What Arcade Era Do You Identify With The Most?

[manman]

lol.  the funny thing about you is that you are trying to argue something you seem to know nothing about, other than what you can copy/paste from another site.  That list of games was what finally killed the arcades and paved the way for redemption?  I think you might want to do a little date checking there, the beginning of that list there correlates to the point where arcades were pretty much dead and then were brought back to life again.  I know that you know little to nothing about fighting games, and or just want to be willfully dismissive- so it's probably pointless to point this out, but I'll give it a shot...
One of the most important aspects in fighting games is character balance.  the tiniest change to the recovery time, start up, etc for various moves can dramatically change the effectiveness of that character, and shifts the matchup with all the other characters.  Now...aside from the fact that some of the games you listed are completely different seires of the overall franchise and play totally different, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and just address variations in a specific series.  Some of these variations were brought out for less valuable reasons like just trying to combat the gameplay tweaked bootlegs that were coming out, but many of these revisions were made in response to player feedback, because these games were (and some still are) being played at a competitive level.  A game company being responsive to it's fans and making the games more like what they want?  yeeeah, that's a TERRIBLE thing, lol.  People hate updates to their favorite games, that's for sure.  Some of the stuff you listed are also the exact same game but the japanese version vs. the american version... you are really talking out of your ass here haha.

As for it being like chess- It's not really possible to make a comparison like that, but the point he's making is that to be good at these games it does take similar skills like strategy, being able to read your oponent, bait your opponent, etc.  I think it's much closer to what he is trying to say than the way you seem to see it.  It would be just as easy to bash on the games you enjoyed with the same words like "tired" and "worn out" that you use, but I'm not that stupid. I realize that while it might not be my thing, games that may look outwardly simple and basic probably take a hell of a lot of skill to be the guy setting records, or even just do really well in.  It would be stupid of me to sit here and bash that stuff or the audience that enjoyed it  just because I'm not interested in it.  

[CheffoJeffo]

lol.  the funny thing about you is that you are trying to argue something you seem to know nothing about, other than what you can copy/paste from another site.  That list of games was what finally killed the arcades and paved the way for redemption?  I think you might want to do a little date checking there, the beginning of that list there correlates to the point where arcades were pretty much dead and then were brought back to life again.  I know that you know little to nothing about fighting games, and or just want to be willfully dismissive- so it's probably pointless to point this out, but I'll give it a shot...

Huh ?

It seems to me that you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. You are the one who has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't "get" how the Golden Age was golden and what it was like. Hell, I managed an arcade when SFII came out and you're going to tell me that I know nothing about what was happening around then ?

Like the title says ... 

[manman]

Uh... were you reading what I wrote?  That was a response to havok not you...   Also, for about the 5th time I already said I wasn't around during the golden era, and have never once said a bad thing about it.  I have no doubt that the golden age was as great as people say it was for those that experienced it, I never said one word to deny that... and  I did say were that I'm sure it took a lot of skill to be good at many of the games that were out during that time, but if that shows I don't "get" it, then ok.

The funny thing is that the poll is only meant to find out what eras you IDENTIFY with most- pretty much meaning "when were your formative arcade days".  It has nothing to do with arguing which era had the best games, or putting down other games to validate your enjoyment of the ones you played, yet somehow people are finding a way to make it into that.  If anything I would have expected the younger "less mature" players to be the ones twisting it into something like that but I guess that's my fault for trying to correlate age and maturity...

[CheffoJeffo]

Did you read what I wrote ?

Havok's list was an example of precisely what I wrote.

So far, you have come across like a kid who discovered video arcades when he found a game he really liked in 1990. That's good, but walking in for the last 20 minutes doesn't qualify you as an expert over those of us who have seen all of the movie.

There are many examples of knowledgeable people who say that SF2 killed the arcade ... there was an article in a magazine for arcade enthusiasts! Like I said, many of them even liked SF2 (I've had one in my game room), but that doesn't change what happened as a result of SF2.

It was great for you, but it wasn't great for the video arcade.

[CheffoJeffo]

The funny thing is that the poll is only meant to find out what eras you IDENTIFY with most- pretty much meaning "when were your formative arcade days".  It has nothing to do with arguing which era had the best games, or putting down other games to validate your enjoyment of the ones you played, yet somehow people are finding a way to make it into that.  If anything I would have expected the younger "less mature" players to be the ones twisting it into something like that but I guess that's my fault for trying to correlate age and maturity...

