I think I hate leaf switch sticks.....

[DaveMMR]

It wasn't THAT special, Randy.  They just installed them at 45 degree angles. They were still just regular Atari trackballs.

Well it was special to the point that, AFAIK, it was the only game in history to have used a trackball in that way, and it was done so to enhance that particular game.  While the trackball itself wasn't that special, the extra effort in the code and what seems to be a an ultimate decision to take this mounting approach after finding that it improved the experience, shows that there was much more going on than to just "throw a trackball in there and call it a day".  And that's kind of the point being discussed.

I don't 100% agree that all games are made without input from the designers and programmers, but I do believe from a money standpoint, there were certainly games who's controls were simplified for cost concerns and not typically for the "ultimate game experience".  

There are obviously going to exceptions to any rule.  However, the controls were (are) where the "rubber meets the road"  in the arcade industry.  For a company to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the programming, hardware design, artwork, cabinet design, production, marketing, etc.. and then make the game play poorly (or at least not as well as it could), to save $40 per unit, which is passed on to the operator, makes absolutely no sense.  It's not only counter-intuitive, but it makes poor economic sense.   A great example is a game like Arkanoid, considered a classic by most.  They could have used a pot based control, as did every one of it's predecessors of the same genre, but they chose to go with not only an optical control, but one which had a very specific feel.  It you want to assert that such decisions were arbitrary, and that the success of the game was accidental, I don't have anything specific to refute that.  I can only state that it was terribly unlikely to have taken that path, based on so many other similar examples.

It's special inasmuch as their placement is concerned, but I'm talking about bottom line here.  They didn't have to manufacture unique trackballs.  It didn't cost them anything to simple rotate the bolt holes.  And since we're discussing hardware, what's done in the software is not a concern for the purposes of why I used that as an example.

And I'm not ALL saying decisions were arbitrary. They could have stuck a simple flight stick on Star Wars or Paperboy. But where I backed Donbaca up was when he said:

They weren't selling to gamers, they were selling to Ops, so things like a good looking cab and having it easy to maintain were probably higher up on their priority list.

I'm definitely no arcade historian. But I do know three points:
1) It's easy to call a joystick being used for a particular game "perfect" because that's what you were forced to use and had grown used to it.  It's not like gamers were carrying alternate joysticks with them to the arcades in the 80's. You cut your teeth on a particular control for a particular game and that's the one that feels right.

2) Atari had little to no respect for their programmers/game designers back in the day. I find it hard to swallow the "cogs" (as Atari called their designers) were straight-up dictating these decisions. And I'm sure other companies (Williams, etc.) weren't taking direct orders from their designers either. Suggestions probably - but anything that made no financial sense would probably have been quickly discarded. But one of the reasons you see special controls and unique set-ups, I would imagine, was to stand out in a crowd of hundreds of cabs.

3) I'm cynical.  I just don't believe there was any "use the best control we can and spare no expense!" attitude.

I'm not saying they just used the cheapest parts available. Arcade parts were usually high quality.  But of course they had to be.  A broken machine makes no money.  I'm also not saying they just threw whatever was around into a game's cabinet. But I just can't envision there was expensive market research done to see if "stick A" nets slightly higher scores that "stick B".

But hey, listen, this is all speculation.

[opt2not]

But hey, listen, this is all speculation.

There seems to be a lot of that going on in this thread.

The more I read here, the more it makes me sad to think that the roots of video gaming development happened on the same broken team collaborations, marketing and business decisions that deal with today's gaming industry.
As a game dev myself, I can't accept that.  No, I won't accept it.  I want to believe that the developers of our gaming roots knew what they were doing, made their choices based off fundamental game-play experiences, not how much money it saved them for hardware.
I will not accept that they just threw stuff together and hoped it worked out as a success. That's the mentality that happens with today's gaming, and for those of us who enjoy making games, we need to think that the forefathers of the industry made choices for the purity of a fun gaming experience, and innovated the user's interaction to support that experience.

You guys are breaking my heart. 

[RandyT]

It's special inasmuch as their placement is concerned, but I'm talking about bottom line here.  They didn't have to manufacture unique trackballs.  It didn't cost them anything to simple rotate the bolt holes.  And since we're discussing hardware, what's done in the software is not a concern for the purposes of why I used that as an example.

It is not the cost of the trackball, or even the guts of it, which is important.  It is the fact that thought, effort and obviously play testing were performed to come to the conclusion to use it the way they did.  To assert otherwise is to say that they accidentally mounted it wrong and then compensated for it in software.  Is this what you are saying?

[DaveMMR]

It's special inasmuch as their placement is concerned, but I'm talking about bottom line here.  They didn't have to manufacture unique trackballs.  It didn't cost them anything to simple rotate the bolt holes.  And since we're discussing hardware, what's done in the software is not a concern for the purposes of why I used that as an example.

It is not the cost of the trackball, or even the guts of it, which is important.  It is the fact that thought, effort and obviously play testing were performed to come to the conclusion to use it the way they did.  To assert otherwise is to say that they accidentally mounted it wrong and then compensated for it in software.  Is this what you are saying?

Hehe - "We put the trackballs in wrong on all the machines. Change the code!"

Obviously I do not think that.  And maybe we're on two different pages. Rereading your original post, you are arguing that, during the creation of an arcade title, no one department "lives in a bubble". And I agree with that statement. There simply has to be some synchronicity between all involved. But at the end of the day, the bottom line rules and I think that affects what goes into a cabinet, not always "optimal game play". While I don't deny games get play tested all the time (typically in-house), I can't fathom they're putting in the platinum control or manufacturing something unique when it's doing fine with the regular standby. From a business perspective, it does not seem feasible.

But you take one look at Marble Madness and you have to wonder: Did they really painstakingly try out all trackball orientations and options and decided which one was best? Or was it just something that seemed obvious considering the levels are isometric? You're basically travelling in diagonals - I can't see why coding the game and mounting the control to favor those directions is considered a stroke of brilliance. And based on some of the sources I viewed, the trackballs weren't exactly designed to stand up to the constant abuse players put them through. If any game called for specialty hardware, it was Marble Madness. But what's cheaper and easier for ops to maintain?  Plain 'ole non-motorized, non-optimized trackballs - mounted diagonally.  

[RandyT]

But you take one look at Marble Madness and you have to wonder: Did they really painstakingly try out all trackball orientations and options and decided which one was best? Or was it just something that seemed obvious considering the levels are isometric? You're basically travelling in diagonals - I can't see why coding the game and mounting the control to favor those directions is considered a stroke of brilliance. And based on some of the sources I viewed, the trackballs weren't exactly designed to stand up to the constant abuse players put them through. If any game called for specialty hardware, it was Marble Madness. But what's cheaper and easier for ops to maintain?  Plain 'ole non-motorized, non-optimized trackballs - mounted diagonally.  

If you understand the mechanical workings of trackballs, knowing that some directions work far better than others (namely those where the ball is traveling toward a roller) and also consider that the primary directions in Marble Madness are down-left and down right, and that the trackball was installed so as to have the rollers in precisely those places so as to have the optimal performance from the controller in the directions most used in the game, then it's clear that it was well thought out as to provide the best control for the user.

Honestly, I don't believe that the existence of these practices is even being called into question.  This type of thing is so standard in any product design that singling out the early arcade industry as having NOT done these rudimentary and standard practices is like labeling them as utterly incompetent.  There are examples of the care and expense taken, nearly everywhere you look on those machines, to make sure those experiences would be such to keep you dumping more quarters in those slots.  Poorly performing controls do not achieve that end, and you can bet that they understood it quite well.  What operators did after the fact to make their own lives easier (player be damned) is another story.

[Xiaou2]

3) I'm cynical.  I just don't believe there was any "use the best control we can and spare no expense!" attitude.

 Yet look at Atari's Race Drivin sit-down...

 Every part on it is completely custom, expensive, and complex.

 The shifter unit weighs like 30lbs.  Its made from a heavy steel box tube, with 2 levered pot assemblies inside, and a snap-click spring mechanism.  A real wooden ball shifter top.  And a superior realistic feel, and incredible durability, that no other shifter has ever matched.

 The Seat has a giant electro magnet undernear it, to lock it in place.. and the user can use a button to un-lock it and adjust as needed.

 The force feedback wheel motor is larger than many dryer motors.  The steering assembly weighs like 100lbs.  At its maximum setting, it could probably spin a small child gripping it. 

 The wheel itself, can turn about 3 full rotations each direction. (6 turns from one side to the other)  Its an incredible, complex, and a very expensive to produce assembly.  Its the only driver that uses a 10-turn pot.  And, its the best FF wheel ever made, afaik.

