Talk:Battlezone (1980 video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Atari task force.
VG To-do:

I removed the text claiming that Ed Rotberg also created Red Baron. That (dis?)honor goes to Rich Moore (Lunar Lander). Moore wrote much of Red Baron while Rotberg was working out the data organization for Battlezone. While Moore was the first to get something up on the screen, he was unable to finish the game using his original data organization method, and ended up using much of Battlezone's.

Sources:

Halcyon Days by James Hague, Ed Rotberg interview: http://dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/ROTBERG.HTM

Arcade History Database, Red Baron entry: http://www.arcade-history.com/history_database.php?page=detail&id=2197

Ed Rotberg: http://www.edrotberg.org

I was hooked on this game! I walked kilometers with only one coin in my pocket for one single game of Battlezone. Great game! The way to that place was long and I learned to whistle loud without use of fingers in that time :) Even today, decades later I would like to try it again. --Popski 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if its worth mentioning Novagen's "Encounter!" on the C64 and Atari 8 bit, that was a pretty succesfull (filled graphics) clone of Battlezone? Paulie 17:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure why not, find a reference web page tho. --Larsinio 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NBA Jam

I've mentioned this on the NBA Jam talk page: there was a trick in some versions of that arcade game to play Battlezone for free. I can't remember how, but if anyone remembers please add the info. -- LGagnon 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beck's E-Pro Video

I've removed the trivia entry about this video. While it's an excellent throwback to the classic era of wireframe vector graphics, it doesn't contain anything to tie it to Battlezone specifically. Skyraider 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myths

Included one popular myth (erupting volcano). I recall there being other rumors involving the UFO. I don't remember it, tho. JAF1970 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Remembered one UFO myth, and moved the "tank factory" myth to the Myths section. JAF1970 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

User:Wgungfu has twice removed information pertaining to the Panther (computer game), a tank game prior to Battlezone. The passage in question read:

Its gameplay exhibited similarities to that of the team tank game Panther, written for the PLATO System in Illinois in 1975.

His edit summary was "RV speculative content. Battlezone was brainstormed in a boardroom meeting as an update to Tank, just after their Vector monitor was created. Atari's work with PLATO didn't begin until early 80's." And then: "RV. Which again is speculation, it serves nothing to enhance the actual description of Battlezone." He also removed some text from the Panther article, which I agree was speculative, but then removed a simple See also link to Battlezone as well: "RV based on speculative, unreferenced comment." How a See also link to another early tank game can be "speculative" is not explained.

I note on his user page that Wgungfu is an employee of Atari, and his action represents a possible conflict of interest. Even if Battlezone was not inspired in some way by Panther, as some of Panther's authors suggest (Atari supposedly had a busy PLATO account), the earlier game deserves at least a passing mention, as a pioneering effort in the same genre. It is not for an Atari employee to remove this content, in an attempt to make his own company's product seem more innovative, or to suppress discussion of the relationship between the two.