Maybe I missed some posts, but there is nothing in this thread that hasn't been said before and EVERY time somebody points out SF2, someone who hasn't read the previous eleventy discussions on the topic jumps on the bait, freaks out, says a bunch of things that are often wrong when all they need to say is -- "you know what, I really like SF2 and appreciate the subtle differences between versions".

But no, you guys have got to go all genesim on it.

 

[manman]

I'm struggling to find the the post were I wrote "listen up chumps- I am an expert of arcades and street fighter is the only good game to ever come out!"

if you want to say sfII killed the arcade, more power to you I guess.  I've made my point, and there are many references that back up what I've said.  If someone wants to make an argument that if SF had never come out (and something else were to have revived the arcade scene?) that it would have lasted much longer- I guess that could be argued.  And I'd love to have that argument, but it probably doesn't belong in this thread.  But I don't think theres really any way to argue at the very least that arcades weren't almost dead before it's arrival, and that it and other fighting games didn't create a new wave of success for the arcades.  I think you have to be pretty delusional to refute that, but hey whatever.

But what Havok said clearly shows he doesn't have much more than a superficial knowledge of fighting games.  Unless he's just fudging the list to make it longer for his point, even with a mediocre knowledge he'd know that games like the zero and alpha series, turbo/x etc are  the same game from different regions.  A little more than that and he'd know how different a game that seems the same from cursory inspection or play actually are when played at a higher level.  But I don't expect him to know or even care about any of that, because he has no interest in it.  that makes complete sense.  What doesn't make sense is bashing on it WITHOUT that knowledge,  because your reasoning ends up being flat out wrong.   If you read my posts, I've never said anything about me being an expert on arcades, games from one era being any better than another's or any of that.  All I've basically said is 1)  Whether or not you personally like/value a game it shouldn't stop you from understanding the value other see in it, or realizing that it takes skill just like the games you enjoy, and 2) similarly I don't see the need to bash on one era just to validate your own enjoyment of the era you liked.

Maybe I missed some posts, but there is nothing in this thread that hasn't been said before and EVERY time somebody points out SF2, someone who hasn't read the previous eleventy discussions on the topic jumps on the bait, freaks out, says a bunch of things that are often wrong when all they need to say is -- "you know what, I really like SF2 and appreciate the subtle differences between versions".

But no, you guys have got to go all genesim on it.

 

I don't know, maybe the reason there is such a disparity is because those that play the games realize in most cases the differences aren't subtle (or the gameplay they result in isn't), and those that don't don't.  Instead what probably should be said is "hey, I don't play the game or know it that well, so I can't really speak on it".  Same reason you don't hear me commenting on golden era games, because I know that just because I've played them or been in arcades where people have played them- doesn't mean I really know them.

I get it though- enjoying or defending a genre/players that weren't part of the golden age from being bashed with broad generalizations rooted in ignorance is not welcome around here.  Sorry for breaking your cardinal rule.

what I mean to say was "the golden era is the only actual era that ever existed in the history of arace gaming.  Any other game that ever came out after never caused more people to enter an arcade, and in fact caused the death of the arcades that were already dead- and also required absolutely no skill to play."

There you go

[Havok]

My point of the list was just an example - it wasn't meant to be definitive.  The point is, even if you cut it in half, it's too much. Fighter game after fighter game after fighter game was released. That's what I was trying to say, and you apparently missed it. You can pretty it up all you want with your "nuances" of each game, but let's face it - they're damn similar. Too similar. Done to death. If I really wanted to list by region I would be listing over 169 Street Fighter Titles. (Europe, Asia, USA, etc.) That's just Street Fighter!

I was around for all of it - and did play SF, MK, KOF, etc. You seem to think I don't have any experience there. As far as knowing the games, actually I do. I was the local champion in Street Fighter 2 back in the day for my arcade, and my brother in law (who at the time was my girlfriend's brother) was a regional champion. In fact, he still loves the fighters to this day and I would hazard a guess that he could probably wax you in a game - he's really that freaking good.

[CheffoJeffo]

I'm struggling to find the the post were I wrote "listen up chumps- I am an expert of arcades and street fighter is the only good game to ever come out!"

There are a few instances, but this one was pretty close ...

lol.  the funny thing about you is that you are trying to argue something you seem to know nothing about, other than what you can copy/paste from another site.