 The pedals were inverted mount.. and each pedal was different.  The brake pedal used a progressive-resistance system of rubber compressive material + springs.. so it was very resistive to being pressed.  The gas however, was light and fluid, using a completely different spring mechanism.  The gas used standard pots... but the brake actually used a pressure sensor!  There was even a clutch... which as far as I remember, was even analog (pot), not a cop-out on/off switch.

 The cabinet was completely custom, even using molded plastic shells.


 And if we look back at other Atari games, we see similar unique and expensive controllers.

Starwars - Custom Yoke w/ dual geared pots, 4 buttons & auto-calibration in software.

Missile Command - Huge 4" ? Diameter trackball

720 - The most insane & complex custom controller Id seen. Dual optics, levers, chain drive & more!
 
Major Havok - Was set to use a vertical green-glowing spinner-roller.  Not sure what happened w/ that one.

(but "Kick", used a modified trackball w/ one axis rather than a spinner, which again shows how the developers did get their way, rather than getting forced to use generic parts)

 Lunar Lander - A custom aircraft style analog throttle lever

 Paperboy - Industrial-level bike controller with pull-back mechanism. Almost as complex as Starwars yoke.

 Asteroids Deluxe - Amazing 3d black-lit artwork, via half-silvered mirror & cut-outs.

 Road Blasters - Cheesy, but unique & costly steering assembly.
 Road Riot - Another unique wheel assy. + vibration motor in wheel & kicker coils under the seats.
 Steel Talons - Custom analog foot controller assembly. (rudder?)
 Vindicators - Custom dual tank controllers.
 Xybots - Turnable stick controllers.


 While not every game in Atari used Uber controllers.. a Lot of their games used very expensive and original controllers.

 A game like Gauntlet didnt need anything fancy.  You barely have to move well in that game, as its so slow, cramped..etc.   The stock joys the used were not the greatest.. but as far as I can see, they were very durable... which was exactly what they wanted.  (Especially considering that a games actual arcade testing runs, would decide its production fate)

 
 Later in the years, Atari got more and more generic, and 'cost-cutting'.  Look at a game like Rush... and you can see that its made from pretty much all generic pedals and parts... and doesnt hold a candle to the controllers on a Race Drivin sit-down... let alone match the complexity, feel, and excellent designs of their elder specialty controllers.

 
 And finally, you can read up on the MM Motorized trackball in some interviews with the creator.  There's also design documents of that, and many other atari games on the atari website owned by safestuff.

 If wasnt scrapped because of costs.  It was because they couldnt get it to work mechanically as it was intended to work.  I think they tried to use 3 rollers... when instead, they might have gotten it to work with 4.  If they had more time, it may have actually became a reality... like many of their other masterpiece controllers.

[RayB]

you guys make it seem like there is some huge collaborative effort on each game.  Maybe, but I tend to think like most companies you had an assembly line.  The software guys do the software, the artists do the flyers and marquees and cabinet art and the hardware dudes built the machines.  Any revolution was probably done more as a marketing gimmick and on a whim rather then being the result of careful research to maximize the playability of games.  These companies were churning out 3-4 games a year, they didn't have the time to put in that kind of effort per game

You're right and wrong.

You're completely 100% wrong about this when talking about the arcade game heydey where the programmer was also the artist and also the game designer and sometimes even the hardware engineer. We're talking when the games made uber-money (pre 1984).

You're completely right if talking about later on, when arcades were in decline and companies saved money by sticking to generic standardized parts. But that's when you started seeing the same old crap; beat em up after beat em up...

[DaveMMR]

But you take one look at Marble Madness and you have to wonder: Did they really painstakingly try out all trackball orientations and options and decided which one was best? Or was it just something that seemed obvious considering the levels are isometric? You're basically travelling in diagonals - I can't see why coding the game and mounting the control to favor those directions is considered a stroke of brilliance. And based on some of the sources I viewed, the trackballs weren't exactly designed to stand up to the constant abuse players put them through. If any game called for specialty hardware, it was Marble Madness. But what's cheaper and easier for ops to maintain?  Plain 'ole non-motorized, non-optimized trackballs - mounted diagonally.  

If you understand the mechanical workings of trackballs, knowing that some directions work far better than others (namely those where the ball is traveling toward a roller) and also consider that the primary directions in Marble Madness are down-left and down right, and that the trackball was installed so as to have the rollers in precisely those places so as to have the optimal performance from the controller in the directions most used in the game, then it's clear that it was well thought out as to provide the best control for the user.

Honestly, I don't believe that the existence of these practices is even being called into question.  This type of thing is so standard in any product design that singling out the early arcade industry as having NOT done these rudimentary and standard practices is like labeling them as utterly incompetent.  There are examples of the care and expense taken, nearly everywhere you look on those machines, to make sure those experiences would be such to keep you dumping more quarters in those slots.  Poorly performing controls do not achieve that end, and you can bet that they understood it quite well.  What operators did after the fact to make their own lives easier (player be damned) is another story.

I think you're accusing me of saying "the arcade industry threw parts together without thinking and hoped for the best". I'm not accusing any of them of incompetence and I'm certainly not saying they blindly slap whatever they have around into a control panel. They clearly knew what they were doing, otherwise we would have forgotten about these games. They used quality parts and did it right. But is it hard to accept that maybe, just maybe, they didn't always use the best controller possible - for whatever reason?   Take a look at the unreleased Marble Madness II. They changed the perfectly fine trackballs to joysticks because they thought the former was responsible for the poor response in location tests.  And I'm sure they were fine, arcade quality joysticks. But they were more interested in making a game that'll turn a profit than retaining the look and feel of the original. Heck if it was about the integrity of the games and not business, we'd all have been able to play it instead of it's distribution being cancelled.

But for the most part, the games I grew up with at the arcade played great. I have no complaints. I have nothing but love and respect for these works of art. I'm just wondering aloud about how much time and money is spent comparing one joystick vs. another joystick for the typical game controls (joysticks are subjective anyway, aren't they?). I'm not trying to take away anything from anyone's fond memories.  Just trying to imagine the behind-the-scenes, if you will, and the compromises that must be made to keep the factory lights on for as long as possible.

And Xiaou - you listed great examples of arcade games trying to differentiate themselves from a crowded game room floor. Walk into a Dave & Buster's and I defy you to find any game that's not "tricked-out" with gizmos, gadgets, lights, and whatnot. But that's fine - that's the business. That's what made games like Paperboy and Star Wars so memorable. But can they afford to do that for every single game that leaves the factory door? Or is that something reserved for games that have a chance to become classic and needed that little "incentive" to get your quarter's attention?

If wasnt scrapped because of costs.  It was because they couldnt get it to work mechanically as it was intended to work.  I think they tried to use 3 rollers... when instead, they might have gotten it to work with 4.  If they had more time, it may have actually became a reality... like many of their other masterpiece controllers.

Well that still ties into the whole "cost" aspect (time=money). Again, Atari was a business and they have deadlines and profit projections, etc. so scrapping a controller that would have brought the game to a whole new level was ultimately more cost-effective than suffering costly delays while they attempted to perfect it. I'm sure if Cerny had the last say, we'd all be trying to interface those insanely expensive motorized trackballs to our MAME boxes.  

[Xiaou2]

And Xiaou - you listed great examples of arcade games trying to differentiate themselves from a crowded game room floor. Walk into a Dave & Buster's and I defy you to find any game that's not "tricked-out" with gizmos, gadgets, lights, and whatnot. But that's fine - that's the business. That's what made games like Paperboy and Star Wars so memorable. But can they afford to do that for every single game that leaves the factory door? Or is that something reserved for games that have a chance to become classic and needed that little "incentive" to get your quarter's attention?

 The argument was that the designers were not supposed to be able to get their expensive controller deigns realized... because they were merely cogs.

 Those are just examples from One company.

 Robotron doesnt have an expensive specialty controller.  What it does have, is the Right controller for the game.  A stick that would react fast enough, and last the hardcore abuses of players.  I can assure you, that if Wico leafs were not available... they would have found or made a stick to control the game... and then balance the gameplay, difficulty, levels..ect.. to match that control.   

 As said, it was that same case for Gyruss, which uses a Monroe stick.  And what about Sinistar?  It Could have used a typical analog stick right?  But guess what?  A typical analog has sticky spots at the center... which would have hampered the speed and directional control accuracy.  Furthermore, once you overcome the sticky spot... then you have almost no pressure.. so you easily over-shoot till your stick hits the edges.  Meaning, you go from zero to warp 9 in an instant.. and have a hard time maintaining a smooth control of speed (and direction) period.

