doubling" for how to bet effectively. This involves starting with the lowest amount possible on an even/odds bet (any of the even money bets), and doubling the amount you bet until you win, then reverting to the lowest amount and starting over. Oddly, the manual in the 1978 version was unchanged, instructing you to start with $1 despite the minimum bet in that version being $5. Small oversight, but it doesn't affect the strategy. It's a slow way of building up winnings, but it works. I slightly misremembered and did the strategy with the 2:1 bets, but it still works there.
You win some, you lose some.
I did experiment with making multiple bets at once, though I honestly didn't like it that much. You can't do it with the doubling strategy, as that needs to be controlled one bet at a time. It's nice that the option's there, even if I don't see myself using it.
I persisted with the doubling strategy, having a rather bad streak of luck where I almost lost all my money. I did not in that instance, but looking back later made me rather curious as to what happens when you do go bust.
So I loaded up the game again and quickly blew all the money I had to see what the game would do:
Game over.
Much akin to the other text games I've played, it humourously insults you for your failure. This is a very early example of a game over screen, reminiscent to me of Hamurabi ending your game early if you manage your resources poorly, resulting in your subjects all starving to death.
On the flipside, it also makes me very curious as to what happens if the player manages to break the bank. I imagine that would take a long time to do, with the bank starting with $100k, but I suspect it to be very possible. Within the code there appears to only be a single line of text that appears: "You broke the house!" So the developer probably anticipated it occurring. I'm tempted to put that down as the game's "completed" condition, but I'm not sure if I want to be bothered playing a 1978 text rendition of a roulette wheel for hours just to see one line of text.
The original game doesn't appear to address either situation, further solidifying my theory that these are totally different games. Simply comparing the code of both games should be enough to prove that these are different games.
After a couple more minutes of playing, I decided I'd had enough. If you say no when it asks if you want to bet again, it then asks for a name to make the check to. This is where the date inputted is relevant, as it appears on the check the game draws up for you.
Memory bank? Did I win memory bytes, not money? I feel ripped off.
It draws up a neat little representation of a physical check. I'm not sure what determines the "Check No." What I find odd is that, in the 1978 code, the location of the "Memory Bank" is Virginia, not New York. I wonder when and why that was changed in the version I have? The original does not have the check graphic.
And that is Roulette. I'm surprised I had so much to say about a simple casino game. What is not simple is its history. I'm fully convinced that the two versions I discussed are completely different games, and MobyGames is simply missing the 1978 version. It's far too removed from the 1970 original featured in the 1973 BASIC Games to be the same game in terms of code and overall design. It makes this frustrating for me, as this is a chronological blog, and here I'm somewhat going out of order. However, history is not always - if ever - simple and linear.
Now, onto the scores.
Time Played: 10 minutes
I think this is a fair estimation.
Difficulty: 0
Same as Horserace, no difficulty as it's a luck game.
Gameplay: 1
It gets a 1 purely in that there is at least some semblance of an end goal to work towards, and a sound method to get there provided by the manual. It's still an entirely luck-based game, but you can at least do something, unlike Horserace.
Controls: 10
As is the standard for most early text-based games - simple inputs make the game very playable.
Visual: 4
Fairly unremarkable as far as an early text game is concerned. I am disappointed by the apparent downgrade in the 1978 version compared to the original in terms of the effort put into the text graphics. Otherwise, the formatting is good and clear.
Functionality: 5
There was one thing that could potentially be a glitch with the "number of bets" question, though I think that's more related to a lack clarity in the instructions than an actual code error. So full marks here.
Accessibility: 3
It's not too bad as far as a text-based game is concerned. Again, there is a small issue with some missing clarity in the instructions surrounding the "number of bets" question. The game of roulette itself is not difficult to understand, so getting into a text adaptation of it is not difficult, either.
Fun Factor: 1
A small modicum of enjoyment was had finding the extra text, but otherwise this falls into the category of games I truly dislike for being purely based on luck. There isn't any substance to compensate for the randomness, which is another nail in its coffin.
Roulette gets a total score of 24/70 (34.28%), which sits it in the middle of the E tier at the current time, between PDP Basketball and Gamnim. Again another throwaway program, in essence, that seems to be more about testing the waters of what can be simulated within early BASIC rather than trying to make a compelling game.
[Add.] Upon completing the rescore project, Roulette's lost 4 points down to a 20/70 (28.57%)
No comments:
Post a Comment