 

if you want to say sfII killed the arcade, more power to you I guess.  I've made my point, and there are many references that back up what I've said.  If someone wants to make an argument that if SF had never come out (and something else were to have revived the arcade scene?) that it would have lasted much longer- I guess that could be argued.  And I'd love to have that argument, but it probably doesn't belong in this thread.  But I don't think theres really any way to argue at the very least that arcades weren't almost dead before it's arrival, and that it and other fighting games didn't create a new wave of success for the arcades.  I think you have to be pretty delusional to refute that, but hey whatever.

Yes, but you fail to recognize that people like me have already seen all of that documentation. You seem to think that everybody else is ignorant on the subject. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I have seen pretty much every single piece of documentary footage ever made about arcades (including a number who cite the same resurgence that you do) and that I read more on the subject than most people.

Arcades were dying and the changes to the industry that came about from the tunnelvisioned attempts to capture the quarters of teenaged boys with fighter games killed the business model and remaining culture to the point that there was absolutely no way back.

Would arcades have died anyway ? Yep, probably ... but we might have gotten a few more years of creativity out of it first.

I get it though- enjoying or defending a genre/players that weren't part of the golden age from being bashed with broad generalizations rooted in ignorance is not welcome around here.  Sorry for breaking your cardinal rule.

And there is another genesimism -- take a comment about the effect of a game series on the industry and twist it into being bashed to defend something else. Do you even know how I voted in the poll ? I can disagree with you about the effect that SF2 had on arcades and still not be an SF hater. I'll even bet that I have owned more SF variants than you have.

Take a deep breath and understand the points that are being made. Understand that they are about a game and not about you personally.

Otherwise you are going to flame out.

 

[manman]

well, to start out that first comparison you tried to make... what?  How does saying he knows nothing about fighting games equal to saying "I am an expert of arcades and street fighter is the only good game to ever come out!"  Not even close, haha.  I gave several examples to back up how he's showed he has a superficial knowledge of arcade games, and he hasn't yet responded to any of that (nor have you) to show any different.  But even if he had, those are still two wildly different statements.


I think you are misreading what I'm talking about when I say bashing on a game or players.  I'm not talking about having a different opinion on when arcades started dying out, or whether or not the game brought people back- its' more things like trying to stay the games take no skill or are all exactly the same, etc.  Basically just overall finding reasons to discount the games even without having much knowledge on them or the culture of players.

And arguing that you've owned more variations than I have... well.. i'd be willing to bet it's untrue, but I don't see how that even proves anything, haha.  You seem to equate owning something with knowing something about it.  You could own every street fighter game ever created but if you had never played them on more than a casual level you'd probably know a lot less than someone who put the time in on a few of them to get very good at them.  Still... totally unrelated to what has actually been said in the thread...

I don't really take any of this personally, I guess it's just kind of funny and hard to believe that people can so adamantly dismiss something they don't know anything about and refuse to admit it.  You're right, though I should give up and just realize that there's nothing you can do in that case since it's a willful decision.  Trust me, I've been in plenty of forums where having a different opinion than the majority or 'senior' members means you're opinion is automatically wrong/flaming/ or otherwise invalid regardless of any kind of logic or fact, so i'm not that worried about it, haha.

[CheffoJeffo]

And arguing that you've owned more variations than I have... well.. i'd be willing to bet it's untrue, but I don't see how that even proves anything, haha.  You seem to equate owning something with knowing something about it.  You could own every street fighter game ever created but if you had never played them on more than a casual level you'd probably know a lot less than someone who put the time in on a few of them to get very good at them.  Still... totally unrelated to what has actually been said in the thread...

The point there was that *you* are claiming that havok and I are hating on SF ... why the hell would I have SF cabinets in my home if I hated the game ?

I have NO problem saying that I know less about the different flavours of SF than you do. You could kick ---my bottom--- at SF.

Where I think I have the advantage in making my argument is more experience with the arcade phenomenon. I know what happened during the different eras. I know what the arcades were like.

Nothing about being good at Street Fighter Eleventy Purple Teletubby Edition  gives you any credibility when it comes to your contention that SF was the second coming of Jesus for the arcade world.

[CheffoJeffo]

I'm struggling to find the the post were I wrote "listen up chumps- I am an expert of arcades and street fighter is the only good game to ever come out!"

Let's try again ...

