Reply to that long post about old arcades and new arcades

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Build Your Own Arcade Controls message board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lord of the Storm on 8, 2001 at 6:30 AM:

I cannot find it on the message board, so I post my reply here.

I have been reading your interesting ideas and I'd like to contrast my opinion with yours. The main difference you point out between old classic arcade games and today's arcade games is that older games have a concept which is not oriented to progression, so the main interest of the player is to progress in his own ability so as to obtain hi-scores. Undoubtedly, this different is due to the fact that the limitations of memory in those classic old games mean that you, as a programmer, had to invent ways to keep the player's interest in the game, the elements of which cannot be very varied, so you have to change very few things. You couldn't put a huge changing scenery and lots of different enemies on screen. You had to deal with increasing difficulty mainly to bring new challenges to the player. Since graphics or sounds were very limited, the programmers had to focus on other aspects, such as playability, originality, etc, taking advantage of what they had. I'm not going to debate about the magic of those old arcades which, for some people, are superior to any other modern game. That's a question that has to do with experiences of childhood, with very subjective approaches. For some reason, the first games you play in your life, obviously during childhood, mark you for the rest of your life. Maybe it has to do with the capability the children have to be impressed. Moreover classic games have the advantage that all classics manifestations have: originality. When everything was invented, there were no more ideas for arcade videogames. They had to use what they had: more power, which allows better graphic, better sounds etc. Arcade genres were being invented and only the first bunch of games, that can be considered as creators of genres or as original ideas, are considered classics. Then we see how thousands of clones appear. Programmers preferred not to take risks and follow successful formulas. Many people consider that all modern games lack soul and are only centered on improved technical aspects, repeating again what we already know. However, I think it's too demanding to ask for originality in 2D arcades today. I don't think it is a sin to draw the player's attention with spectacular audiovisual displays instead of using that charmful originality of the old classics. It is not a sin since the essential element is maintained: the high level of playability, something which must be common to all good arcades, be it old or new. In fact the simplicity of gameplay and concept of arcades makes it easy to keep that playability to the top. They are games running at constant 60 fps, and the response to controls and everything that takes part in the game are is in most cases oriented to offer pure playability. Compare for instance Gunbird or 1941 with Galaga or Space Invaders. Gameplay in all of them is perfect. It is also true that modern arcades are most based on progression concepts. Like many other non arcade games, the player has an interest in visiting new locations, in watching those new enemies and sceneries, and maybe then he looses some interest in the game itself, focusing on that final goal. This kind of concept has another disadvantage: when the game is finished, you have nothing more to see and the game is dead. The distinction you have made is in fact the main distinction I can find in the arcade genre, although I cannot see it's relevant enough to make a separation of good games from bad games. However, I can tell you many modern titles that follow the non-progression concept: sports games, fighting games, racing games, etc. I usually play a lot Rally Masters now, a modern 3D game which is half arcade half simulator (in fact the simulator genre and the arcade genre are very close and have many common features). And I never chose the progression game (championships etc), but the non-progression game: time trial. My objective is to achieve better and better lap times, which is basically what you do with hi-scores games: try to obtain the max score. And the game never dies, although I have played the same circuits hundred of times, as well as you have seen the same aliens and the same enemies all the time. The goal is hi-score, but there's another essential goal implicit in the game: fun. I enjoy showing my skills with the rally cars, driving to the max, feeling that I'm able to improve. It's exactly the same with old arcade games. Would you play those games with the only goal of writing you name in the hi-score table if the game were not funny and playable? The question is the way you play those arcade games with a progression concept. When you play it for the first time you are always tempted to progress until the end, no matter how much coins (buttons) you have to use. But then, when you finish the game, you can start it again, and enjoy it again, and that's the difference. And if you get bored today, tomorrow you can have another play and you'll find the same fun. I almost never play these games with the highscore goal in mind. My focus is merely fun. And you have to look for fun in gameplay, no matter if the game has a progression design or not. And if there's something that is always present in an arcade game is playability. Arcades are not like adventures. You can play Monkey Islands and you have lots of fun while it lasts, having a great satisfaction