Slashdot Mirror


The Making of Ghostbusters on the Commodore 64

Next Generation recently began running content from the respected British gaming magazine Edge, and today they're sharing The Making of Ghostbusters. The article is a look back to a barely-remembered but (for the time) forward thinking movie tie-in for the Commodore 64. Instead of a lame 'action' title following the movie's plot line, the game was set in the world of the Ghostbusters, and allowed players to build a financial empire through ghostbusting. "Crucially, for a game with so many parts - driving, simple resource management, shooting and trapping ghosts - the pieces snapped together well, and the money-making, business-upgrading elements gave the game a lasting replayability. Activision's Ghostbusters is polished, intelligently-paced, and suggests a measured and meticulous development approach: something which wasn't the case at all. 'A typical C64 game took nine months from start to finish,' laughs David Crane, the game's designer. 'Ghostbusters took six weeks!' Crane is one of the most prolific developers of the early videogame era. Creating titles such as Little Computer People and Pitfall made him Activision's star programmer."

12 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. I remember this game. by Devir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It brings back memories of driving the ghost busting mobile down the streets and capturing ghosts. building and customizing the car and people for better catching was amazing back then. I'm feeling old now.

  2. 6 weeks?! by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ghostbusters took six weeks!

    And that was one of my favorites back on the C64. It was very addictive. This really shows it's the overall creativity and playability that matters most in a game, not necessarily the complexity or graphics.

    Interesting coincidence that it's posted on the same day as someone from Microsoft belittling the Wii for its lesser graphics and simplicity. Doesn't make it less fun!

    1. Re:6 weeks?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. Some of my favorite games are 5-10 years old. Are the graphics mind blowing? no. But the graphics don't make the game. I wish modern game makers would quit making graphics laden games with no plot, no strategy, no replayability. Most new games won't even run on a middle of the road PC... (unless you count turning every single graphics option down to "low" - but at that point you've just thrown out most game's only redeeming feature.)

    2. Re:6 weeks?! by hal2814 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, 6 weeks is impressive. Too bad Atari didn't have this team working on ET.

  3. Youtube video by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a Youtube video for anyone who wants to relive old memories. :-)

    1. Re:Youtube video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you'd rather relive them less vicariously, grab an emulator for your OS and then check this out:

      http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=3133&d=18&h= 0

  4. Time by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Six weeks, eh? I suppose this was back when games were simple enough where all developers had to be intimiately familiar with the hardware and code Just Worked(tm).

    All the work done in code patterns and abstractions seem to have distanced developers from the metal. It's a necessary evil in some aspects (since the actual C64 hardware was always exactly the same so some safety stuff could be glossed over), but I've always wondered how some of the greats (like Crane) would have fared had they grown up 20 years after they did.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:Time by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the compromises made in adopting higher-level abstractions is the inability of contemporary platforms to support hard real-time programming. If you replaced the Atari 2600's 6507 CPU with a Pentium 4 and increased the RAM from 128 bytes to 1GB, but kept the original graphics system, it would actually be harder to write state-of-the-art (for Atari) games. The reason is that contemporary designs have non-determinsitic timing (at least to the extent a human could understand them) because of caches and other features. These systems were designed to make processing faster on the average, not to have consistent behavior.

      Of course, we can still have hard real-time systems, we just have to put the hard stuff in hardware. That's a reasonable solution, but it's narrowed the scope of problems that software can solve.

  5. a lesson for today by acvh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "First, if you want to design a game around a licence, you have to be very careful. The best strategy is to design an original game that would stand alone even without the licence. Our original theory was that a licensed game should be a great game first, and a licensed game second. The success of the Ghostbusters game reinforced our belief - that was clearly the right way to go."

    if only others thought this way...

  6. Little Computer People was AMAZING by illumin8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Creating titles such as Little Computer People and Pitfall made him Activision's star programmer.
    Wow I remember Little Computer People. This was an amazing game for it's time. It was like the Sims, only about 10 years before the Sims ever was released. The god complex you got from playing this game was amazing. I used to delight in torturing the poor little guy. It was very funny to watch.
    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  7. Well, back in the days... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back then, you played a game longer than it took the people that made it to code it!

    Today, you can already feel lucky when you get a week of fun for every manyear invested.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. I loved this game! by PixelScuba · · Score: 3, Funny

    HRR SRIMED MRREEE!!