 I gave several examples to back up how he's showed he has a superficial knowledge of arcade games, and he hasn't yet responded to any of that (nor have you) to show any different.

I think that qualifies at least for the "listen up chumps" portion.

 

[manman]

The point there was that *you* are claiming that havok and I are hating on SF ... why the hell would I have SF cabinets in my home if I hated the game ?

I have NO problem saying that I know less about the different flavours of SF than you do. You could kick ---my bottom--- at SF.

Where I think I have the advantage in making my argument is more experience with the arcade phenomenon. I know what happened during the different eras. I know what the arcades were like.

Nothing about being good at Street Fighter Eleventy Purple Teletubby Edition  gives you any credibility when it comes to your contention that SF was the second coming of Jesus for the arcade world.

You're right.  Luckily, I never made that claim... You are ascribing some sort of intention to my posts that I don't think I ever implied.  This is about sheer numbers, not a value which is totally subjective.  I don't claim to have read as much documentation as you have, and never claimed to have any sort of knowledge on the complete history of arcades- but that doesn't mean I haven't read some documentation or that I wasn't there for part of it as well.  I was there before street fighter (but long after the golden age) when arcades were all but dead.  I wasn't there, but KNOW that there was a golden age when arcade caming was much more 'alive' and going strong /before/ that.  So... when fighting games came out, and I saw with my own eyes more arcades spring up all over the place, and a lot more people in arcades and playing arcade games than I had before, AND I read information out there that reflects that, I find it hard not to draw the conclusion that there was a resurgence in arcade gaming or a 'boom' or whatever you want to call it.  You taking that numbers based statement along with my own affinity for the fighting game genre has somehow let you to extract that I am saying that it was the second coming of jesus, and better or equal to arcade going in the golden age, or SOMETHING...I have no idea, but I never said any of that.  I can't compare it to the golden age, because as I said a million times I wasn't there.  I would never claim for the crowd of people that enjoyed the 90's era to be better than those who were around during the golden age, because I didn't know those people...all I really said was that I myself enjoyed that era whether it was different or not.

When I said all of that stuff, apparently it became necessary to counter with claims that these games take no skill or were all the same or whatever- and all I did was try to counter some of that, due to the fact (which I guess you are admitting), that I DO happen to know those games fairly well- that's pretty much it.

If the numbers of more people going to the arcade post SFII than immediately pre, or the opinions on what that did to arcade culture in general differ from mine, I'm more than happy to debate and discuss that as it's own topic.  I just don't see how dismissing the amount of skill it takes without having the knowledge to say that is valid or even related to that arguement...

[manman]

I'm struggling to find the the post were I wrote "listen up chumps- I am an expert of arcades and street fighter is the only good game to ever come out!"

Let's try again ...

I gave several examples to back up how he's showed he has a superficial knowledge of arcade games, and he hasn't yet responded to any of that (nor have you) to show any different.

I think that qualifies at least for the "listen up chumps" portion.

 

Hahaha, you'd actually have me there, but that was a typo... I meant to say fighting games not arcade games, which I do think is true.  If you still think those are the same things, then ok.  But the second part of that is still that you some how think i'm comparing these fighting games to other games (or the era to other eras) and trying to say they are somehow better which I've also never done.

[CheffoJeffo]

But the second part of that is still that you some how think i'm comparing these fighting games to other games (or the era to other eras) and trying to say they are somehow better which I've also never done.

I'm pretty sure that I would have written that if that is what I think ... I'm not known for keeping my thoughts bottled up ... but I can't recall any statement of mine in this thread to that effect.

 

EDIT: And upon rereading this thread I can't see that Havok said that either.

[manman]

Well then, perhaps I am also misreading you, but when say things like

"So far, you have come across like a kid who discovered video arcades when he found a game he really liked in 1990. That's good, but walking in for the last 20 minutes doesn't qualify you as an expert over those of us who have seen all of the movie."

or saying I think the resurgence of arcade going was the second coming of jesus, etc it sounds to me like you are trying to say I somehow claimed I was an expert on arcades or I attach some supreme value over other eras to that era.  For the post part I was never even referring to you when I was talking about bashing a game without knowing about it, that was only havok.  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.  That's why I was making the point that whether or not someone personally likes something I don't see a reason to devalue it overall.  Clearly there was quite a large audience that thought the game was good.  It clearly lead to a lage increase in people going to arcades for a while.  There's still a large competitive scene here, in Europe, in Japan where people still even play games from back then (just as I assume there is still a scene or hard core players of some games from the golden age).  I mean- I don't see why some people can't see that and realize that for a game to have that kind of effect on people there must be some good value to it.  I never played the games of the golden age, but I can still tell that if people put so much value in it and still like the games after all this time, they must be good!   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.