when you get to the end. But adventure games are not focused in gameplay. That's not the important thing. Arcades offer pleasure and satisfaction with the gameplay itself. I can understand that some people cannot stand the idea of playing again and again a progression arcade for the mere pleasure of playing. In fact I cannot do this with most of 3D progression games, such as Soldier of Fortune, (I get bored) but I can do this with most of 2D arcades. I have not managed to understand why this happens to me. You may know the sceneries of Golden Axe by heart, every enemy, every item, and it's always the same, but it's funny to play. You can have a play at R-type just to enjoy of the pleasure of showing your skills with the stick, living the experience of surviving to tons of attacks. The fun disappears if you cannot see any challenge, if you use cheats or don't put any effort, since you can press continue as many times as you want. You also comment something about the simplicity of old classics, and purity of the arcade concept in those games. I believe that this simplicity and purity are also present in modern arcade games, I mean pure arcade games which respect the sacred laws of arcade. You should not get distracted with the technical ornaments. There's no difference in complexity between the most modern shootem up and Galaga, and modern racing games are not more difficult to play simply because they have better graphics. The problem today is that many people don't understand the concept of arcade, I mean pure arcade game. I would like to say that, in essence, I cannot see the importance of that distinction you make between old and new arcades. They're the same in essence: progression arcades or non-progression arcades, arcades from the 70s or from the 90s. They all can be respectful to the laws of arcade, and follow the same schemes, putting together every essential ingredient an arcade game should have. Talking of arcade business, you point out how it is slowly dying. I don't know if this is due to the lack of originally. I rather think this is due to the fact that the general taste for videogames has changed. People nowadays want games where ability is not the primary component. You say that today's arcades are very different to old arcades and I don't think that's true. You have to bear in mind that home arcades are not pure arcades. They are adapted to what a home user should expect. Home users pay money for a game and these users believe that a game has to be durable. They don't understand that a game can last forever. They want games with puzzles, with a long development, long intros etc. That idea you say of beating a game is very interesting, and I think that's the biggest mistake a player can make. And that's what many home users, which are not true arcade players do. They have paid a lot of dollars for a game, so they have to beat it, they have to get to the end and see everything in the game. But those are not arcades. Compare for instance Soldier of Fortune with Quake3. The first one is already uninstalled from my hd, since I've beaten it and I'm no longer playing it. Quake3 is a 3D non-progression pure arcade, and I play it everyday. However, the big question is why 2D progression arcades can also last forever, at least in my opinion? Maybe this have to do with the features of true arcades. True arcade is what we can see at the arcade galleries. Today we have almost exclusively 3D arcades oriented to a non-progression concept. Take for instance the 1vs1 3D fighters. Same happens with sports or racing games: the importance is in gameplay and the fun you get from it. This also applies to progression games, but in these you pay a little more importance to the fact of beating levels than to the fact of enjoying the gameplay. It's very hard to see the difference, because it's really very little and depends more on how you approach every game. In 1vs1 fighting games you beat your enemies, one after one, but I cannot see that these games have a progression concept as beatemp ups have (Final Fight, etc). You can even play against a friend, and enjoy the game without the goal of an end in mind. Anyway, I think the important thing is to be able to identify true arcades. I'd like to remind that the concept of arcade was created there, at the arcade galleries. The time of use of an arcade machine has to be profitable, so the game has to be oriented to this economic goal. It has to be simple and direct. You cannot get lost or stay for a while to think while you play. If you want to progress, either increasing your score, either reaching new levels, you have to show your skills, and if you fail the game is over, unless you pay your lack of skill with more money. These games are totally oriented to addiction, and to get economic benefits. Definitely you cannot compare home arcades and true arcades. Finally I'd like to point out the main features that I've found as common characteristics, definitory characteristics of pure arcades. I think this features can be applied to all the pure arcades I've played:

- perfect playability

- simplicity of conception (no extra knowledge required for playing the game)

- lack of progression or short progression (in this case the duration of a whole play should be carried out in one session)

- the main demand to the player is to show skill

- this skill must be shown through direct control (all arcades, although they have very different control artefacts, have what I call direct control. Thus, controls systems like using a pointer to click where you want your warrior to go (present in some false arcades at PC) cannot be accepted.

