How continues ruined the western arcade.

[Halo Fanboy]

Answers are in bold.

Complex does not equal difficult and difficult does not equal complex.
Yes it does. You can't have a complex game that is easy because whatever features the game has have to be essential to the challenge of the game. Otherwise they are useless features. If the most powerful infinite ammo gun is available at the start of the game, then what is the point of having anyother weapon? It's not merely an excess of features that leads a game to complexity, the features most impact the game in a meaningful way.

They were designed to entertain, nothing more.
And the way they entertain is in the form of a challenge. Not playing a movie every five minutes

So an easy challenge with entertainment value is worthless?
[When you've completed hard mode, do you play easy mode next?[/B]

Their loss. Nothing is stopping people from not using the continue option.
It's the negative impact on the design of the game that's the problem. You can agree that games like NBA jam are inudated with features made for money siphoning.

That same system works with continues.
If you use continues then you'll just end up in tougher and tougher situations without the skill required to tackle them. You'll end up in situations where you die faster and faster per credit. If you only play from stage 1 then you'll have more time to play per credit.


Which the westerns are also demanding but don't let that stop your rant.
The games you find in the west are more based on novelty then anything. For instance, in my bowling alley I see DDR, House of the Dead and fancy Hydro Thunder cabs, all of them which are reliant on peripherals. If the westerners were demanding these things then DoDonPachi Daifukkatsu, King of Fighter XIII and Senko No Ronde DUO would get actual american distribution.

If they intended the game not to be played with continues they would've said so or removed continues. Continues are not glitches, they were specifically programmed in.
{B] My discussion with NuetralDrow is on this topic. My point is that the design of the game is evidence that the game was not made to use continues.[/B]

I can't see how you can appreciate continues when it seems to me that most of the arcade features you see are the result of continues. Cheapness, unfair difficulty and so on.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Must... resist... urge... to... say... can't stop... self...
CRY SOME MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRREEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Why not got to every topic that complains about about DRM or nickel and dime DLC and repeat your capitalism spiel? Personally I don't see how being ambivalent to blatant greed that hurts the product is a good thing.

And yes the culture of the society is the root of shaoing Japan into what it is, that hardly means there isn't a linear relationship between the arcade's level of challange and competition in Japan and the skill of the players. Just like water coming out of a water fountain had to have come out of a lake at some point.

 

[Monshroud]

!

I don't think there is anyone here that considers credit feeding fun though. Most people feel ripped off by getting 30 secomds of game time per credit. The continue feature was just a cheap way of trying to attract a new audience to arcades and ended up hurting everyone. Particularly because it lead to bad game designs that came to define arcade games in the west for quite a while.

Theres no reason to take challenge out of an arcade game when it's there defining point and what the community that plays them has built themselves around. It reduces arcades to mere novelties and now you have to be lucky to fing a game in a bowling alley that doesn't rely on a light gun or dance pad to attract customers.

Sorry I seemed to be saying you lacked experience. But playing a looped game is very different then one with actual stage progression when it comes to satisfying clears.

So I want to share a story with you, because you inspired me to do this last night. I went to Dave and Busters, while not the greatest arcade on the planet, they are popular where I live. I sat there for about 4 1/2 - 5 hours. I saw a lot of what you are talking about. Lots of people just swiping their cards.

Now as I watched that, I paid attention to who those people were. They were there with friends and/or family. I watched as 2 guys played House of the Dead 4, playing a couple of credits before deciding to move on to a racing game. Later I caught them in front of Guitar Hero. I watched a group of girls all taking turns playing DDR, then playing Deal or No Deal. Later I watched as a father and son kept card swiping over and over to get through the old Jurrasic Park shooter. They must have played that for over 30 minutes or so, but they beat it and there were hugs and cheers from the family.

You know what I didn't see. I didn't see people not having a good time. They were smiling, laughing and sure appeared to be having fun. No one thought they were being cheated. When people changed games it was usually a group decision, or people were all taking turns to play a bit of a certain game. It was social, it was fun.

Lastly I watched as a kid in his late teens sat in front of some Aliens shooter. (Based on the Movie, don't remember the full name) He sat there on one coin (or swipe) and beat 2 of the stages before he seemed to get distracted by some shiny thing and got killed. He wound up swiping two more times and beat the game. I asked him how he got so good. He said he has been playing the game every week for a couple of months and learned where the items were and which enemies to attack first. I asked him if he ever completed the game on 1 swipe and he said that he hasn't yet, but that he was working to do that.

I think gaming in America has changed to more of a social activity and moved away from the indiviual challenging experience. When you are there socially, most people don't want to sit and watch you play a game for an hour or so, that's not fun for the other people. People want to play together, and that is what game designers and companies have been providing. Now has that ruined the arcade, surely not. It has merely changed the dynamic.

While there aren't many challenging games in the arcade, a lot of that has moved to the Console. Games like Demon's Souls, Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, and Geometery Wars have increasing difficulty levels and require mastery of various mechanics to get to or complete various stages. Games like these may be few and far between, the point is that they are still out there and still being made.