 Instead, they created an Optical analog controller, which used a rubber centering spider.  The further you are from center.. the more pressure you get... which helps the player maintain excellent control.   The games control was excellent, and far succeeded similar games.  Unfortunately, they actually were forced to jack the game difficulty too high, because the Ops were complaining about long game times.  Supposedly, someone has the 'perfected' difficulty level roms chips somewhere out there.  Hopefully one day, they might show up magically.

 More proof?   Go look at Jamie Fentons website.  She created Gorf, and was working on MS.Gorf.  She had built a custom controller, with I believe a trigger stick and a spinner.  That was During development.  Not After.
 

 And sorry, but heres the deal... "Tricked Out"  has nothing to do with Gameplay.  Race Drivin didnt have all kinds of working car lights on it.  In fact, on the outside, it didnt look all that great. However, the controls on it, and the superior feedback it provided.. made the game legendary, even trouncing games made +15yrs later.  Todays racers, might have a nice Looking cabinets.. but their controls are far inferior.. as is their gameplay.  Todays games are made to be 'Baby-Level' easy.  Barely more than a Kiddie Ride.

 Specialty controllers were not just made as a gimmick.  They were created for giving the player more control.. thus they could make the games more challenging.  That challenge, is what made the games so special and desired, and is why these games are still Loved and played even today.

 But as Ive stated, controllers were tuned and tested to games. Even the lowly common joysticks.  Which theres plenty of evidence of, such as Nintendos use of Micros.. where as other maintained Leafs.  And where some used their own versions, such as Atari custom sticks, special Monroe sticks, Pac Mans custom industrial 4ways, and much more.

[Xiaou2]

so scrapping a controller that would have brought the game to a whole new level was ultimately more cost-effective than suffering costly delays while they attempted to perfect it.

 Thats mere speculation.  Made on the side of Fear.  Scared money reaps little gain... and even more chance for losses in the long run... which is one of the larger reasons why the arcades dont exist anymore.

 In fact, the time it took to develop the working controller, with the added bonus of more levels being created.. could have made MM even more money than it did.  Instead, the short-to-finish game, had actually worked against the earnings.  

 The additional challenge and fun of motorized feedback, may have brought the game to a whole other level.  Driving sales thru the roof... and many sequels and or add-on kits, to be made.

 Stripping MMs trackballs out completely, is one of the reasons why MMII tanked.


edit:  Just saw this

But is it hard to accept that maybe, just maybe, they didn't always use the best controller possible - for whatever reason?   Take a look at the unreleased Marble Madness II. They changed the perfectly fine trackballs to joysticks because they thought the former was responsible for the poor response in location tests.

 Never said it was impossible.  But remember, I was referring to games that actually made it out of production.   MM2's problems were many.  If you watch some vids of it.. you can see that they lost all the originality of it.  Marketers decided to force the game to be more cartoony, rather than abstract/artsy.  The original team was not part of it...   And, the enemies were pretty much unavoidable and super annoying (no skills, just random and constant death and penalty).  The shading of the tiles was weak (possibly unfinished rough renders).. with poor contrast and poor shadowing.  The levels and gameplay were slow, sloppy, and plain stupid.  The resulting Mess, is what led to nobody interested in playing it... and the ones who were willing to play it... couldn't operate a trackball.  IE: Poorly coordinated / skill challenged.

 Additionally however, I will say that there are games which controllers were made poorly.  Most especially in the field of durability.  Road Riot's wheel seemed to break down mechanically all the time.  In Later games, like Hyperdrive.. they used very poor quality buttons and button assemblies on the main steering wheel... and they failed all the time.   Daytona USA, while being one of the better drivers ever made... had frequent gear issues from failed mini-micros that they used.  (probably the same ones used in the hyperdrive buttons!)

 In the past, controllers were generally tested well, over-built, and abused.  But I believe in later days, they just winged it.  and or Cut controller testing time down to insufficient levels.   Big mistake.

[DaveMMR]

I think my involvement in this thread got carried away a bit; I only intended to jump in with a quick additional example about how specialized controllers were scrapped for the the conventional "off-the-shelf" parts. Whether the reasons were good or bad, no one could say unless they were a fly on the wall. And to say "it may have made even more money" is wild speculation - just like many of my arguments.

I can see that maybe during the golden age, more time and money went into cabinet and control designs. But someone has to write the checks and I'm sure there were compromises made.  If these classics always had the best controller, why do we have this?

That all being said, the "whatever-they-had-lying-around" sticks back in the old days were typically well-made and designed for heavy abuse. That's why we still remember them as "the perfect stick for XYZ". 

[Xiaou2]

If these classics always had the best controller, why do we have this?

 The gameplay Hacks you listed, have nothing to do with anything.   There are people that Assume that Timepilot and Gyruss "Should" have used a spinner, due to the way the game looks... and the advantage that a spinner can provide.

 However, thats probably not the case at all.

 Part of the challenge of Gyruss, is being patient.  If you try to risk moving too far too quickly... you might not make it.  It results in a lot of 'that was close' moments.

 In Time Pilot, it barely makes any sense.  Have you ever spun a bi-plane in a complete 360 for 20 seconds?  With a spinner, you could do that... and it would look stupid, as well as being unacceptably unrealistic.   Furthermore, it would require gameplay that was about 10 times more difficult and fast.  The games PCB hardware probably wasnt even capable of it... even IF a designer wanted to do that.

 Because it takes time for thrust to work, just like a car takes time to accelerate to speed (not instant full speed),  theres no real advantage in using a spinner.   Its extra cost, with no real player gameplay benefit.

 In Tempest, its acceptable.. because the entire game is abstract.

 Pong was way back in the day... and it used analog controllers...  and look at all the Sprint driving versions, and games with optical wheels (giant spinners)..  well before Time Pilot or Gyruss.   You really think they couldnt get away with a small optical controller?  Especially in the Hayday of unique controller methods?  Sorry... but its foolish think to think that.

 Take a scroll thru all the cabinets of 82/83... and you will quickly see a ton of cabs with crazy controller schemes.  Including the ever legendary Discs of Tron Environmental cab.


And finally, a quote from Wikipedia about the designers inspiration:
"The free-roaming style of gameplay used in Time Pilot was influenced by Namco's Bosconian"

 Bosconian was not a spinner game, nor was it fast.


 Im not saying that there are not any games in which the designer was forced to use a cheaper controller solution.  Im saying that its not those games.   Its funny, cause the designer of TP, was doing it in secret because they wanted him to make a driving game instead. Driving games use wheels typically... and he could have easily disguised his creation as a driving game - using the same optical controller.

 And even if it all were true... which its not...  Even IF a designer wanted to make a game a certain way, the direction and effort of game balance was still based on the controller that was chosen.  They didnt program the entire game with a spinner... and then swap out the controller with a joystick.  That would have been suicide... as it took a ton of time tweaking the games balance, difficulty, and formulas... and all that would have had to have been re-done... adding Months to the release date.

[Xiaou2]

"whatever-they-had-lying-around" sticks

 The sticks they had around, were designed, tested, and created for a reason.  Its not like they magically were poofed into thin air by the joystick fairy.

That's why we still remember them as "the perfect stick for XYZ".

No. They were perfect for the games, because the games were designed with those controller from the Start of development.  The game was fine tuned to perfection with them.

Of course, maybe Gauntlet's leaf controllers may have been less accurate than a Wico leaf.  However, did Wico leafs exists at time time?  Were they more or less durable than the Atari versions?  This kind of argument is almost pointless however, because as Ive said... Gauntlet is one of those kinds of games that isnt critical in controlability.  The only worry for that kind of game IS lasting reliability.  Robotron on the other hand... requires very precise control... and thus, the Wico leafs were chosen.  If the original designers only had some cheaper controllers that didnt work so well... they would have had to slow down the game and reduce its intensity. (slower projectiles and less enemies)
 

[DaveMMR]

Okay you're right. Everything was perfect.    

To be blunt, I didn't even really care that much. The games were fun and I wasn't standing there wondering, "I bet they could have made this better."  I'm not looking to rewrite history here.

[RandyT]

I think the thing everyone needs to keep in mind is that when this stuff hit the streets, it was seriously new technology.  This wasn't the arcades in their twilight, and at that later time, I'm sure cost cutting and sacrifices were made o' plenty. 

