Main > Main Forum
What Arcade Era Do You Identify With The Most?
Ond:
Loved the Golden Age, such awesome creativity in the games..ok..back to the big SF debate (where's HarumaN's humor when it's needed?) :P
DillonFoulds:
--- Quote from: Mauzy on May 20, 2010, 11:02:42 pm ---I maintain that I was born about 20 years too late....
--- End quote ---
I'd be okay with 10 years earlier (1987 -> 1977)
CheffoJeffo:
--- Quote from: manman on May 25, 2010, 07:54:55 pm --- Although the one comment you made that I would disagree with or ascribe that kind of sentiment to was you saying something like "but let's not pretend that SF2 was the second coming, or even something good "- that second part, I mean come on.
--- End quote ---
You do understand that I was referring to the effect that SF2 had on the arcade industry, not to the game itself, right ?
EDIT:
--- Quote from: manman on May 25, 2010, 07:54:55 pm ---I don't get things like inferring that without games like the fighting games, the arcade could have died "with dignity". To me that's bashing something without having experienced it in the way that people who enjoy it did.
--- End quote ---
The point of that post was that the tunnelvision that resulted from the popularity of SF2 resulted in a death of creativity in new game development. Developers just wanted to create, and ops wanted to buy, the next big fighting game. That represents a tremendous loss from the prior years (even the lean years) when there was a much wider assortment of games being developed that had broad appeal beyond a specific, flighty, demographic.
The result was that the industry lost the general appeal, then, predictably, lost the fighter fanboys. At the end of the day, we ended up with entertainment centres overloaded with redemption games designed specifically to cheat children by offering $1 prizes for $10 of play. It became something completely devoid of dignity.
opt2not:
--- Quote from: Ond on May 25, 2010, 07:55:12 pm ---Loved the Golden Age, such awesome creativity in the games..ok..back to the big SF debate (where's HarumaN's humor when it's needed?) :P
--- End quote ---
This isn't a debate. It's a pointless old-school vs. new-school c :o ck measuring argument, which I've been trying to nail down the actual topic of. Mostly, I'm just amused by the defensiveness of this whole thing...
People getting worked up over some pretty pointless things.
Arcade games forever IMO!
manman:
Sure, but I think to say that it had a negative effect or that having it there somehow stopped the arcade industry from dying with dignity is a comment on the game itself. Although I assume you probably weren't referring to one version of the game but the narrow genre. I would even be inclined to agree with you on a lot of points such as it causing tunnel vision with a lot of developers (although there WERE other genres doing fairly well once arcades started to become popular again), and that in and of itself being a bad thing. Honestly, there were few times until this last back and forth we just had were my comments about disparaging the genre were directed to something you specifically said. A lot of what you've said are things I would actually agree with or are pretty good points of debate at least. The only things I can't agree with are taking down the value of a game/genre or it's players without having a pretty good knowledge of that game. I guess as far as the players go, if you owned an arcade you'd definitely have your own opinion on that, I personally have seen both good and bad people in that scene (both in those days and now) and I have to imagine any era had it's share of jerks and good people.
I can honestly say that if it were turned around and I thought someone who identified more with the era I did was bashing on the golden era games etc, I would be making pretty much the same case. Not that I could defend the games specifically without a strong knowledge of them, but I'd still be making the case that it doesn't make sense to claim something takes no skill or otherwise dismiss it if you don't know as much about it as the people who enjoy it. If you think I took some things out of context and there was honestly /none/ of that happening, then maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think I've totally misread some of the comments made toward the game/genre...
--- Quote from: opt2not on May 25, 2010, 08:16:07 pm ---This isn't a debate. It's a pointless old-school vs. new-school c :o ck measuring argument, which I've been trying to nail down the actual topic of.
--- End quote ---
haha, but it's not! That's the whole thing I'm trying to say I'm against... I think the era I idnetify with most was awesome, and I think the golden age was probably awesome too! I have nothing at all bad to say about it, and never tried to compare the two in terms of quality...
EDIT: and with regard to the edit you made CheffoJeffo , I totally agree. I guess I personally tend to think of it more as the genre kind of eating itself alive rather than killing arcades, because without having revived it first, there never would have been that dynamic. It's more like that era became a victim of it's own success- instead of developers branching out and being more creative many of them kept trying to capitalize on the success of one thing. I think that for the leaders/Pioneers in the space, much of the time they were making good games that people valued but for all the copy cats or game companies that didn't want to find/create their own thing it was definitely to the detriment of the overeall culture.