- the play is constantly menaced by the loss of time or life (if you don't intervene, you die and the game is over)

I had also another secondary feature about the goal of the game. At this point your ideas have made me thought. I considered that the goal is to beat successive levels of growing difficulty, until you reach to an end. Now I can see that some games may not have an real end, but these levels of difficulty are also present even if there's no progression in the game. I can be traditional levels of changing graphics, racing laps, new bunches of asteroids, etc. I think the idea of growing difficulty is very present, although not necessarily. Finally, another feature that applies to modern arcades is the audiovisual orientation to impress the player. I don't know if this is present in the old classics. Today it's difficult that they can amaze somebody who knows what can be done with modern computer graphics, unless he is marked by those games in his childhood. Then these games become sacred works of art for these people, as well as Genesis games are sacred for those that enjoyed videogames for the first time with that console, etc. Maybe this devotion for the games of our childhood is changing nowadays, because the new 3D concepts give so much importance to technology that some people forget that videogames also have an artistic value, a soul that can be more or less important in accordance to the value you may give to it. Some people today forget that fun is the important factor, and only look for more and more polygons per second, throwing away their recently acquired games when newer and more powerful games come to the market. So, that's why it's important to educate people on videogames. A little child is a virgin mind, and he can also enjoy the magic of the classics, their originality and addiction, as well as the amazing explosions of the newer arcades. It's a good thing that people know the past and respect the grandfathers of our modern arcades. The main truth is that a videogame can be a good videogame in the 70s and in this new millennium, and that old videogames should not be despised for the reason that their technology has been surpassed, as newer games shouldn't be despised for the mere fact that they lack originality.

Follow Ups:

My opinion *PLEASE READ* dhansen 2/08/2001 (0)
Re: Reply to that long post about old arcades and new arcades Kanyon1 2/08/2001 (0)
Re: Reply to that long post about old arcades and new arcades Kanyon1 2/08/2001 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: I cannot find it on the message board, so I post my reply here. : I have been reading your interesting ideas and I'd like to contrast my opinion with yours. The main difference you point out between old classic arcade games and today's arcade games is that older games have a concept which is not oriented to progression, so the main interest of the player is to progress in his own ability so as to obtain hi-scores. Undoubtedly, this different is due to the fact that the limitations of memory in those classic old games mean that you, as a programmer, had to invent ways to keep the player's interest in the game, the elements of which cannot be very varied, so you have to change very few things. You couldn't put a huge changing scenery and lots of different enemies on screen. You had to deal with increasing difficulty mainly to bring new challenges to the player. Since graphics or sounds were very limited, the programmers had to focus on other aspects, such as playability, originality, etc, taking advantage of what they had. I'm not going to debate about the magic of those old arcades which, for some people, are superior to any other modern game. That's a question that has to do with experiences of childhood, with very subjective approaches. For some reason, the first games you play in your life, obviously during childhood, mark you for the rest of your life. Maybe it has to do with the capability the children have to be impressed. Moreover classic games have the advantage that all classics manifestations have: originality. When everything was invented, there were no more ideas for arcade videogames. They had to use what they had: more power, which allows better graphic, better sounds etc. Arcade genres were being invented and only the first bunch of games, that can be considered as creators of genres or as original ideas, are considered classics. Then we see how thousands of clones appear. Programmers preferred not to take risks and follow successful formulas. Many people consider that all modern games lack soul and are only centered on improved technical aspects, repeating again what we already know. However, I think it's too demanding to ask for originality in 2D arcades today. I don't think it is a sin to draw the player's attention with spectacular audiovisual displays instead of using that charmful originality of the old classics. It is not a sin since the essential element is maintained: the high level of playability, something which must be common to all good arcades, be it old or new. In fact the simplicity of gameplay and concept of arcades makes it easy to keep that playability to the top. They are games running at constant 60 fps, and the response to controls and everything that takes part in the game are is in most cases oriented to offer pure playability. Compare for instance Gunbird or 1941 with Galaga or Space Invaders. Gameplay in all of them is perfect. It is also true that modern arcades are most based on progression concepts. Like many other non arcade games, the player has an interest in visiting new locations, in watching those new enemies and sceneries, and maybe then he looses some interest in the game itself, focusing on that final goal. This kind of concept has another disadvantage: when the game is finished, you have nothing more to see and the game is dead. The distinction you have made is in fact the main distinction I can find in the arcade genre, although I cannot see it's relevant enough to make a separation of good games from bad games. However, I can tell you many modern titles that follow the non-progression concept: sports games, fighting games, racing games, etc. I usually play a lot Rally Masters now, a modern 3D game which is half arcade half simulator (in fact the simulator genre and the arcade genre are very close and have many common features). And I never chose the progression game (championships etc), but the non-progression game: time trial. My objective is to achieve better and better lap times, which is basically what you do with hi-scores games: try to obtain the max score. And the game never dies, although I have played the same circuits hundred of times, as well as you have seen the same aliens and the same enemies all the time. The goal is hi-score, but there's another essential goal implicit in the game: fun. I enjoy showing my skills with the rally cars, driving to the max, feeling that I'm able to improve. It's exactly the same with old arcade games. Would you play those games with the only goal of writing you name in the hi-score table if the game were not funny and playable? The question is the way you play those arcade games with a progression concept. When you play it for the first time you are always tempted to progress until the end, no matter how much coins (buttons) you have to use. But then, when you finish the game, you can start it again, and enjoy it again, and that's the difference. And if you get bored today, tomorrow you can have another play and you'll find the same fun. I almost never play these games with the highscore goal in mind. My focus is merely fun. And you have to look for fun in gameplay, no matter if the game has a progression design or not. And if there's something that is always present in an arcade game is playability. Arcades are not like adventures. You can play Monkey Islands and you have lots of fun while it lasts, having a great satisfaction when you get to the end. But adventure games are not focused in gameplay. That's not the important thing. Arcades offer pleasure and satisfaction with the gameplay itself. I can understand that some people cannot stand the idea of playing again and again a progression arcade for the mere pleasure of playing. In fact I cannot do this with most of 3D progression games, such as Soldier of Fortune, (I get bored) but I can do this with most of 2D arcades. I have not managed to understand why this happens to me. You may know the sceneries of Golden Axe by heart, every enemy, every item, and it's always the same, but it's funny to play. You can have a play at R-type just to enjoy of the pleasure of showing your skills with the stick, living the experience of surviving to tons of attacks. The fun disappears if you cannot see any challenge, if you use cheats or don't put any effort, since you can press continue as many times as you want. You also comment something about the simplicity of old classics, and purity of the arcade concept in those games. I believe that this simplicity and purity are also present in modern arcade games, I mean pure arcade games which respect the