But when you look at the games introduced in the "hay day" of arcades, these companies needed to hit the ground running, with their best foot forward.  They were showcases, not only of new tech, but of what that particular company could do with it.  It's a difficult concept to grasp in the modern day, where we can barely imagine putting very expensive controllers on a game that nowadays can be played on a cell phone, or seemingly not much different than the free "flash" games one can download from the internet.  But these machines were the best of the best.  Skimping on the controls was simply not an option, but if there was a wild controller they couldn't bring together before a deadline, sure, they probably "punted".  That isn't to say, however, that they didn't make darned sure that what they did settle upon was extensively play tested and the game tweaked to suit it.  This is why you remember the gameplay with a specific controller.  It was how the manufacturer meant it to be played.

It was a very different time, and one you probably would have had to experience first-hand to truly understand.

[Xiaou2]

Good post Randy.

 Additionally note.. is how critical game balance was back then.

 If a game was too easy, the players would be on the machines too long... and thus not earning enough money.

 If a game was too difficult in the 1st few levels... it might turn players off to the game.  (though not always the case.  Defender was an example where extreme Difficulty drew even more players in)

 If the game played balanced for the first 3 levels... but then went to hell on higher levels... players would shun it, and play something else.

 A player back then, was investing his money, gaining skills.  Over time, the investment paid off in his ability to last longer, with less money.   This of course, before they ruined games with continues.

 A lot of games looped levels at certain point.. and just added more and more difficulty.  Usually never being completely impossible... but Darn hard.

 As hard as a game was made... eventually people would beat it.  And one poor programming / design issue... and it would be exploited in the wild.  (like the Sinistar 99 credit trick)

 This is why, right from the very start... they were constantly testing and tweaking the creation as it was being made.  And even when the game was mostly done... they would test it for months afterwards, tweaking and changing things to make sure it was water-tight when it hit the streets. 

 One mistake could cause millions in dollars of losses... as the Ops would decided not to purchase
a flawed game that the players could trounce due to bugs and poor balance.


 Today, most producers dont spend much time on such advanced game design and balance.  As a result, games are more like movies than actual skilled challenges.  Exceptions are games like Mario 2D series... one of the most popular, successful, and loved game series ever created.

 Today, games can get by even with poor gameplay... because they are being sold to individuals on home consoles.  Where they are played to completion... and then sit collecting dust.  Theres no pressure for a game to make constant flow of money for several years at a time.  In fact, many games that are too difficult get a lot of complaints... rather than people actually rising to the challenges.

[Gray_Area]

One thing about Leaf sticks.. is that you can use them on such a way that you rarely bottom them out.  Meaning, you never really smash the stick into the edges of the mechanism..

 I have not used a 360, so I cant comment about how they feel and react.  

Moving and seeing and hearing it doing something is not enough for me. While I don't need a particular 4-way or 8-way type of restriction, I need some kind. The closer the better, and my modified P360s do well enough in this regard.

Re: Marble Madness/tracball placement - why didn't most trackballs have at least four rollers, then? Cost I'm guessing.

Re: design vs cost vs manufacture - it's obvious in the video and written archives that designers were trying to create something they thought was cool, hoping the public would think it was cool, and sometimes succeeding in both; the companies wanted to make everything as cheaply as possible, which the designers had to wrestle with; and the ops were almost strictly entreprenuerial opportunists. The result is history.

@Vigo: from what I've seen/read in interviews, they were hoping the game would be making money for at least six months. Ten months was a godsend. But, ultimately it didn't matter too much, because even if a game lasted only three (despite or in spite of field testing), the game companies had made their money on the sale of the game. And the ops would still usually take in another game from the same company.

In any case. The sticks on the machine I played last weekend, I was told, were repros from either Mike's Arcade or GGG. He didn't remember which.

[Xiaou2]

Moving and seeing and hearing it doing something is not enough for me. While I don't need a particular 4-way or 8-way type of restriction, I need some kind. The closer the better, and my modified P360s do well enough in this regard.

 There is restriction.. however, what I meant is that so you have to go full travel to activate things.  The centering grommet provides a sort of progressive resistance, which helps slow the stick towards the edges, and keeps hard smashes feeling soft, due to the rubber absorbing a lot of the shock forces.  Its like the difference between running with wooden sandals, and a soft air chamber & padded sneaker.

Re: Marble Madness/tracball placement - why didn't most trackballs have at least four rollers, then? Cost I'm guessing.

 Ive not tried it yet, so Im not sure if its possible to fit that much mechanically into that small a space.  Im also not sure if it would provide too much friction yet.  It doesnt cost much more to add too rollers. They are simple mechanisms made of cheap to make, and standard plentiful parts.

 Motors to drive it, and the motor controller board, would have added a bit of cost.  Still, Atari was giving the green light on it... had it worked on time.

Re: design vs cost vs manufacture - it's obvious in the video and written archives that designers were trying to create something they thought was cool, hoping the public would think it was cool, and sometimes succeeding in both; the companies wanted to make everything as cheaply as possible, which the designers had to wrestle with; and the ops were almost strictly entreprenuerial opportunists. The result is history.

 Thats not always true.  In fact, companies like Atari actually asked their designers to create new ways to control games, to draw more interest in the games.  It depends on the company. 

 It also depends on the programmers / developers... as there are a lot of Devs out there today, that think a standard gamepads analog thumb sticks are fine for everything.  A lot of programmers are not very good at challenging games..  but they do like the 'roam around in pretty graphics' effect.  And so thats what their games have became.  Zero challenge - Movie-Esc style romps. Its almost a crime to call them games.   (and they wonder why game sales are tanking...  when they should be growing exponentially due to higher population)

[CheffoJeffo]

While I think that everything that needs to be said has been said, it seems that Donk still seems to think that Eugene intended for Robotron to be played with Atari 2600 sticks.

They strapped Atari sticks onto the existing Williams boardsets because they hadn't used 8-way sticks before. They wrote code. They played the code. They altered the code. They found some better sticks and connected them to a widget board. They played. They refined the code. They chose longer handles. They played. They refined the code. Then we all played.

It really is that simple.

You, like Genesim before you, may choose to believe that nobody put any thought into things, but the competition at the time for quarter drops was so large (was bigger than movies), that companies couldn't afford not to put significant effort into controls and the player experience.

Would Williams have ever chosen a longer handle than was readily available (i.e. this cost them lots of money!) if they didn't care about the controls and just wanted to use the stock 3.5" stick that could be easily had ?

Nope, your theory about just using the stuff that they had and catering to ops is offset by the fact that they had never used a Wico stick before and then they made the choice to use a different length stick.

 

[BobA]

Watch some of the videos on pinball games etc.  There was alot of effort but the bean counters were always involved at the end.   

[Donkbaca]

The way I see it playing out in my head:

 "hey this game is pretty fun, but these atari sticks won't cut it in an arcade situation, got any 8 way sticks out there?"
 "Well Wico makes a decent one I have heard"
 " Sweet, you think we can get them a little longer?"

I think that is about as deep as the conversation went.  Call me cynical.  The development time on these games were too short to assume any sort of long beta test with different control schemes to find the optimum one.  I think it was more likely the designer told the hardware guy what he was going for and the hardware guy cobbled something together.

I DOUBT that the robotron guys went through several different types of joysticks before settling on the one they did because it offered the best game play.  i just don't think they thought that much about it or cared that much to be honest.  I of course could be wrong, and lots of you people think I am, and I guess we will never know the truth, but I honestly think we fanboys impose too much mythology on what really happened.

[CheffoJeffo]

The question remains -- why choose to have a custom-length shaft ? The only answer that makes sense is "it results in better gameplay".

I've only ever seen posts that 4" sticks are better than 3.5" sticks. Never the other way. That decision cost money and wasn't arbitrary. It also wasn't repeated in other games (save one that I can think of).

BobA is correct, although, as RayB points out, different rules applied to vids back in the Golden age.

If we were talking about Teletubby-Streetfighter-Eleventy-Rainbow edition, then I would wholeheartedly agree about the choice of controls, because we really are talking just about fanboys.

Back in the day, however, the fanboys were the people who made vids and they ruled the roost on design (not so much on money).

And, yeah, you are wrong. And right, although nobody has given you credit for the "random element" in arcade design.

The 2 joystick control system was chosen because Eugene smashed his hand in a car accident and couldn't play Bezerk. Random element.

Did you know, though, that Robo was originally a scrolling screen game ? Nope, because it was changed during that "long" period of beta testing. (somebody posting in this thread grew up in the 90s and doesn't remember how games used to be developed).

If there was no thought going into controls at the time, why is it that the sequel to Robotron used a 49-way stick (which I don't think existed previously) ?

Again, your theory presents no answer to the obvious questions.

And, even if you, by some strange convolution of the universe and folding of the space-time-reality continuum, happened to be correct, there still would be no better stick to play Robotron with than 4" Wicos.

