Domination Game

I find it incredible that people write so much about the other bits about the movie, but the most incredible and unique bit of the movie doesn't even get a lousy IMDb thread.

So I guess it's up to me to do it, reluctant as I am.

We all know how the game was made - it was featured in magazines, like "Enter" (you can download it from archive.org for free - I think it was one of the very first issues, could be issue number two, but I am not sure).

Camera tricks, computer-guided cameras, actual lasers, and other similar early '80s technical brilliance.

But the game itself - it's very unclear as to how one plays it. And I think the villain lies, when he says: "This game has one objective - power", when the game OBVIOUSLY has more objectives, than that. And most are revolving around MONEY, not POWER. Heck, even "TORTURING THE OTHER PLAYER" seems to be quite an objective!

So each player has to shoot target areas, that 'light up' (meaning, the computer decides what and when to make the target area), and whoever hits them first, gets a point? And then both players have two nuclear missiles, that they can shoot with the left hand - and with the right hand, you control a shield to block the missiles (I presume there are only two of them as well?).

Whoever is losing, gets an electric shock, and when all the 'targets' have been conquered, the scores are calculated and turned into amounts of money, and then the screen is QUICKLY SHUT OFF, so that no one can confirm or even see what they won/lost, unless they happen to be watching the screen during that second-or-less that the final money amount/score is shown before the screen shuts off.

Well, it's pretty clear so far, but why does the shield's visuals vary? Or are the two shields visually different? (I think I spotted at least three different 'shield' visuals, one of which looks like a camera aperture, OR alternatively, reminds us of the typical Bond movie opening cliché of filming supposedly through a barrel of a gun - emphasized by the fact that it doesn't fully close, like a proper shield would to be effective at all)

And why does the view look so odd - it's pretty impossible to figure out what's going on and who is winning and whatnot, except for the score. Of course matters are not helped by the forceful injection of hag-faces, which is so typical of hollywreck. Nothing that could excite the rational human being or the men's souls can be shown -without- including women in some way. Sigh, groan and argh.

I wish the screens were explained a bit more clearly - I mean, what do the TV screen bits signify? Why can't all information simply be shown on the big screen? It's not like the opponent doesn't know exactly how many missiles you have anyway. Alternatively, why even need such a big screen, when you have those smaller monitors? Why even play on separate screens, when you could just play like normal - sitting on a couch, facing the same direction, instead of such a weird confrontational setup? Oh yeah, 1983.. holograms were all the rage.

Btw, why does the computer start by saying: "Thank you, gentlemen"? WHAT game begins that way? How does the computer know the gender of the players?

Why does the computer always state the unnecessarily long sentence in the beginning, and why would it state that the battle is ETERNAL? How is it eternal, exactly?

Why does the computer state the value of each country (how were these values decided, exactly? And why is the WHOLE WORLD not worth more than 325000 dollars?) in dollars, although the score is simply shown as numbers (why are "points" even included, when they could be just sums instead)?

Why does the villain have to SAY IT OUT LOUD before the game begins, that "we play for dollars"? Isn't that QUITE OBVIOUS, when the computer immediately says that "Spain, Value 9000 dollars"?

Does each participant see a slightly different view - is the view actually a 3D hologram, or is the "3D" there just a gimmick, and the game is actually played in 2D? Why is there a ridiculous square bit where there are no graphics, so that each player can stare each other's silly mug?

Why is there no consistency in where the villain scores, when the same scene is shown from Bond's view, and why do the views look so different?

And yet, why does the view look so similar at the same time? I mean, it's like they both have separate view (both see Spain from the same angle, where there's a larger extending 'arm' of the country on the upper left, which would be impossible, if the view was as "3D", as we are shown,
when we see things from Connery's angle - shouldn't the target that the villain shot be at least
somehow visible in his side of the screen?)

Why is the aiming done in such a convoluted manner, where you have to look at the smaller screen to see where your crosshairs are traversing, but you can see only a tiny portion at any given time - when you could simply have implemented two crosshairs on the large screen?