[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?)

[DillonFoulds]

I maintain that I was born about 20 years too late....

I'd be okay with 10 years earlier (1987 -> 1977)

[CheffoJeffo]

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.

You do understand that I was referring to the effect that SF2 had on the arcade industry, not to the game itself, right ?


EDIT:

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.

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]

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?)

This isn't a debate. It's a pointless old-school vs. new-school c 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...

This isn't a debate. It's a pointless old-school vs. new-school c ck measuring argument, which I've been trying to nail down the actual topic of.

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. 

[CheffoJeffo]

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 never said that fighting games suck and the only thing I have said about the players is that they were a flighty niche market.

[kagaden]

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 never said that fighting games suck and the only thing I have said about the players is that they were a flighty niche market.

A "flighty niche market" that's been around for longer than the golden age ever lasted... SFII is almost 20 years old.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3172939

Guess what gentlemen... while you cling bitterly onto your fond nostalgia for the lost "golden age"... We're still alive, kickin, hosting tournaments, and putting out arcade games.

You and havok are clearly trolling by not understanding what makes the genre successful and pitting it as a reason it "killed arcades". Let me reiterate, SFII had nothing to do with the decline of the "golden age", that was far before due to dev's at the time pumping out "golden age" shovelware/cloneware. See Atari crash. Don't worry though, it happens with everything that's successful and shows profit.

What killed arcades was console architecture and power catching up to and overtaking the market for arcades.

For old men who claim to have "seen the movie", you have a pretty poor grasp on gaming history. Sounds like a classic case of built up resentment and inability to evolve with the times to me.

I've stated my opinion and I'm done with this thread. Manman, you have my respect for trying to talk sense into these guys sensibly. Haters gonna hate tho. /shrug

[manman]

well, like I said- I don't support dumping on any era or gamers that enjoy it even if we have differing opinions.  SF has been around for a long time, and yeah the fighting game scene is very active, but those golden era games have been around for a LOT longer with their own dedicated following still living strong so if you're talking about longevity I don't think SF holds a candle to that haha.  That I can definitely admit,  & fighting games (or really arcades in general during later eras) owe their existence to that era so you gotta respect that. Ultimately I'm with Opt2Not- arcade games forever!

[CheffoJeffo]

I never said that fighting games suck and the only thing I have said about the players is that they were a flighty niche market.

A "flighty niche market" that's been around for longer than the golden age ever lasted... SFII is almost 20 years old.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3172939

They were a flighty niche market as far as the video arcade went (and, hence, a dangerous thing upon which to base a business model that required their absolute loyalty) -- they migrated to other platforms quickly, particularly as they aged and those platforms outstripped the arcade. NOTE: I don't blame the players for that business model -- they had nothing to do with that -- I blame the operators.

You and havok are clearly trolling by not understanding what makes the genre successful and pitting it as a reason it "killed arcades". Let me reiterate, SFII had nothing to do with the decline of the "golden age", that was far before due to dev's at the time pumping out "golden age" shovelware/cloneware. See Atari crash. Don't worry though, it happens with everything that's successful and shows profit.

Obviously SFII had nothing to do with the decline of the Golden Age and nobody has said that ... the Golden Age ended 7 years before SFII ever came out. 

You guys are attributing things to me, and to havok, that neither of us have said in this thread.

I'm sorry that I can't seem to get across that I don't hate the game at all, but that I believe that the business success of SFII had negative effects on the arcade industry.