Shaft envy ?

 

[Xiaou2]

Watch some of the videos on pinball games etc.  There was alot of effort but the bean counters were always involved at the end.   

 Your talking which years?

 Modern Stern = Yes.

 Older Williams / other  =  No.

 Look at a game like Haunted House.  3 levels of gameplay, which equates to a lot of extra parts and assembly labor.  Yet it, like many others like it, were not held back by restrictions.  Heck, look at Banzai Run...  A complete vertical playfield.

I think that is about as deep as the conversation went.  Call me cynical.  The development time on these games were too short to assume any sort of long beta test with different control schemes to find the optimum one.

 Time to develop a game like Robotron didnt need 3yrs like todays games.  They also had a boatload of highly skilled people all working in various depts.  The programmers used a direct language.. and no messing around with interpretive stuff. No windows to drag and move around all day long, and no youtube or facebook to distract them. The long hours were brutal, but super productive... and a lot of these guys created for the Love of creation.  Many were given free reign of making anything they wanted.

 Graphics were simple.. and being that memory and processing power were limited, there were only so many things that could be done effectively.  Once the games engine framework was up, its was on to balance and perfection of gameplay.


 

I think it was more likely the designer told the hardware guy what he was going for and the hardware guy cobbled something together.

 Eugene Jarvis, creator of Robotron, was at a place which had Robotron playing on an emulator. It didnt have leaf sticks.  He refused to play it.  I think that speaks volumes about the creators thoughts and feelings on controllers.

 Take a look at Jamie Fentons page.  She created "Gorf", and was working on a new game "MS Gorf".  You can see her development machine, which includes a custom made control panel, that has a spinner and a trigger stick.  It was her choice on what controllers to use, and she chose those to work with.

 Yes, there were Hardware guys.  However, the creators were the ones barking the orders to them.  If a controller wasnt working well, they had them sent back and modified... or exchanged them for something else.   They had input, and even helped come up with unique controllers, for the hardware guys to implement.

I DOUBT that the robotron guys went through several different types of joysticks before settling on the one they did because it offered the best game play.  i just don't think they thought that much about it or cared that much to be honest.  I of course could be wrong, and lots of you people think I am, and I guess we will never know the truth, but I honestly think we fanboys impose too much mythology on what really happened.

 Back then, programmers actually Liked making games.  They got to create great things.. instead of being a code monkey doing boring sub-assemblies of some boring FPS game.  So, Yes, they cared... a Lot.

 The truth is out there, and these guys are still alive.  Many are still active in some sort of development.   

 The thing is.... the fanboy here is actually you.  You are young, and like most youngsters, you believe anything from the past isnt as good as the stuff made in YOUR chosen time period.  You cant accept the reality of the situation... and so much so, that you cant even be bothered to research it.


 As someone stated..  games were designed to last a many month on the field.  Many of Todays games can be beaten in the same day its purchased.  Which isnt much of a problem with a home game... because they still sell.  With coin-op however...   A game that gets old too quickly, was too easy and allowed players too much machine time, or a game that was too difficult... all would add up to major losses.  Loss of sales in the hundreds of thousands... and a bad reputation for future Op purchases.

 Many of todays programmers have it easy.  They barely have to make any gameplay at all... let alone balance it... let alone have it being split-second tight in 'skin-of-your-teeth' tolerances.

[Gray_Area]

The 2 joystick control system was chosen because Eugene smashed his hand in a car accident and couldn't play Bezerk. Random element.

I've never understood this. Berzerk only requires holding the button down at the right time, as it auto-fires. 'Clump'.......'clump'.......'clump'.  Not that I'm bitching, because I didn't like Berzerk controls scheme....though now I realize it would've been too easy with a separate firing stick.

Time to develop a game like Robotron didnt need 3yrs like todays games...Once the games engine framework was up, its was on to balance and perfection of gameplay.

Yes, although games did *take* a year or more to develop.

The centering grommet provides a sort of progressive resistance, which helps slow the stick towards the edges, and keeps hard smashes feeling soft, due to the rubber absorbing a lot of the shock forces.

I see now. It's similar to (but perhaps not as tough as) the grommet in the flight stick used in M.A.C.H. 3 (and which I have in one of my machines; it's a beast). I definitely want to check one out. Are/were the microswitch Wicos different?

[boardjunkie]

I remember when the p360 "add on" unit came out in the early 90s. I installed them in a Robotron....the players *hated* them. They got swapped back out for the std leafs in less that a couple weeks. The system they used didn't allow for any adjustment, which was a major flaw and why they never really caught on.

The P360s were *not* OEM on the MK series, the Happ ultimate was. They "worked", but players tore them up quickly. The plastic centering system literally chewed itself up with hard use. I would apply silicone grease to the centering parts to slow down the process, but they still eventually wore out. Lame...

20 years ago I designed an optical retrofit for leaf switch sticks, but never got around to prototyping it. It used slotted opto interrupters that could slide on a track for adjustment, and a single leaf type "actuator" for each direction that had the tab on the end to break the opto beam. There was a need to incorporate a hex inverter chip to invert the output of the opto, since when the slot is "open", the output is high. Inverting that duplicates the function of the switch. Same thing works for buttons....as evidenced by the WMS Fliptronic opto flipper cabinet switches.

Watch...I'll see these on the market in a month now that I said something. Wouldn't be the first time I opened my yap and had an idea stolen...(you listening TV Jones??).

[ChrisK]

The thing is.... the fanboy here is actually you.  You are young, and like most youngsters, you believe anything from the past isnt as good as the stuff made in YOUR chosen time period.  You cant accept the reality of the situation... and so much so, that you cant even be bothered to research it.

Many of todays programmers have it easy.  They barely have to make any gameplay at all... let alone balance it... let alone have it being split-second tight in 'skin-of-your-teeth' tolerances.

I don't want to walk into the middle of a pissing match, but you're calling someone out for (allegedly) thinking one era of video games are superior to others, and then immediately turning around to say the current era of video games are awful.  That does not compute.

The first arcade game I remember as a kid was Galaxian.  I spent a lot of time in arcades around the time of Spy Hunter, Rampage, and Street Fighter II, and continue to play new games today.  There are great games from every era.  I like them all.  I still want a Discs of Tron or Race Drivin cab, but they are no better nor worse than Doom or System Shock 2 or Skyrim.  They're just different.  Gaming isn't about mastery over a machine, it's about having fun.  If mastering a twitch game is your idea of fun, great.  But you can't call World of Warcraft (ugh) a poor game just because it's not your style.  Millions of people think these games are fun enough to spend hundreds of dollars on, so there's really no objective way to call them poor games.

And as an aside, contemporary video games aren't all giant open-world FPS's.  Check out Geometry Wars or Super Crate Box for good examples of recent games that play much like the arcade games of the 80's.

[Donkbaca]

Good points, ChrisK, a very fair asessment.  That being said I reject your even keeled rationale approach.  If more people like you were on this board then it wouldn't be any fun. 

I am so sick of the denial of progress.  Todays games are more fun, have way more thought put into them and are overall superior in every way.  How was robotron developed?  "Hey my hand is broken.  You know what would be sweet?  Two joysticks!  Here's two atari joysticks!  Rock on!"  6 months later there is a cab.  You honestly want me to believe that careful care and consideration was put into the design of that thing? Please.  You all act like video games was akin to art done by passionate people for the sake of producing something beautiful for the world.  As if commercialism and consumerism is a recent plague that has ruined the soul of videogames.  Right.  The 1980's were the heart and SOUL of consumer commercialism, and the arcade games didn't have to be that great because there was nothing out there to compete with them, no good home consoles, the only competition was other arcade games, so companies pumped them out as fast as they could to maintain market share and used novel ideas like "hey lets use... TWO JOYSTICKS INSTEAD OF ONE!!!!" as simple, cheap ways to stand out.   If anything the Early 90's arcade games were the best.  The Street Fighter era games are the golden age because they had to compete for dollars and time with consoles that were pretty darn good.  Todays videogames blow those ancient coin gobblers out of the water.  Diablo III has been in production for like a decade, that game is truly an example where they cater to the gamer.  They play test it for months and tweak it endlessly before they are going to roll out with it, and it will be epic.  To put that game in the same class as something like marble madness is laughable

(that should ruffle some feathers...)

[Xiaou2]

I don't want to walk into the middle of a pissing match, but you're calling someone out for (allegedly) thinking one era of video games are superior to others, and then immediately turning around to say the current era of video games are awful.  That does not compute.

 Sure it does.  I have an Opinion.