Why does the computer say "Blue wins 9000 dollars", but it doesn't state the sum when Bond wins 'the whole world'?

What does the red bar on the left (on the villain's screen) signify?

Why do we always see the villain's screen straight ahead, but Bond's screen is shown us at an angle?

How can "pain level" be quantified? ("Red pain level, 80 per cent")

When Bond collapses, why doesn't the computer announce "Blue wins 42 000 dollars"? It doesn't announce anything, after stating "danger, danger".

How many axises does one of those joysticks have, exactly, and why are they done in such a clumsy way?

Bond loses Spain (9000 dollars), Japan (16000 dollars) and USA (42000 dollars), and the villain exclaims: "You lost fifty-eight thousand dollars". What kind of mathematics is he using, or is he just lousy at math? Why doesn't the computer annoynce the final sum? (Would help if the screen didn't keep turning off)

When Bond asks: "Can we play one more game for the rest of the world", does he suggest that they would play for the whole world, except for the countries that he already lost? Why couldn't they be included in the game?

And why does Bond specify: "Win or lose"? Uh, yeah - as an alternative to what? "Tie or tie"? What other kind of game IS there, but "Win or lose"? Does he mean to say: "Double or nothing"? Is this some kind of casino idiom or slang that I am not aware of?

Actually, when I think about it - shouldn't it be "Win AND Lose"? I mean, when the other player WINS, the other simultaneously LOSES. Every single time. So what does he mean by "OR"? How can there be a WIN, without a LOSE?

What does he MEAN by this curious statement?

when the villain says: "You know what that could mean?", does he mean that it could mean dying from an electric shock? But isn't that quite ridiculous - I mean, wouldn't self-preservance instincts make both of them release the controls, before lethal dosages are received? As indeed the villain does.

So, "what it could mean" apparently means "letting go of the handles, when it gets to be too painful". Wow, how dramatic!

How does the computer know they are playing "FINAL GAME"? How does the villain control the computer, exactly? There is no game menu, like in modern games, where you can make these selections, of whether you are going to play an exhibition game (France), or if you are going to play a game, where the end sum is not announced, or if you are going to play a "final" game (How can there even BE a final game, when obviously this game doesn't support any kind of tournament mode, but the game is started afresh every time (or why else would the screen keep turning off), and the countries can be played completely separately anyway? There's never any indication that the players would be MOVING from one country to another, but the selection is RANDOM. So how can there be a "FINAL GAME"?

And how does he make that specific selection so quickly (without a menu, etc)? Is there a ready button for "the whole world" and "final game"?

Why does the computer ALSO not announce the final value when the villain loses the whole world? It just repeats: "Danger, danger, danger" -- if you are going to make a computer so dangerous, why would you then water it down by make it sound like some silly robot from a family TV show?

So, the value of the whole world is 325 000 dollars. But then the villain wants to only give bond .. 267 000 dollars?

Where did the rest of the money go, or is he AGAIN showing how bad he is at math? What the..? Why?

I mean, either you win the whole pot every time you win, or you can't get 9000 when you win Spain, or 16000, when you win Japan. This movie tries to have it both ways, OR there is some other explanation (which I haven't figured out) to these oddities.

Seems like quite a silly reflex-game anyway - very confusing, very difficult to see what exactly is going on. In an actual, real video game (even from the early '80s), it would be completely feasible and easy to figure out who is winning, what's going on, and so on, but with this game, it's really difficult to keep track of what's happening. Some of the time, they are not even shooting the bits that light up.

And why do they light up as little dots, instead of simply highlighting the regions (or polygons, or the areas inside the polygons) properly?


I don't know, seems like an OVERLY convoluted, complex and complicated interface for such a REALLY SIMPLE game.

I wonder if it'd be possible or feasible to make a relatively faithful replica of this game on a modern computer - something that looks like a vector game, where you just have to shoot these bits of country. Though it being a 'who does it first' makes it a purely reflex-game, instead of a game of skill and/or strategy..

I guess RISK is still the better game of 'world domination'..