This wasn't meant to be the next game on the list. I was working on Hangman, until I realised that the game listed in my 1970 group was not actually the game in BASICComputer Games - that would be the 1973 MobyGames listing Game of Hangman, which simply goes by Hangman in the book, hence the confusion. The 1970 Hangman description didn't match what I was playing, either, so that's another indicator that the game I was playing wasn't the correct one.
Therefore, I've had to shelve the Hangman post that I was previously working on, and start on this one, as it's actually the next game on the list that's in BASICComputer Games (and is the same between both versions of the book.) Hence the unintended delay between posts. My desire to get these posts out more regularly is being regularly impeded either by life or lack of information on the games on my list.
On first glance, you might think that War actually has something to do with war - perhaps this is a port of Civil War, or a variant of it (this isn't helped by the book's illustration on War's page in the original version.) But no, War is a card game. A very, verybasic one, at that.
The author of War is, unfortunately, unknown. All that BASIC Games tells us in its entry on the game is that it simply appeared on on a DECsystem-10 one day, and no one knows where it came from, or who put it in the system. As a historian and someone who loves information, I always find it a real shame when we don't (and most likely can't) know who put these programs together. At least we can be thankful that the game itself has been preserved, as that can't be said for most games developed prior to at least 1970, potentially later.
Circling back around to War, it is a card game of the most basic proportions. The premise is as follows:
The deck is shuffled, and one card is dealt to each player.
Whoever has the highest card wins.
Repeat dealing cards until all 52 cards in the deck are used.
That's it. Highest card wins. It could basically be the card game equivalent of rock-paper-scissors.
I have nothing witty to say for this game's captions.
My playthrough only took a minute to complete. Literally one minute, I'm not exaggerating. There is only one decision (technically two, but the answer to both is 'yes' or 'no,' so it's really only one decision) that you need to make in the game (this is barely a game), which is whether you want to keep playing. The game automatically deals the cards and declares the winner (or a tie). The game is over when all the cards have been dealt.
The end. It wasn't fun.
And that's it. No, seriously. That's the game. It's so simple and brief that there's almost nothing else to say. I just spammed 'yes' to get through the deck to see what would happen once all the cards were dealt. Logically the scores should be close to even by the end as it's effectively the equivalent of making 26 coin flips in a row. In this instance, one of the coin flips resulted in the coin landing on its side, with the other 25 landing properly.
I can at least say that I appreciate the formatting and writing to a small degree. Three exclamation marks for declaring the computer winning seems a bit excessive, though. The way the cards are listed as "suit-number" makes a lot of sense, so there's no confusion there. I'm grasping at straws for what to say here, honestly. I want to give an in-depth review and assessment, but there is genuinely nothing to review here. Let's stop wasting words and get onto scores, then.
Time Played: One minute.
My recording of a complete playthrough is 70 seconds long, to be precise. This has the potential to be the shortest complete game I'll ever play for the blog.
Difficulty: 0
No challenge as it's a completely luck-dependent game, nor is there any problem in typing 'yes' or 'no'
Gameplay: 0
The only gameplay decision you get to make is whether you want to keep playing or not.
Controls: 10
As long as you can type 'yes' or 'no' (caps lock on), you're good.
Visual: 2
I can detect a small amount of effort put into making the text formatting look presentable.
Functionality: 5
Hardly anything that can go wrong with a game like this.
Accessibility: 3
One positive I can think of is that this would be a good introduction to text-based games for either children or someone completely unfamiliar with the format due to the simplicity of the game and the need to only input 'yes' or 'no.' It's still a text game, so it's much harder to get into than graphical games, and thus I won't be giving it extra points.
Fun Factor: 0
Zero is the only score that can be given here.
War earns a score of 20, which ties it with Digits in the E-tier on percentage (28.57%). My tie-breaker rules mean that War ends up below Digits, as I gave the latter a Fun Factor score of 1.
[Add.] Upon completing the rescore project, this trash lost 2 points down to 18/70 (25.71%). Still not in the F-tier, even though I think it deserves it.
Well, at least this was a quick one to smash out. I only have 7 games left for 1970, meaning we're very close to wrapping up the Prehistory series. Exciting times ahead!
Don't forget - if you enjoy my blog, be sure to leave a comment and follow so you don't miss any updates!
A bit of double vision going on here. It's awkward having to do what is effectively the same game twice in a row, but that's just how the chips have fallen with the recent discovery I discussed in the last post.