The first arcade game I remember as a kid was Galaxian.  I spent a lot of time in arcades around the time of Spy Hunter, Rampage, and Street Fighter II, and continue to play new games today.  There are great games from every era.  I like them all.  I still want a Discs of Tron or Race Drivin cab, but they are no better nor worse than Doom or System Shock 2 or Skyrim.  They're just different. 

 I appreciate your opinion... However, I dont share it.  There are many games that are superior in some way shape or form, to others.  Race Drivin's custom controllers alone, decimate any cabinets succeeding it.   

 Similarly, I could compare various versions of movie remakes, and or or even movies in the same series made by different people or different time periods. (Starwars orig -vs- Prequels)

 Doom is different.. but sorry, it does not hold a candle to owning a Race Drivin.  Not even close.  And the simple fact, is that the gameplay in FPS games is far inferior to most any game. Even games that use less controllers. less complexity..etc.  Most FPS games are on about the same level of gameplay as Dragons Lair, but far less artistic & unique.

Gaming isn't about mastery over a machine, it's about having fun.  If mastering a twitch game is your idea of fun, great.  But you can't call World of Warcraft (ugh) a poor game just because it's not your style.  Millions of people think these games are fun enough to spend hundreds of dollars on, so there's really no objective way to call them poor games.

 Actually, I CAN call make the determination between a walking movie (baby toy), and an actual game of skill.   In fact, it was the "Continue" quarter munchers that pretty much sealed the doors on arcades forever.

 Once a game loses all its skill, it loses almost all need to really play it.  Its almost like playing Tic Tac Toe.  If your over 6yrs old, its a complete waste of time.  It pretty much ceases to be a game at that point.  No fun, no challenge, no reason to play.

As for Geometry Wars, it doesnt have gameplay anywhere near as balanced as the older vector games... and worse yet, its a clustered mess.  Theres so much blurr and particles all over the place, that you cant even see half of the screen.  The concept is good.. but the execution, is not.  Tempest, Asteroids Deluxe, Starwars... now those are well designed vector games.

And as an aside, contemporary video games aren't all giant open-world FPS's.  Check out Geometry Wars or Super Crate Box for good examples of recent games that play much like the arcade games of the 80's.

 Never said that All newer games are bad.  In fact, there are a lot of awful games from the past.  And, on Rare occasion, there are some great new games.  But the thing is... Is that the percentage of good games is very low these days, in comparison to the past games.

 The reasons for this are many.  Many of which have already been listed.

 Which brings me to the final point.. is that your argument isnt really about the real point of the argument.  My argument with him, was about the fact that games of the past were made vastly different... which is again, the reason why many of these games are still fun to play today... but more modern games wont even get a 2nd play... let alone be remembered in 20yrs from now.

 

[Xiaou2]

I am so sick of the denial of progress.

 Nobody is denying progress.  We are arguing points on the foundation of gameplay, Challenge, and balance.

 No matter how much you try to Dress up checkers... its still checkers.  You can re-make Pac Man with 3d cut scenes and 3d rendered FPS graphics... but again.. its STILL Pacman.  The game plays a certain way.  Thats its foundation.  The rest is just glitter.

 There are games still made today, like the Mario 2d series, that Still remain fun and challenging.  There are Timeless.  As are all games which have excellent gameplay, challenge, and balance.

Todays games are more fun, have way more thought put into them and are overall superior in every way.

 A new Mario maybe... but an FPS?  Its easy.  All you have to do is copy a game engine.  Then drop some bad guys into the mix that are not all that intelligent.  (And you can even skip much of that, cause multiplayer humans will solve the difficulty of good Artificial Intelligence programming).  Add some action stopping cutscenes with faces that unintentionally scare you due to creep factor of unrealistic rendering..  and then Drop some 3d models in.. and finally, click "Exe".   Theres very little more than that... and certainly not anything as tight of tolerances of the older games... or a game like 2d super mario.. where everything has a specific placement and speed, a puzzle, a trap, exacting timings, exacting distances ..ect.   In an FPS, all you have to do is roam and fire. Its slow, its not challenging, its a sleeper fest that even young kids have little trouble doing.

  How was robotron developed?  "Hey my hand is broken.  You know what would be sweet?  Two joysticks!  Here's two atari joysticks!  Rock on!"

 Robotron was developed like most games of the 80s.  Lets try this idea... and see how it plays.  Ohh.. it plays good, so lets see how far we can push it and develop it.  OR... Ohh, this plays like crap... and the system board cant handle all the action, we dont have enough memory to do this, etc... so lets modify it this way...

 According to documemts from actual designers who worked for Atari... they just told you to start making games.  A lot of them had never done it before, and were not even sure where to start.  Eventually, with a lot of trial and error, they brute forced the systems to do their bidding.  They were given pretty much free reign to create whatever they wanted to create.  After making a prototype game, they would submit if for review.  So long as the thing played decently... it was all green lights.  If it didnt play well, it was sent back to be tweaked or scrapped. 

 They couldnt just drop a bunch of characters on the screen like in an FPS.  Robotron for example, has some incredible Artificial Intelligence.  The flying enemies will not simply aim for you.. but will aim in the direction you are running in - ahead of you.  They also detect when they are in danger, and will fly away faster than lightning at such a point. Some will quickly go hide in a corner trying to pick you off at a distance, while the others are all over your butt.

 But even that, is nothing compared to the masterpiece of AI,  "Spy Hunter".   That game is Viciously Brilliant!  The cars are not simply sent out at random.  In fact, you can see the intelligence as they start to form specific teams of cars that work together to try to kill you.  Putting Armored cars in the rear, making it a nightmare if you slow down...   and a switchblade car in the lead, so your constantly pressed to go fast.  Then dropping a combination of puddles that make you steer into other cars / trouble.. or the helicopter, which drops bombs in the only road area you felt was safe.  The combinations of these elements are finely balanced and orchestrated like a symphony.  Its like a constantly changing rube-goldberg machine in action, and it always ends up taking you out, in the end.

 But yeah, even simply Robotron, was an exercise in perfection of game balance.  There are a zillion Robotron-Esc games out there... and NONE of them are as good as the Original.  The specific elements, types of enemies, combinations of attacks, speed of the players, speed of the bullets, AI, and much more... all are tuned up to make an ever challenging, yet incredibly fun and addictive experience.

 Years later, they made Smash TV.  Changing Robotron into a continue quarter muncher.  Effectively, ruining the gameplay.  Its still an ok game. Its fun, its funny, and the graphics are cool.. BUT... it becomes meaningless after a few rounds.  Basically, you dont even care if you finish the game or not.  You dont even care if you win a level or not, because its programmed to make the game too 'cheap', so that you drop more money into it.   

 But the real Robotron always gives you a chance... even though it may seem impossible, you Can get out of it by the skin of your teeth... and nearly every second, is a skin-of-your-teeth moment.  Theres nothing but adrenalin flow.  And if you lose all your lives, you still want to try again, to get to a higher level.

 An FPS doent get your blood pumping like that.  Its not challenging.  Its point and click, and thats it.  A simple point and click adventure book.  A slow moving fairy tale.  Or a done to death shoot-out war/gun fest.  Theres no skill in Snipeing in a game, just as theres barely any skill in real sniping... esp at closer ranges.

You honestly want me to believe that careful care and consideration was put into the design of that thing?

 Try programming a Robotron clone.  See if you can convince all the Robotron hardcore players that your version is better.

Please.  You all act like video games was akin to art done by passionate people for the
sake of producing something beautiful for the world.

 I guess because you are soul-less, and dont give a crap about the work and things you produce.. that you feel everyone thinks the same way as you right?  (you must be a typical "COG" right?)

 People back then actually cared about how well a game played.  In fact, they had to... because there was no pretty graphics to cover up the visual losses... nor any cd quality sound systems, help aid.  It was all about how well a game played... and yes, it WAS a passion... as well as a constant battle.  Creating games that not only did the office workers enjoy.. but that tested well with the higher-ups, and in actual arcade locations, making money.   Fail to any of those parties happy... and the game was shot down and scrapped.  All that work, for nothing.

As if commercialism and consumerism is a recent plague that has ruined the soul of videogames.  Right.

 Nothing to do with either of those.  It was when game companies started to cater to the gamers who didnt want to put any effort into games... that games fell.  Continue games. Cheat codes. Buy-In's. Low difficulty / challenge... Etc.  When gameplay became 2nd to graphical look. When corporations got too corporate, zapped all the creativity and originality away.  Forever changing games for the worse on a whole.

the arcade games didn't have to be that great because there was nothing out there to compete with them, no good home consoles, the only competition was other arcade games, so companies pumped them out as fast as they could to maintain market share

 Simply not true.  Poor games didnt earn well, and when they didnt earn, they didnt sell.  On the other hand, great classics that made very good earnings, were sold in massive quantities all over the world. 

