In the last post, I said Frogs and Flies has exceptional graphics. Play Combat. It will prove my point.
Most people who grew up with Atari are familiar with Combat, because it's the original pack-in game for the console. You made one good choice, Atari! The year was 1977, and Atari had flooded many previous years with many, many Pong consoles that essentially did the same bleepin' thing. Combat was a natural evolution: instead of two players ponging a projectile, it's two players hitting each other with projectiles. The graphics are effective enough to imagine tanks, "Bi-Planes," and "Jet Fighters." Compared to the toothpicks in Pong--I mean, the "paddles" in Pong--a perceivable tank caught people's attention. The tanks even had realistic motor sounds! This was enough to sell a console, which should tell you how Atari was groundbreaking in even the most obvious ways.
When I was young, my friends and I had a blast with Combat. I liked the jets, which flew freely through white clouds. The tank controls, by contrast, are slightly counter-intuitive: you have to swivel to position, and push up to go. It's easy enough to pick up, but my kids didn't have the patience to get the hang of it. They did, however, love watching my tank spin in circles when they hit me. (Which, of course, I let them. Mostly. Okay, they got a few lucky hits, alright?)
I love the giant bomber. Not playing with it. That's an awful idea. You're a huge target, and you get struck every time. No, I love the giant bomber because of its hideous turns, when it morphs into a shape that is supposed to be a turning motion but looks like a fallen pile of alphabet blocks. Compare to Frogs and Flies.
Combat has 27 variations which allow for different missiles, mazes, and "Invisible Tank Pong." Yes. That exists.
A note on the variations. Before games evolved into the many levels and stages of the NES era, they were just games. So Atari and many others tweaked the games, adding different gameplay elements, therefore allowing a large variety of "games" on one game. They could boast that Combat had "27 Video Games." And they did, for real, as quoted from the cover of the manual. I think this was another big selling point at the time. Now, the variety means that many cartridges have different variations that are worth checking out. It adds value to a lot of games, but a variation does not equal a different video game. Playing as Tails in Sonic 3, for instance, is a variation that adds somewhat different gameplay, but it does not turn the game into Tails 3. It's still Sonic 3. Still, this was all new at the time, so sure, Atari, there are 27 video games on Combat. I will never type that sentence again.
Combat is a game that's fun to play and fun to hate at the same time. It's laughably outdated, but to be honest, it's still good for a few resets.
I recommend Combat to Atari newcomers, Atari curious, and Atari nerds and collectors, for its fun, history, and relevance to the console. Just play it with a friend. Or your kids.
Life game . . .
I was thinking about the name "Combat." It's interesting to me how much of our entertainment involves direct physical combat between humans. In other words, violence. I'm not here to wring my hands over "Combat" or even "Mortal Kombat." I'm just wondering why so much of our screentime is devoted to hurting one another. Granted, "Peace" would not have made a compelling launch title for the Atari 2600. Would the tanks plant flowers and hug at the end?
I think our fascination with violence is rooted in our ancestry. We evolved with an actual need to fight animals and other tribal communities. Survival called for violence. We haven't evolved beyond this, as evidenced in movies, games, and spectator sports (and pretty much any news headline). I'm not complaining, I'm just noticing. One could argue that our entertainment allows us a safe outlet for this urge to hurt. It hits a primal nerve. It's somehow satisfying.
Of course, the game Combat won't hit any nerves beyond your funny bone. And yet, why do we as people find it acceptable to play a game that mimics, however loosely, the motions of humans at war? There's a war going on with actual tanks in Ukraine. So what makes Combat okay? What if it were, I don't know, "Shooting Heroin" or "Cheating on your Partner"? These things are as serious as tanks firing upon one another, within their own context. Why is our society okay with violence, and exposing it to kids? Because it's fun, exciting, even natural? Hell, didn't I recommend playing Combat with your kids a few paragraphs ago?
I'm aware that thinking Combat is violent is ludicrous. But if you think about it, the idea behind those tank-shaped blocks is violent. I don't even think it's that big of a stretch. Yet we're so used to violence as entertainment, playing Combat is as innocent as blowing bubbles.
These are just thoughts. I like to think.
Comments