I'll leave this thread with a link to one of the prior discussion involving SFII and the death of arcades, in which I didn't post at all -- perhaps they can make the same point without generating the confusion that I have:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=43124.0

 

[Smeghead]

Good to see option one is winning the vote

Its those that remember seeing Space Invaders for the first time and being completely blown away that were able to experience the birth of ALL these games.
Its the memory of those feelings as kids that urges us to spend so much damn time and money trying to recreate them today I spose   

[manman]

well, when you say "you guys", please don't lump me in with things like claiming you said fighting games killed the golden era, or saying you guys were clinging to the era and couldn't evolve.  I knew exactly how you'd respond when I read that because obviously you never said that, and I don't agree.  And like I said before a lot of what I was saying until you responded to me was never directed at you.  When you were making the argument about whether or not SFII caused a resurgence or how it was for the game industry I disagreed, but still thought it was fine to have that argument.  That was never where I got the "bashing" on sf thing.  If I DID take some of havok's posts out of context or misread them then I'm sorry, but when someone says something like "a tired, worn out game genre", i mean...that's not arguing a point, that's just trying to disparage something.  So I appologize for anything I did misread, but like I said- I don't think I COMPLETELY fabricated some of the points I thought were being made against the game/genre itself.  Anyway I'll check out the thread you posted, but I think we've all made our points... I'm not going to jump into that thread too, haha.

[Havok]

well, when you say "you guys", please don't lump me in with things like claiming you said fighting games killed the golden era, or saying you guys were clinging to the era and couldn't evolve.  I knew exactly how you'd respond when I read that because obviously you never said that, and I don't agree.  And like I said before a lot of what I was saying until you responded to me was never directed at you.  When you were making the argument about whether or not SFII caused a resurgence or how it was for the game industry I disagreed, but still thought it was fine to have that argument.  That was never where I got the "bashing" on sf thing.  If I DID take some of havok's posts out of context or misread them then I'm sorry, but when someone says something like "a tired, worn out game genre", i mean...that's not arguing a point, that's just trying to disparage something.  So I appologize for anything I did misread, but like I said- I don't think I COMPLETELY fabricated some of the points I thought were being made against the game/genre itself.  Anyway I'll check out the thread you posted, but I think we've all made our points... I'm not going to jump into that thread too, haha.

Let's get another thing straight - I do like fighter games too, however let's also be honest; there is little to none in the innovation department when it comes to the eleventy bazzilionth version that gets released. That's the thing you guys are missing, and it's what Smeghead just posted. Back then you'd walk into the arcade, and blam! something entirely new and amazing. Some totally cool game concept never seen before. You just don't get that with Street Fighter Alpha X, Part 17 Turbo Grand Master Tournament Hyper Warrior's Dream Edition.

And Cheffo is right - it is a flighty niche market. How many of kagaden's tournaments play the original Street Fighter? I'm thinking zero. Fighter fanboys are always looking for a new fix. And that's where the console really kicks the crap out of the arcade, especially today. Operators will never get back back what a new machine costs before the customers tire of the game.

[manman]

Actually quite a few of those tournaments still feature games from that era.  Super turbo, marvel vs capcom 2, cvs2, third strike etc.  There is where I'm talking about speaking on something without knowing about it.  Casual players of any game have always been fickle, but the tournament scene is the wrong place to look when you're trying to prove flighty, haha.

As for variations in the different series- again, unless you played at anything more than surface level it's a pointless argument.  guys who didn't will continue to say they are the same, guys who did will continue to say not by a long shot. but I DO agree that it made an environment where OTHER developers weren't innovating with different types of games than those.  I think there are a lot of other factors in addition to the popularity of fighting games, but that's a different conversation

[Havok]

Actually quite a few of those tournaments still feature games from that era.  Super turbo, marvel vs capcom 2, cvs2, third strike etc.  There is where I'm talking about speaking on something without knowing about it.  Casual players of any game have always been fickle, but the tournament scene is the wrong place to look when you're trying to prove flighty, haha

Why do you think I chose the original Street Fighter in my statement? I do know what I'm talking about - I would never have said 2, or Turbo as I know there are many diehards with those. Normally the first original game with the golden age is good forever. The later versions are many times shunned. You don't see that with the fighter crowd, hence the flighty aspect.

It's a shame you guys haven't experienced the older eras, then you'd have a better perspective...