 Companies that made crap games, eventually went belly up.  The more accomplished companies, like Atari and Sega, stood rock solid for many years, with astronomical sales figures.

 People didnt just play crap games, because supposedly, there was nothing else.  There was plenty of other things to do, rather than to play a game that wasnt even fun.   Just the same as today, you decide long and hard about what you want to waste money on, and if something sucked, you dont buy it/do it again.  Human nature hasnt changed.

and used novel ideas like "hey lets use... TWO JOYSTICKS INSTEAD OF ONE!!!!" as simple, cheap ways to stand out.

 Your argument falls flat, when you tally up the cost of designing, testing, and assembling a custom Star Wars controller.   They could have used a simple analog joystick, like the modern craptasic Starwars Arcade game.   

 It also falls flat when you consider that marble madness needs two $120 trackball units, special metal punches to cut the trackball holes, extra assembly time...etc.  And, it was also almost going to have force feedback.

 It falls flat on a game like Race Drivin, with about $1400 worth of custom built controllers, totaling about 250lbs in controllers alone.

 The plain fact is that Robotron doesnt play well with a single controller.  Anyone can easily test this in mame, by mapping the two together.  Being able to fire in a different direction than you move, gives more advanced gameplay, and its utilized to the fullest in that game.

 Cheffo has told you, that the original design was a scolling one.  Why change that?  As stated... it didnt play well.   The game, like all the rest, were changed constantly, until they played excellently, and were very balanced.
 

If anything the Early 90's arcade games were the best.  The Street Fighter era games are the golden age because they had to compete for dollars and time with consoles that were pretty darn good.

 There were some good 90s games.  And in fact, I like fighters too.  However, its was the worst era of games.  It was when all originality DIED.  Almost every game was a fighter that came out.   No more unique controllers.  No more original gameplay.  It was all the same exact game, repeated over and over, in different graphics.

 While fighters did make money... they also were to blame for losing a lot of it too.  Because not everyone wanted to play on a machine which when a skilled player was on, would take them out in seconds.  Fighters complexities became off-putting to a lot of players... who simply didnt have the time or money to invest in them. And finally, there were times when you just wanted to play something different... but sadly, there was nothing else.

 And because the Ops were no longer pushing the boundarys of originality, and no longer different and challenge... finally, consoles stepped in to take the last byte.

 In fact, games in the arcades SHOULD have been getting better earnings geometrically.. due to population growth.  The corporate 'copy formula', eventually failed, and it took out an entire section of history with it:  "The Arcade"   

 This Copy-Formula attitude followed into the pc and console markets... and then we got the same repeat game model all again.  It also spread to the music industry... which is why many bands have the same exact sounds.  Same samples, same tempo, same chords, same use of vocal enhancement to cover the fact that they dont hire real singing talent anymore.

 The 80s were completely different.  It was a time when Anything was possible.  When artists still had the freedom to create amazing things.  When stars were born... not manufactured by a formula.

 90s were a Dying star... when all creativity was almost dead.  When all industries were controlled to the point where there was no freedoms at all.

 By 2000, there pretty much nothing but puppets on strings, yes men, and the zombies who eat it all up.

Todays videogames blow those ancient coin gobblers out of the water. 

 Name 3 games that are so fast. intense, and challenging, that they make you sweat.. (made in 2010 or later).
Tell me how long it took to master and beat them.

Then, go fire up Mr.Do.  See if you can get 15 levels in, and how long it takes you to do it.
Then, go fire up Robotron, see if you can get to level 35 on the default settings.
Then, go fire up Spy Hunter, and see if you maintain your game for 30 min.
 

Diablo III has been in production for like a decade, that game is truly an example where they cater to the gamer.  They play test it for months and tweak it endlessly before they are going to roll out with it, and it will be epic.  To put that game in the same class as something like marble madness is laughable

 Diablo III will be like all the other Diablo's.  Its a point and click game.  You are not a tenth of a second away from death at every moment.  You do not have full and accurate control of the player.  Its slow, clumsy, and frankly... boring.  The only thing it has going for it.. .is very nice graphics.   Thats it.  Its the same exact game engine, with some slight mods and changes.  But its the same slow moving game.

 In fact, Marble Madness done with todays hardware, and done well, would blow the pants off of the slow gameplay of DiabLOW.

 MMs biggest drawback was lack of speed.  That was due to hardware limitations of the day.
It made up for it by making extremely tight time limits... so you really had to work hard physically to get to the end in time.   A modern version with greater speed and longer levels, would dominate.


 The problem is, your lack of perspective and objectivity.  You just cant see past the fluff, and into the heart of a games engine.  All you see are graphics and hear sounds.  You simply dont get the whole 'gameplay' thing.

 For all the hard work they put into Diablow... nobody will care about it in a year, and nobody will remember it in 10... and who is going to replay it repeatedly over the years?  Thats right... Nobody.

 Id rather play a game of Guitar Hero, or some 20+ yr old classic...

The problem isnt in the age. 
Good creations are Ageless.

 You simply make it about age, because thats what your obsessed about.

[DaveMMR]

Xiaou, any chance of getting that summed up in a way that won't wear out my mouse scroll button?

[ChrisK]

Xiaou, I think the crux of your point is simply that you like older arcade games, or at least the play style of them.  That's cool, so do I.  I've spent untold hours on old one-and-done arcade games and enjoy them a lot.  There are even plenty of console games in that same vein, like Super Mario Brothers on the NES.

But I also like the new stuff.  Race Drivin was really cool, but I think if you ask the majority of the population you'd find more people liked Doom more.  We can debate which game has better mechanics, controls, graphics, or anything else, but in the end the only thing that people care about is if it's fun for them.  And sadly not everyone enjoys driving games.

I REALLY like simulation racing.  I'm a car guy, and I've done some racing in real life.  Racing sim games (ie: Forza on the 360, iRacing on the PC) let me get my racing thrills for a lower budget ($250 racing wheel and the cost of a game) than a set of race tires.  To your preference, any of the racing sims of today are inferior games.  But I'll tell you I've spent literally thousands of hours driving racing sims and tuning car suspensions, and I've had a ton of fun doing so.  I'll also add, parenthetically, that Race Drivin has a very unrealistic driving model, as you might expect from a game of its era, and while a lot of sim racers I know would discount as a waste of time for that, I found it a lot of fun.

If your really want to slit your wrists, go to a modern casino and look at all the people shoveling money into modern video slots.  These are video games distilled, and it's obvious people really enjoy them.  I can't help but look at them and think "give me 10 coins per level in Rampage and you've got a deal!"

I guess my point is, everybody like different games.  We all might like one genre or era more than another, but they're all equally good, because "good" is purely subjective, and you can't tell anyone what they like most, you can only tell us what you like most.

(FWIW, my current playlist is Super Crate Box on my iCade, Metroid Fusion on my GBA emulator, Skyrim on the PC, Forza 4 on the 360, and NARC on MAME.  Man, I hate that last boss in NARC.)

[Xiaou2]

Larry speaking about the added control of Robotrons dual sticks, and how that was INTENDED by Eugene, so that difficulty could be ramped up much higher.


Larry on why Difficulty is needed, and the advanced system of gameplay that added to cater towards the higher level players, to keep them coming back for more.


(The creator, who according to Donk, just cut and pasted code down, like a cog, with no passion... talking about the intricacies of advanced gameplay mechanics...)

[Xiaou2]

Xiaou, I think the crux of your point is simply that you like older arcade games, or at least the play style of them.  That's cool, so do I.  I've spent untold hours on old one-and-done arcade games and enjoy them a lot.  There are even plenty of console games in that same vein, like Super Mario Brothers on the NES.

 I like Good games.  Of all kinds.. of any time period.   Your whole post is Lost, because you are focusing on the wrong person.  Re-read Donks various posts about older games, development, and controllers... and my counters will make sense to you.

 Im not in the least bit stubborn or stuck in any time warp.  Yes, I AM highly critical... A lot of that comes from mere experience.  When you have seen a million movies, you tend to judge them by comparison. Its the same for games.

But I also like the new stuff.  Race Drivin was really cool, but I think if you ask the majority of the population you'd find more people liked Doom more.  We can debate which game has better mechanics, controls, graphics, or anything else, but in the end the only thing that people care about is if it's fun for them.  And sadly not everyone enjoys driving games.

