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!
No comments:
Post a Comment