sacred laws of arcade. You should not get distracted with the technical ornaments. There's no difference in complexity between the most modern shootem up and Galaga, and modern racing games are not more difficult to play simply because they have better graphics. The problem today is that many people don't understand the concept of arcade, I mean pure arcade game. I would like to say that, in essence, I cannot see the importance of that distinction you make between old and new arcades. They're the same in essence: progression arcades or non-progression arcades, arcades from the 70s or from the 90s. They all can be respectful to the laws of arcade, and follow the same schemes, putting together every essential ingredient an arcade game should have. Talking of arcade business, you point out how it is slowly dying. I don't know if this is due to the lack of originally. I rather think this is due to the fact that the general taste for videogames has changed. People nowadays want games where ability is not the primary component. You say that today's arcades are very different to old arcades and I don't think that's true. You have to bear in mind that home arcades are not pure arcades. They are adapted to what a home user should expect. Home users pay money for a game and these users believe that a game has to be durable. They don't understand that a game can last forever. They want games with puzzles, with a long development, long intros etc. That idea you say of beating a game is very interesting, and I think that's the biggest mistake a player can make. And that's what many home users, which are not true arcade players do. They have paid a lot of dollars for a game, so they have to beat it, they have to get to the end and see everything in the game. But those are not arcades. Compare for instance Soldier of Fortune with Quake3. The first one is already uninstalled from my hd, since I've beaten it and I'm no longer playing it. Quake3 is a 3D non-progression pure arcade, and I play it everyday. However, the big question is why 2D progression arcades can also last forever, at least in my opinion? Maybe this have to do with the features of true arcades. True arcade is what we can see at the arcade galleries. Today we have almost exclusively 3D arcades oriented to a non-progression concept. Take for instance the 1vs1 3D fighters. Same happens with sports or racing games: the importance is in gameplay and the fun you get from it. This also applies to progression games, but in these you pay a little more importance to the fact of beating levels than to the fact of enjoying the gameplay. It's very hard to see the difference, because it's really very little and depends more on how you approach every game. In 1vs1 fighting games you beat your enemies, one after one, but I cannot see that these games have a progression concept as beatemp ups have (Final Fight, etc). You can even play against a friend, and enjoy the game without the goal of an end in mind. Anyway, I think the important thing is to be able to identify true arcades. I'd like to remind that the concept of arcade was created there, at the arcade galleries. The time of use of an arcade machine has to be profitable, so the game has to be oriented to this economic goal. It has to be simple and direct. You cannot get lost or stay for a while to think while you play. If you want to progress, either increasing your score, either reaching new levels, you have to show your skills, and if you fail the game is over, unless you pay your lack of skill with more money. These games are totally oriented to addiction, and to get economic benefits. Definitely you cannot compare home arcades and true arcades. Finally I'd like to point out the main features that I've found as common characteristics, definitory characteristics of pure arcades. I think this features can be applied to all the pure arcades I've played: : - perfect playability : - simplicity of conception (no extra knowledge required for playing the game) : - lack of progression or short progression (in this case the duration of a whole play should be carried out in one session) : - the main demand to the player is to show skill : - this skill must be shown through direct control (all arcades, although they have very different control artefacts, have what I call direct control. Thus, controls systems like using a pointer to click where you want your warrior to go (present in some false arcades at PC) cannot be accepted. : - the play is constantly menaced by the loss of time or life (if you don't intervene, you die and the game is over) : I had also another secondary feature about the goal of the game. At this point your ideas have made me thought. I considered that the goal is to beat successive levels of growing difficulty, until you reach to an end. Now I can see that some games may not have an real end, but these levels of difficulty are also present even if there's no progression in the game. I can be traditional levels of changing graphics, racing laps, new bunches of asteroids, etc. I think the idea of growing difficulty is very present, although not necessarily. Finally, another feature that applies to modern arcades is the audiovisual orientation to impress the player. I don't know if this is present in the old classics. Today it's difficult that they can amaze somebody who knows what can be done with modern computer graphics, unless he is marked by those games in his childhood. Then these games become sacred works of art for these people, as well as Genesis games are sacred for those that enjoyed videogames for the first time with that console, etc. Maybe this devotion for the games of our childhood is changing nowadays, because the new 3D concepts give so much importance to technology that some people forget that videogames also have an artistic value, a soul that can be more or less important in accordance to the value you may give to it. Some people today forget that fun is the important factor, and only look for more and more polygons per second, throwing away their recently acquired games when newer and more powerful games come to the market. So, that's why it's important to educate people on videogames. A little child is a virgin mind, and he can also enjoy the magic of the classics, their originality and addiction, as well as the amazing explosions of the newer arcades. It's a good thing that people know the past and respect the grandfathers of our modern arcades. The main truth is that a videogame can be a good videogame in the 70s and in this new millennium, and that old videogames should not be despised for the reason that their technology has been surpassed, as newer games shouldn't be despised for the mere fact that they lack originality.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Build Your Own Arcade Controls message board ] [ FAQ ]