Sorry, but Id love to prove this to you all day long.  Go out and get an ancient PC with doom running on it... then grab a sit-down Race Drivin machine.  Tell people you are raffling off the chance to win one of the machines.  But that they have to check off which prize they would prefer to win on the entry.  Id be shocked if ANY of them checked the old pc.  

 And in an arcade setting, Id also wager the Race Drivin will out-earn an PC running Doom.  Doom is the type of thing people lazily do at home.  Its nothing special.  There was even an FPS Arcade game in the doom style made.. and I never once had seen anyone play it the entire time I was on location.  Outrun got more play than that pile FPS.

I REALLY like simulation racing.

 Thats nice. I dont really care about real Sims.  I do care about fun games.  In fact, the old sitdown Out Run is far more fun and challenging, than many modern and or 'realistic' racing games.


 

I'll also add, parenthetically, that Race Drivin has a very unrealistic driving model, as you might expect from a game of its era, and while a lot of sim racers I know would discount as a waste of time for that, I found it a lot of fun.

 Hard to believe that, considering that the math calculations were created from an Engineer who specialized in advanced physics, and racing.

 From Wiki:

"Physics

The engine, transmission control, suspension, and tire physics were modeled in conjunction with Doug Milliken[4] who was listed as a test driver in the game credits. In the 1950s his father William Milliken of Milliken Research led a team at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory in Buffalo NY USA (later Calspan) that converted aircraft equations of motion to equations of motion for the automobile, and became one of the world's leading experts in car modeling.[5]"

If your really want to slit your wrists, go to a modern casino and look at all the people shoveling money into modern video slots.  These are video games distilled, and it's obvious people really enjoy them.  I can't help but look at them and think "give me 10 coins per level in Rampage and you've got a deal!"

 This has Zero to do with anything.  Gambling's goal is nothing to do with video games.  Its NOT a game distilled.  Its just gambling.  Its its own entity.  You could take away all the screens, all the fancy machines... and the same scores of people would Still be there gambling, without a machine in sight.

I guess my point is, everybody like different games.  We all might like one genre or era more than another, but they're all equally good, because "good" is purely subjective, and you can't tell anyone what they like most, you can only tell us what you like most.

 My point is that I can have my own Opinion, and express it.  I think a certain game isnt good, so I say so.  Its the inverse of you saying you like a certain game.  We are all entitled to it.
I never asked or forced you to Like what I like.

 However, when someone starts spewing things I know are false... such as how we were debating on how different games were created in the past... then yes, Im going to correct someone on those points.

[Malenko]

the more I read of Exouche the dumber I get.
Even when he starts to make sense or even when I agree with something he type, his execution is so piss poor and delusional you just stop reading and scroll the the next post, which in this case is him again so you keep scrolling.

Robotron is great, Ive played it on a dedicated machine with leafs, I've played it on a conversion cab with 8way supers, Ive played it on my mame cab with 8way comps. I do about the same on all of them. I like the game.

I like Smash TV more. I dont care about the technical aspects or deeper strategy with robotron, I just have more fun with Smash TV. And no I dont like Total Carnage better than SmashTV

[ChrisK]

Sorry, but Id love to prove this to you all day long.  Go out and get an ancient PC with doom running on it... then grab a sit-down Race Drivin machine.  Tell people you are raffling off the chance to win one of the machines.  But that they have to check off which prize they would prefer to win on the entry.  Id be shocked if ANY of them checked the old pc.  

That's a bit of a straw man, considering Race Drivin is an expensive game cabinet and Doom can run on a 486 (or a number of crappy old cell phones, for that matter).  You could also ask people which they'd have at home, and the majority would likely say Doom, citing "my wife would kill me" or "I have no room for Race Drivin" as reasons.

To be completely honest, I'd probably go with Doom, too.  I'd LOVE to have a Race Drivin cab, but I don't have the floor space to dedicate to one game.  Or rather, I have other higher priorities for that floor space (kids room, garage space, etc).

And in an arcade setting, Id also wager the Race Drivin will out-earn an PC running Doom.  Doom is the type of thing people lazily do at home.  Its nothing special.  There was even an FPS Arcade game in the doom style made.. and I never once had seen anyone play it the entire time I was on location.  Outrun got more play than that pile FPS.

I'm sure.  But if you're basing goodness on revenue it's hard to match the $100mil Doom 2 has made (ref Wikipedia).

I'll also add, parenthetically, that Race Drivin has a very unrealistic driving model, as you might expect from a game of its era, and while a lot of sim racers I know would discount as a waste of time for that, I found it a lot of fun.

 Hard to believe that, considering that the math calculations were created from an Engineer who specialized in advanced physics, and racing.

 From Wiki:

"Physics

The engine, transmission control, suspension, and tire physics were modeled in conjunction with Doug Milliken[4] who was listed as a test driver in the game credits. In the 1950s his father William Milliken of Milliken Research led a team at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory in Buffalo NY USA (later Calspan) that converted aircraft equations of motion to equations of motion for the automobile, and became one of the world's leading experts in car modeling.[5]"

It might be hard to believe, but it's true.  Even if Race Drivin was a paragon of accuracy and 10 years ahead of its time, there's the simple matter of computational power.  There's a huge list of features of a modern sim like Forza that Race Drivin doesn't model.  Tire temperature and wear is obvious, and alone should illustrate how far sims have come.  But lest you think I'm blowing smoke, does Race Drivin model sidewall flex?  Aerodynamics?  Differential lockup?  Dampers?  Caster?  Torque steer?  Realistic road surfaces?  Lateral vs longitudinal tire grip?  I'd be surprised if all four tires have individually-modeled brakes in Race Drivin.  Forza does all this stuff at 60 frames per second.  For twelve simultaneous cars.

I don't think this one is an argument you can win.  Forza or iRacing or even Gran Turismo has a more realistic driving model than Race Drivin, full stop.  That's not a value judgment on Race Drivin vs Forza, that's just a fact of the computing power of the time.  If you doubt my objectivity, please find someone with a modern sim and a steering wheel setup and try one before you judge.

[DaveMMR]

I keep seeing Race Drivin' mentioned. I can't help but think that game was "all technology and no game". Sure maybe it was amusing enough for it's day, but compared to older racers (like Pole Position), it has not aged well.  Xiaou, if you disagree, please reply with two long posts.  

And, in the middle of all this discussion, we're forgetting the most important thing: does Gray_Area like leaf switches yet?

[ChrisK]

You could say the same about many of the modern sims, though.  In the first release of Live For Speed, for example, you're given a few cars and a few tracks and told to go wild.  You race against a leaderboard, mainly.  I put a lot of hours into that sim, despite it being little more than a sandbox.  For me the fun was in driving an accurately-modeled car more aggressively than I would allow myself to drive my own cars on the track.  Racing sims have the vital virtue of a destroyed car not ending your racing season. 

I liked Race Drivin because of its more sedate, realistic feel compared to other racing games of the time.  I liked Pole Position because it was racing would surely be like on cocaine.  Everything was moving a million miles an hour and doing well was a matter of cranking the wheel around like a madman.

[opt2not]

I never cared much for the newer racing games. Mainly because they're boring to me. If I wanted to drive realistic, I would just jump into my car and head to the highway. Give me an arcade racing game any day. For modern arcadey race games I prefer the Burnout games. Revenge is my favourite, mostly because the demo was probably the closest to an arcade game experience with it's track timer and quick restarts (without ending!). Paradise was really fun too, but I didn't care much for the multi-player aspect of it.
You know, I would probably go so far into saying that the Burnout Revenge demo is the best demo I've played. Period.

[Ond]

I'm amazed at the energy some folks here put into defending their POV and personal likes/dislikes, or maybe it's just low effort, stream of conscious typing for them  .

Interesting about the driving sims though, I really enjoy blasting down the track in a Lamborghini or Porsche with realism turned up high, the whole thing shaking around and engine screaming in GTR2. Am I behind the times with that game or is still a good Sim by current standards?  I don't quite get the same experience in my car  .  That said a buddy of mine (with way more money) does both, he's very happy to challenge others on-line in a Sim or take his AMG C63 to the track.   

Right, now about leaf switch sticks ......*crickets chirping*..............

[ChrisK]

GTR2 was a very popular and well-respected race sim.  It did a lot of the racecraft stuff well, which is more than you can say for the console sims (Forza, Gran Turismo).  It has kind of been eclipsed by iRacing (well, everything on the PC has been) because of iRacing's variety in cars and tracks and excellent online racing mechanics (both the on-track stuf and the online ranking/scoring).  But it's certainly no slouch.

Yeah, sorry to drag this even further off topic.  I do like leaf switches, but only the kind I use.  Everybody else's suck.