I should also point that I have no particular axe to grind here: I have been a fan of Battlezone since it came out and achieved a high score of over two million; I think its gameplay has never been matched. As the Panther article makes clear, the gameplay was different in many respects; however, it was a) a line-wire tank game with b) a 3-D environment and c) mountains in the background. The Battlezone article also links to Spectre, a later such game. ProhibitOnions (T) 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I am not an employee of Atari, and my page does not state that. It simply states I work in the industry and that was my last project. I work with Legacy Engineering, which contracts out to various gaming companies. Secondly, even if I had been an employee of Atari, that has little bearing as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As was stated in moderation when someone else tried to make your claim: "Anyone can edit, and that's a foundation issue. You can't attack because he's an anon, and he can't attack you because you are affiliated with Atari." Thirdly, even more so that the Atari now (that I did the contract for) is not the Atari that was around then. That said, I'm not opposed to mentioning its resemblence to Panther, but it should not be in the development paragraph (which is a paragraph of imporance). Possibly in a later paragraph. Factually, there is no direct link between Panther and Battelzone. As Ed Rotberg (the designer of Battlezone stated in an interview): "It actually developed in one of our company brainstorming sessions. We had recently developed the vector display technology, thanks to Howard Delman, and of course our first thoughts were to do a first-person 3-D perspective game." This was the late 70's (Atari's first b/w vector monitor had been developed during '78-'79, with Lunar Lander being the first game released in '79). the mountain range with exploding volcano was specifically documented as being putting in later in development at the behest of a programmer working on another project who thought it would look better. He wound up coding it himself. Atari's work with PLATO (which they did offer support for via their PCS's) didn't begin until the early 80's, culminating in the actual PLATO package by '84. --Marty Goldberg 01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"Atari's work with PLATO" is a canard, as that was a later development. Atari, like many others in the IT business, had a PLATO account during the 1970s, when it served as the leading (ie, only) online collaborative gaming platform. Are you surprised that Ed Rothberg claims to have come up with the idea for Battlezone all by himself? Do you just take one person's word and leave it at that when you write about video games? (If so, you would fail any journalism course.) Perhaps Rothberg wanted to take all the credit for himself. Or, even if he wanted to acknowledge the influence of another game, legal reasons (ie, royalty claims) or company policy would likely prevent him from doing so. Or perhaps he'd forgotten about Panther, or perhaps it was a subliminal influence, or perhaps he thought no one else would remember it; such is human nature. However, the people who wrote Panther clearly think Battlezone was based on it, and there are indeed a number of visual similarities. Why are you dismissive of this? Lots of other video games, notably Microsoft Flight Simulator, originated at PLATO. It looks like some of the idea for Battlezone may have originated there as well. We don't take sides at Wikipedia. Why not ask User:John Haefeli yourself? ProhibitOnions (T) 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ed does not claim to come up with it himself, as it states if you bother to read, "It actually developed in one of our company brainstorming sessions. We had recently developed the vector display technology, thanks to Howard Delman, and of course our first thoughts were to do a first-person 3-D perspective game." Are you surprised that others are claiming a successful game to be taken from their own? Are you just taking John Haefeli's word and leaving it at that? Microsoft Flight simulator has a defined linneage to PLATO and exact evoluation, that's not denied by any involved and can be traced. Incidentally, I go by multiple sources, including personally conducted interviews with a buttload of former Atari employees from the time (as a professional researcher and historian, I regularly conduct interviews with people across the industry), which will immediately be cited for "personal research" if I try and post them. Likewise, Wikipedia doesnt go by "it looks like". That's personal research as well, and unverifiable. Talk about failing any journalism course. Plain and simple, unless there's actual verifiable evidence of a) Atari having an account pre-Battlezone, including an actual PLATO terminal (which would be needed at the time to play any of those games), and b) Logs of them playing said game or accessing it, its speculation. For someone who has no axe to grind, you've gone out of your way with personal claims against me. Starting with claiming I work for Atari when I don't (therefore claiming I have a personal investment, when I don't), and now claiming I don't know how to do research. Keep reaching for those straws. --Marty Goldberg 19:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Evans revert war

What's up with the revert war over Scott Evans? It's pretty clear from the reference (safestuff.com) that Scott Evans claims to own the Bradley Trainer, and doesn't mind if people know about it. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but a verifiable reference carries more weight than truth here on Wikipedia. I'll admit that a single web page is not the best ref, but I think 65.57.245.11 has violated the 3RR. Rees11 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Scott (who's new site is actually AtariGame.com) is a well known collector of Atari coin-op related machines, documents and overall history. He does actually own the Bradley Trainer, and picked it up (with most of the other material) when Midway closed the Atari Games offices in California. The anonymous IP is a proxy with a long history of edit problems according to it's talk page. I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page, which he now violated with this last edit, and been reported at the Administrators Notice Board. I've also asked for a semi-protect for the page. I can not put back the correct info today, otherwise I'll be in violation of 3RR as well. --Marty Goldberg 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistant genre labeling?

Why is this game categorized as a simulation and not as vehicular combat? --Logomachist 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Added it. --Marty Goldberg 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)