I hope you find more of these games and find the challenges you are looking for. Write to companies and tell them how much you enjoyed those games and hope they continue to make more or provide additional content for existing games. Maybe you will feel inspired and go down the game design path and you can create the games you seek. Find investors who believe in the idea and get your game in arcades. Things move in cycles and maybe it's time to bring some more challenge back to the arcade.

 

[Twilight_guy]

There were words here, they're gone now

Capitalist spiel? That's really the wording your going to use? alright.

It's not about money so much as divergent game design. the philosophy of games int he US and japan are at their core very different. The America side has been built around a continuous experience and has moved beyond arcades. arcades are a dead industry in the States because they are a limiting platform. The goal here is no longer to master a skill through repetitive play and mastery its something bigger. It's not about the highest points and numbers (except in WoW) the larger part is something different. Continues reflect a bit of this design. It's not about banging your head on a wall long enough to master playing a game its about letting everyone have a chance to get through the game and crafting an experience that's fun enough that people want to get through the game and keep putting money in. People can still choose to master a game through repetition and can still choose what game they like but every death is not "ha ha you fail" its "ha ha you fail, try again?"

Both game systems are designed to suck up your money by encouraging you to play and neither is above is goal they simply have divergent methods of enticing players and getting their money.

As for why Japan (and Korea, China and a few other Asia countries for that matter) produce gamers that are more "skilled" (I'm reluctance to every use the word skill with gaming because its so undefined and subjective that its meaningless) is due to a different mentality in gaming and the culture in general. Anyone with eyes can tell games in the east and west have different goals and preferences in games and thus different outcomes of players in general. In particular for arcade games, the arcade industry is largely dead in the US and thus will have fewer player that entice it. A smaller base of players means a smaller chance for US competitors to score high then the, presumably larger Japanese base. That's just one factor that makes the argument of US players not being as good for the reasons of "continues" dumb. It's not that simple.

What it all boils down to and the US and Japan can't simply be compare based on a single number and you can't broadly generalize the rise and fall of entire media styles (arcades) based on a single mechanic. On a personal note, you sound like a whinny elitist ethnocentric person to me and I stand by my original comment as a proper response to that. I doubt if it's an accurate assessment, but you should be aware that's how you came off.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Then you have even less of a point. Being in God Mode means you can't lose. Continuing means you get another try, which means trying to build back up to where you were and fight off the horde that killed you (or that Riot Blood Iori gets another round of kicking your ass). Hell, they have more in common with save states than that (though not enough to be interchangeable, since save states have no cost and are more precise).

Considering that in most recent games continuing means coming back to life on the spot you died with every bad guy still wounded from when you attacked them before you died, it is pretty much like God mode. The only difference is that it has a cost in real life money(which makes it even worse when you think about it.) As long as you have coins. It isn't really like save states at all.

It's far more like save states (you still have to play through the level, but you don't lose any upgrades) than God Mode (you're invincible with infinite ammunition; playing is absolutely meaningless)...but it's real equivalent is extra lives.

Assuming you're talking about the right kind of game. If you're talking a fighting game or the rare rhythm game that allows them, for example, it's another chance to try a stage you messed up on.

You're clearly talking about the motivations of the developer, by pointing out that no "respectable" one would test the game based on someone spending more money to continue. I pointed out that they wouldn't care.

And by "still," I mean I'm still on you for thinking the developers give a crap about 1cc.

No I don't mention the developers motives at all. I'm mereley describing the way they design and test their games.

And it is obvious in the design of the games that they are not designed with continues in mind. You can go through the whole thing without a cotinue.

And again, if they weren't designed with continues in mind, they wouldn't have continues. It would be a total and complete waste of time and code. Just because you can go through a given game on one coin doesn't mean the developer cares a bit that you do, versus the developer caring that the controls work right and that the game doesn't bug out.

The players are the ones who care about that.

Contrast with NBA Jam where you can't even complete a match without inserting more credits. Or in a lesser capacity you have the absurdly cheap western games where avoiding damage is IMPOSSIBLE. The developers of any good game could not possibly have designed the games for players using continues because designing a game for continues entails designing less of a game and more of a money siphon.

NBA Jam? Didn't even realize that was in the arcades...sounds pretty pointless, since even the Genesis version was awesome.

And the only "impossible to beat without continuing" arcade game I can think of is The Simpsons...and even that's debatable. You sure it's not just more challenge?

I have to ask. Do you find games more fun because they have continue features? I think nearly everyone here has had experiences where they felt ripped off and uncomfortable with the blatant greed of the feature*. I mean, almost nobody has anything nice to say whenever EA comes up with another nickel and dime scheme.

I find them to lower the frustration of a game immensely, which translates to something similar. Also manages to be a time-saver for me, when I'm just getting into a game; I'd rather continue a few times against Draco in Samurai Shodown: Edge of Destiny and figure out his pattern and style of attack that way than fight my way through eight people even more times in a row before I figure out how not to eat the business end of a shotgun. This applies to basically any genre I can think of, not just fighting games.

The only games I don't continue on are the ones where I'm good enough to get pretty far anyway and don't have a vested interest in getting to the end (or at least a vested interest in getting past a certain point).