We have before us another rendition of the Batnum varation of the traditional game of Nim. The main difference between Batnum and Nim appears to be that Batnum typically seems to have only one pile of objects, whereas Nim has several piles. Otherwise they are pretty much the same game. I've explained how to play Batnum and Nim previously, so I'll spare you the details here and will proceed straight into the nuts and bolts of this version.
This version of Batnum is derived from David Ahl's 101 BASIC Games book, as have most games I've done recently. Fortunately for me, the game is identical between the original version of the book and the 1978 microcomputer edition. I'm glad to not have another Roulette problem on my hands here.
What is less fortunate is that the authorship is uncertain, unlike the 1967 version of Batnum. Determining the author of that version as John G. Kemeny, the inventor of BASIC, seemed rather unarguable to me. This 1970 version is definitively not the same game, meaning authorship is much harder to determine. The original version of Ahl's book credits the game to Kemeny, but the 1978 update alters the wording in its Batnum entry slightly, which could be read as implying that Kemeny was not the author of the version that appears in the book (however, it does still credit the game to Kemeny at the top of the page.)
That leaves us with two possible theories on this game's authorship:
This version of Batnum was not authored by Kemeny, but rather likely David Ahl or an associate who helped him compile the book, or,
Kemeny didauthor this version of Batnum, meaning this version is an updated and expanded version of his 1967 original.
The latter of these is probably the most likely, based on how authorship is almost always attributed where possible in both versions of the book (Ahl does not credit himself for his games in the first edition of the book, but he is credited in the 1978 edition.) All the evidence points to Kemeny as the author, so I must go with him as the most likely author, meaning that this game is, most likely, Kemeny's rewrite and expansion on his 1967 version of Batnum.
With that sorted, let's get into the actual game, shall we?
Batnum's initial setup is basically identical to Gamnim, which I played back in August. The game provides its instructions and asks for the object pile size (see screenshot above.)
Setting up the game.
Once the pile size is defined, the game takes you through the other setup options. You get to choose the win condition (either to take the last object or force your opponent to take it), the minimum and maximum number of objects that can be removed each turn, and who goes first. That's all the options the game has, which is a fairly standard amount when compared with Gamnim.
As far as playing the game goes, it's identical to the 1967 version of Batnum. The computer basically plays perfectly, so you can only win if you opt to go first and avoid taking the last object. I didn't try it, but I assume the game can be won with the inverse settings (going second taking the last object.) It feels far less fulfilling to win when you can just set the game up for yourself, so 1967 Batnum gets a point over this version in that regard.
I meant to win this one. Messed up the settings.
I played a few rounds, fiddling with the settings as I went. I got bored after about 3 minutes of play time, so I decided to do the one thing the game tells you not to do: type a zero. The instructions clearly state to not use zero when playing. So, naturally, I used zero.
You were warned.
Using zero is considered a forfeit by the game. I hoped it might have done something more dramatic than that, though I might be asking too much of a 1970 game.
Sadly, that's all there is to Batnum. That means we're already on to the scores.
Time Played: 3 minutes.
All that's needed to experience everything the game has to offer.
Difficulty: 0
Putting it as a zero as you can set your own difficulty.
Gameplay: 0
There's very little gameplay to begin with. It lacks any substance or any compelling reason to play it whatsoever.
Controls: 9
I'm docking a point because the game doesn't tell you that you need to put a comma in between the numbers when setting the minimum and maximum number of objects that can be removed per turn.
Visual: 1
There is nothing noteworthy to discuss with visuals - it's as basic as it gets, with no effort put in to make it look like anything other than plain text.
Functionality: 5
Everything works as intended, no issues giving it full marks here.
Accessibility: 3
It's a lot easier to run and access than 1967's Batnum, and is a simple enough game to understand.
Fun Factor: 0
I found no enjoyment playing this at all. Apologies for being so blunt, but there really isn't anything to say. This one felt like work.
1970's Batnum scores 18, which, with a percentage of 25.71% just barely keeps it out of the F-tier and at the very, very bottom of the E-tier. It only managed to score one point higher than the 1967 version due to the ease of accessibility this version possesses.
[Add.] Upon completing the rescore project, Batnum (1970) gained 2 points, going up to 20/70 (28.57%)
Fortunately, the Nim variants are behind me for now. Honestly, I dragged my feet with this post due to having to basically play the same game twice. There are some more interesting games coming up in 1970, which I aim to get through at a much quicker pace than the current one.
Don't forget - if you enjoy my blog, be sure to leave a comment and follow so you don't miss any updates!