[Smeghead]

Lets face it you've got to be what...... 35 years old or more to have been alive and old enough to have played those really early games when they first came out.
Its not a competition, but im glad I was around to experience the thrill as each new 'ground breaking' game hit the arcades

[manman]

I realize you said the original, but the reason I answered with what I did was because it's not about secific's it's about the point you are making.  To say it's a 'flighty' audience always looking for the new thing, but then to look at the crowd and see that they are playing games from over 10 years ago in the tournaments...  that doesn't really fit together, even if it's not EXACTLY the original sf or sfII they aren't playing...  It's like just nit picking for no reason.  I know this will be pointless to say, but I'll try one last time... The reasons for many of these variations were due to player feedback, or improvements /within/ a specific series.   Of course the players are gonig to pick the more refined games from each series or the ones that work better in tournament to include.  After going through the early SFII revisions, ST happened to be the one that matched what that crowd wnated best.  Same with 3S when it comes to SFIII.   You can choose to look at it as a bad thing that revisions on certain series of the franchise were made, but I choose to see it as being responsive to your audience and continuing to give the players improvements in the days before things like downloadable content and patches etc.

I FULLY understand and believe you about what you're saying that having the variety of different games that held up over the years for players from that era was one of the great things about it that you didn't see nearly as much of in the fighting game times.  I'm not debating that, I'm just saying that if you didn't play these games at a more competitive level it's easy to gloss over the differences or make judgements on the audience without any solid basis for it.

[Havok]

I agree with you about the tournament point - you're right. I was combining two different points to make and perhaps could have said it better. The vast majority of fighter fans are flighty, tournament guys pick their favorite. Let's also be realistic - the developers did respond to requests, however it was just to make more money, and they just kept pushing out the same stuff - which is my main complaint with the genre, and the reason for my earlier statement about it being a worn out genre.

I also used to play tournaments back in the day and went to many events where my brother-in-law kicked some serious ass. So, for you to say I don't understand the nuances and versions is to speak about something you don't know about. It's just that I've been around for the whole deal and can compare appropriately, rather than rely on brief glimpses of the other periods in arcade history.

Anyways, enough about the finer points - let's give someone else a chance to voice their opinions on the era they most identify with!

 

[(+_+)]

I believe we all identify with the Arcade Era that made our own experience tops. For me it was the Golden Age only because I grew up in that era. Because of this I am biased. All 5 senses we're heightened whenever I entered the arcade. It was an amazing and magical time for me as I am sure it was for everybody else who loved going to the arcade as a kid, teenager or adult.

It's funny the way we compare our time slotted experience with one another and expect mutual agreement. Some could argue games were more original back in my day and others could argue the games these days are much cooler. But it's the era that did it for each and every one of us that counts. That microcosm of infinite fun that we refuse to let go of because it defined our childhood and continues to bless us with fond memories.

I know I miss them.

[syph007]

I missed out on the golden age since I didn't grow up with access to an arcade.  So my fav games are pretty random.  My top picks right now are dig dug, arkanoid, Green Beret, Street Fighter 2, and Golden Tee.  So... not really one category.  

The first time I ever had access to an actual arcade machine was in my university dorm in 1992, which was a Street Fighter 2.  So that games brings back memories of beer fueled late night competitions.   And its pretty much only that game that I find fun for that reason.  I totally dont see the point in the spin off fighters, since this was the only one I learned to play, and the others were just copies with random other special moves.

[manman]

agreed- I know any game companies are in it to make money.   I would have to be in denial to not think capcom and other companies weren't doing a lot of that to keep the money flowing in too .  That's why I also think consoles had a lot to do with the tunnel vision as well...as games became bigger and bigger corporate business, everyone was looking to capitalize off of as little work as possible and repackage existing games.  It was bound to happen as gaming just becamea more of a behemoth industry in general, both arcade and console.  There are times when it leads valid improvements that add to the community, and other times where it just ends up being crappy shovelware, and I would totally agree that the amount of that increased by far from the golden age up until the present.

[opt2not]

I love fighting games. I've been really into them ever since the 90's. My two franchises are Street Fighter II and Soul Edge/Calibur. I've played every Street Fighter since SF1 (fricken hard vs. the cpu!), played all the releases since, and play SSF4 about 3 times a week now. I've played a few tourneys in the last 2 years, not EVO though, can't afford the trip.

I'm not going to make some boneheaded statement of what era is better, because that's just pointless and immature. I picked Golden only because it came first in my gaming addiction. It was also the era that began it all and paved the way for every game-play design there is out there. You can't pick up a game now-a-days and not see the rampant influence of the golden age. For that, I had to vote for Golden Age.

Funny enough, I've been working in the game industry for over 10 years now, and most guys I worked with that are 30+ years old can tell of stories on what got them into the industry. A lot of them are from the arcade era of the early to mid-80's and attribute their career path because of playing a game from that time.
Most of the young guys call out SF2 as their major influence (some even siting N64 games,  gasp!) ...which makes sense given that was when their childhood was...we all cling to childhood memories.

