Main > Everything Else
What killed the Arcade for you?
CheffoJeffo:
--- Quote from: Donkbaca on April 28, 2011, 02:12:17 pm ---I still disagree with the notion that it was fighters that bankrupted arcades. When Super hyperfighting chamionship edition version 2, the rainbow hack comes out, OPS, at least the one at the arcades I went to, just swapped boards and the marquee out of an old machine.
--- End quote ---
You still don't understand what I said.
I said that ops felt compelled to buy any new game in the hopes that it would be the next big money maker like SF2 was.
It was not limited to fighters and did, indeed, include the expensive "gimmicky" cabs that you blame.
We should be also be reasonable about the cost of the non-gimmicky games -- new boards typically cost far more than the rest of the cabinet.
emphatic:
I'm not seeing Flying Shark, Black Tiger or Rolling Thunder on that list of classics.
Also, gimmicky games can go to hell.
Howard_Casto:
I think a lot of these arguments and the best arcade generation can be solved by simply taking a step back....
I see people bashing the 90's but they are referring to games and trends in the LATE 90's.
I also see people defending the 80's by using games in the LATE 80's.
The late 80's to early 90's was the best period. I think we could all agree on that.
The early 80's weren't that great... it basically consisted of 30,000 space shooters with no personality and an occasional gem like pacman, which then gets destroyed by numerous clones and sequels. The same thing can be said for the late 90's when every other cabinet is a lame racing sim or the 17th revision of a fighting game that looks like every other fighting game.
Basically at some point the industry starts from scratch and lots of new ideas come out of it and it's good. Then we go through a period of everybody running those ideas into the ground. Still happens on consoles to this day.
Donkbaca:
Dammit Cheffo. I do not want to agree with you, but you are making it so hard.
Cheffo's point:
--- Quote ---I said that ops felt compelled to buy any new game in the hopes that it would be the next big money maker like SF2 was...
--- End quote ---
The Donk's take:
...ops felt compelled to buy any new game in the hopes that it would be the next big money maker like Daytona was...
Seeing as how both games were contemporaneous, we are taking about the same Ops at the same time, doing the same stupid things.
I'll agree with you about the boards being the most costly things, but it seems to me that a new MvC board would be significantly cheaper then a brand new Hydro Thunder Cab.
I do disagree that arkanoid is a classic though. Won't budge from it. Its got a lot of what I think of as classic-y features: its one player, its got simple controls, it was all over the place, its recognizable. But to me its a rehash of the 1970's breakout games, and I don't feel right calling it a classic when in my mind its a ripoff...
saint:
--- Quote from: Donkbaca on April 28, 2011, 02:12:17 pm ---I would say R-Type, 1987 should be on your list too
My larger point was that when people say "fighters ended the arcade" they act like there were all these great games and that SF2 somehow changed the types of games that were made. My point is that most of games people consider to be classics were made WAY before SF2 hit the arcade scene people stopped making donkey kongs and pac-whatevers well before 1992.
--- End quote ---
Two points:
1. From my perspective, I didn't say that fighters ended the arcade, I said they ended the arcade for me. As in, I didn't enjoy fighters.
2. It wasn't when they were made that mattered, it was that they were there for me to play. When games I considered good were crowded out by an endless array of fighters (and redemption) games, I lost interest. I'd happily play Donkey Kong, Xevious, Chiller, Jump Bug, Mappy, BagMan, Tempest, Star Wars, Frogger, Kangaroo, Quartet, Gauntlet, etc. all day long.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version