Or games where there's a line, but that's just being polite.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Meh. I think if games focused more on being challenging, I just wouldn't be much of a gamer. I'm able to enjoy games because they're accessible. I've never been interested in overcoming challenge, I've only been there for the ride.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Ok you've convinced continues aren't so bad. There could certainly be a more eloquent way of making the game more accessable while still allowing a challenge. Maybe players could pay more to get an easier difficulty setting or something instead. Or have an R-type and Gradius type of system. Continues are just a bad comprimise for gamers that would all feel more at home simply playing on consoles.

So I am glad that continues did some good for some people. I still think it's a step away from what I and most modern arcade gamers prefer in gaming though.

 

[Iron Mal]

This thread was bumped without my knowledge a while back and contains a few post I would like to respond to. So I am bumping it again. If a mod has a problem with this they can lock the topic.

I find your Difficulty = Challange = Quality arguement a little hard to justify personally.

The problems with arcades and the challange contained therein were many in number but the following two stick out most to me.

1- More difficulty = more deaths which means more money for the booth. Continues weren't meant to make the game easier, they're meant to keep the game fun and playable (for people besides obsessives who learn the ins and outs of every last pixel). If you had to start the game again from the beginning every time you died then I think you'd find that most people would just get pissed off with the games and tell the arcade owners to go fuck themselves.

I strongly disagree. The no continuing is the absolute funnest way to play. Once you continue the fun is over. You ruin the challenge by erasing your own death with no in-game consequence. You can appreciate the later stages more if you fought to get there by conquering the first stages.

Continueing isn't erasing your own death just as respawning in multiplayer doesn't mean the last kill your opponant got on you didn't count, there is an in-game consequence as well, in the old arcade games you lost points or were returned to the beginning of the stage (there would also be things such as losing power ups or not having your partner avaliable to help you if it was a co-op game), 'continues' in console games continue this trend by giving penalties for dying (the challange of having to repeat the section again, losing resources, having to recover your equipment, Demon's Souls has half of your maximum health disappear on death as well as many others).

You're statement of 'it's the funnest way' is purely subjective, that's your opinion, if you enjoy playing the game this way then that's fine (do as you please, be my guest) but by the same token other people are free to enjoy games their way. Their way of playing is neither superior or inferior, just different, and you prattling on here about how 'the only true way to play is with one continue' and how 'challange is everything' won't win hearts or change anything.

We'll continue enjoying our deep, immersive and fun games and you can continue mastering old arcade games hardly anyone plays and being a sour puss (go pout).

2- Challange does not equal fun. Sometimes a great challange or tense situation can be extremely satisfying and great fun, sometimes having a crushing level of difficulty can just suck all the fun out of what would have otherwise been a great game.

A game's quality and fun is completely independant of it's difficulty and challange.

There are many games out there which barely even have any 'challange' to them but they can still be extremely fun for some people (for example, my girlfriend loves the Sims but I doubt that her enjoyment of the game would be increased by making it demand that she perfectly times her clicks and button presses).

I'm sure that a person who was a dedicated player of managment sim games would eventually want to graduate to games where you have to fill requirements imposed by the game instead of messing around on your own imperitave. It really is just a matter of how dedicated that person is to their hobby. I imagine someone who relishes writing will eventually write books and a person who lives for model plane building will eventually want to build a real plane. The dedicated arcade gamer wants to eventually play the ultimate, evolved and challenging arcade game, it is the natural progression of being dedicated.

As for you difficulty does not effect quality thing. I can't see the quality in a puzzle that isn't puzzling or a strategy game without strategy or an action game without consequences for your actions.

You seemed to have missed the point (and have your moments of lapsing into la-la land too), sometimes the enjoyment of a game isn't in the technical execution of the game but in the experiences we can have from expressing our creativity or just from having the freedom to enjoy ourselves in a virtual space without the consequences attached to real life.

When playing Painkiller I can have fun battling the leigons of Hell without risking my life and soul (if I possess one that is, and if Christian theology about the afterlife is correct), some of the levels aren't very challanging (and some of the card challanges are downright evil, particularly any which are along the lines of 'find all secrets') these low difficulty missions are still incredably fun though because it makes you feel very badass when you just shotgunned your way through a small leigon of ninjas before shredding the last one apart and juggling him with the painkiller.

My girlfriend has fun on the Sims not because she's conquering any great peaks of difficulty (in fact, she often uses the extra money cheat so she can have the freedom to do whatever she likes), she enjoys it because she loves designing houses and picking decorations as well as making cute and adorable families, something that would be very difficult for most people to achieve in reality (I'd sure as hell like a house that cost £1,000,000,000,000 to build but that doesn't mean I'm gonna get one).

Not every enjoyable experience in a game is born out of the game's difficulty, the challange was the only thing that arcade games had because they had to keep playtimes short so everyone got a go (a business practice that began to crack and fall apart when consoles became popular, you could play all you want so you could have a greater level of enjoyment with your game, you could do so much more in your time than just get from one side of the screen to another).

It is kind of sad that you're stuck in a 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude because as a result you're missing out on so much that you could enjoy in a game, and the only person who is keeping your from all of these great experiences is you.