A "flighty niche market" that's been around for longer than the golden age ever lasted... SFII is almost 20 years old.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3172939

Well, if you want to get all defensive and into a pissing contest, then one can argue the golden era has indeed lasted longer. They've released retro games on new tech all throughout the history of SF2, even now! How many versions of Tetris is out there, how many times has it been re-released? Not to mention remake-2.5D-versions of retro games that have quite a following. So technically, the golden era has lasted longer...you can probably thank cell phones and home consoles for keeping it alive.

Guess what gentlemen... while you cling bitterly onto your fond nostalgia for the lost "golden age"... We're still alive, kickin, hosting tournaments, and putting out arcade games.

You're doing the same by "bitterly clinging to your fond nostalgia for the SF2 era" as well. Golden Age, or Retro, is still alive as well given the fact that people still religiously play retro games today, there are retro-game-tourneys that still happen, even world record attempts are still being made 30 years later. Heck, even a lot of new "indie" games based on old-school game-play are still being developed today.

This statement is also fictitious, aside from a handful of fighting tourneys a year, unless you're living in Akihabara Japan, you're not actually experiencing the same fighty arcade craze that we had in the 90's. Most arcades today definitely carry more DDR/beat-timing games over SF4..

I've stated my opinion and I'm done with this thread. Manman, you have my respect for trying to talk sense into these guys sensibly. Haters gonna hate tho. /shrug

Haters gonna hate for sure. Visa-versa.
There is no way of arguing a person's preference, let people like/think whatever they want. In the end, what matters is what makes yourself happy.
The only thing you should have got your panties in a bunch from was HanoiBoi's "no skill" comment, which me and manman was fast to refute.

I believe we all identify with the Arcade Era that made our own experience tops. For me it was the Golden Age only because I grew up in that era. Because of this I am biased. All 5 senses we're heightened whenever I entered the arcade. It was an amazing and magical time for me as I am sure it was for everybody else who loved going to the arcade as a kid, teenager or adult.

It's funny the way we compare our time slotted experience with one another and expect mutual agreement. Some could argue games were more original back in my day and others could argue the games these days are much cooler. But it's the era that did it for each and every one of us that counts. That microcosm of infinite fun that we refuse to let go of because it defined our childhood and continues to bless us with fond memories.

I know I miss them.

Best, most sense made in this silly thread right here.

[DashRendar]

I think there was also a bit of laziness by game developers that lowered the quality of the games.

As was mentioned, there were around 32 variations of Street Fighter (and around 8 variations of Pac-Man, to be fair).

It's similar to what Hollywood has been doing in recent years.  They are remaking old movies or TV shows into movies rather than churning out new material.

The Golden Age was near the beginning of the arcade experience, so most of the games were brand new.  

A lot of the ideas seem silly, but they played great (like Dig Dug, a little astronaut guy digging around pumping air into dragons).

I think game companies started losing their innovation, and instead went with what they considered safe ("well we made a ton of money off Street Fighter, so lets keep milking that cash cow!").

Add the home console market into the equation, and it was a death sentence.  That's not to say there weren't great games, but they spent too much time regurgigating old material.  

The excitement to play "that cool new game" disappeared.

[BadMouth]

A lot of the ideas seem silly, but they played great (like Dig Dug, a little astronaut guy digging around pumping air into dragons).

It's been posted before, but here is where the golden age game ideas came from and why they are great:
http://www.cracked.com/video_16019_video-game-pitch-meeting-1979.html

Perhaps if game developers did more drugs nowadays, they'd come up with new crazy ideas nobody in the right state of mind would.

[BadMouth]

This debate reminds me of people who think the music released druing their youth must be the absolute best music ever made.

I swore I'd always listen to the newest, cutting edge rock music......unless it became really really whiney.    DOH! 

[manman]

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that either side was ever arguing "my era was better than yours".  I pretty much said the whole time that I thought both eras were great for those who identified most with them, and that one shoudln't need to disparage another game/era to enjoy their own.  I also mentioned how the original thread topic was even 'what do you identify with most' not 'which era is the best'.  And while I did think there was some cutting down of the fighting game genre (mistakenly or not), I don't think they were trying to argue that point either.  It was more about how people percieve the genre/the effect it had on arcade culture.