The Death of Arcades

[CartmanDP1]

http://gaming.onnetworks.com/videos/play-value/the-death-of-arcades

[leapinlew]

Cool - nice link. I hadn't seen that before.

[ARTIFACT]

Quote from the show: "when we started playing those games at home we realized... they really suck! We needed evolved, artistic games"


mmhhh... personally I dont share this feeling at all... the more I play new games, the more I love old arcade games.
Sorry I don't always have 30 hours to play a Zelda

It is this "immediate and simple" feel they had which I think is unique and worth not discarding them.

Wii Play is a counter-example of new generation games actually embracing some of these concepts from the old arcade-style games... where you can enjoy a 30 minutes game and don't need a PHD int he room to figure out how to work the controls.

[Sir Auros]

... where you can enjoy a 30 minutes game and don't need a PHD int he room to figure out how to work the controls.

Not to sound like a ---tallywhacker---, but I think it's more a case of old fogey syndrome or regular old retardation that keeps people from enjoying modern games due to an inability to learn the controls.

[ark_ader]

The episodes show how the gaming history went, but to us thirtysomethings, we saved pocket money and mowed lawns to play the classic games the kids today take for granted.

Yes it is great to have games like World of Warcraft, but so was Dungeons & Dragon's, when we had to use our imagination and creativity instead of computer graphics to entertain.  

I don't think a 8 minute video will have en ought time to explore all the issues and mistakes the video gaming world made in the 80s, but it was a very exciting time to live in, and the their videos do have the nostalgic twinge when we see those old games.  

I am looking forward to their next episode, as I found it informative, and that girls tattoos were very colorful.  

[AMDman13]

The video was pretty cool, but am I the only one who noticed that the average age of the commenter's was 25? I agree with what's been said.. If I can't get my game on and be done with it in 35 minutes or less than I don't think it's worth it.. Kinda like sex I guess

I did dig on the chick with the tat's though!

[ARTIFACT]

Not to sound like a ---tallywhacker---, but I think it's more a case of old fogey syndrome or regular old retardation that keeps people from enjoying modern games due to an inability to learn the controls.

i respect your point of view

my pesonal pov is that Product Design, input and interaction design have not been focusing on targeting HUMANS. they targetted hardcore gamers instead. hence the exponential number of buttons on home consoles over the years.

both are valid

but they are orthogonal issues. there isno retardation in one or the other.

again these are all povs and its great that we have dif. povs

[Flip_Willie]

Sorry I don't always have 30 hours to play a Zelda

   Even though I enjoy many modern games, I share this sentiment a lot of the time.  I am almost never in the mood to play a long term game.  I like games short and sweet.  I particularly enjoy this about arcade games.


Just as it is,
Flip Willie

[SavannahLion]

I think I could've done without, like, all that, you know, like, that funky, like, California valley, like, you know, talk. 

I'm middle of the road. I don't really spend a lot of time playing the older classics because I've been there and done that. I do think that a lot of the new games are pretty shallow or they consume too much time in one sitting (30 minutes between saves?! Not tonight.) I think that's why the Wii seems to be pretty popular with a lot of people. People are getting tired (though they may not realize it) of playing the same five types of games with near identical graphics and want something a little different. It's not exactly a throw back to the games of yore. It's a careful attempt in a different direction. Sure it's been tried in one fashion or another, but hopefully, this time, consumers are more apt to accept something that's different.

[RayB]

It's an ok video. Basically a spoken blurb.  I don't like how they started it out kind of saying that VIDEO games begat the arcade. Amusement Arcades existed LONG before Pong and Space Wars ever existed.

[jcoleman]

The point he's trying to make is that not everyone is interested in playing games that come with required reading. 

As a software developer, one of the things I always have to keep in mind is that people don't like to read.  "Don't Make Me Read!" is a classic in the field.  Most people will not read, nor will they take the time to "figure it out."  If you can't design an interface that I can figure out without reading or asking "what do I do?" then you have failed in your human interface design.

One of the great things about classic arcade games is that they were easy to pick up and play.  If they weren't, no one would have played them.  Nintendo is bringing the genre back to its roots - simple, easy-to-pick up gameplay that doesn't require a steep learning curve.  Sure, there will always be a market for that, and I'll probably always be a part of that market...I'll always enjoy the simplicity of a game of Robotron or Pac-Man, too.  And nothing beats a great game of Defender, just to illustrate that classics could be complex, too. 

To each his own, right?

As for the production quality of that "podcast..."  Did anyone else get the impression that someone wrote the script and gave it to each of the talking heads to paraphrase in their own "hip" way, then edited it like they all were speaking off the cuff?  I found it a little cheesy - the Nintendo episode, more so.

[Sir Auros]

As a software developer, one of the things I always have to keep in mind is that people don't like to read.  "Don't Make Me Read!" is a classic in the field.  Most people will not read, nor will they take the time to "figure it out."  If you can't design an interface that I can figure out without reading or asking "what do I do?" then you have failed in your human interface design.

I'm guessing when you say you're a software developer, you're not referring to software in the form of games made in the past 10 years, since the manuals have only gotten smaller and smaller. Also, one of the main principles of modern game design (one that most games follow these days) is allowing the player to learn the controls in an organic manner. You don't just go into most games and have to "figure it out," or read the manual, because modern games teach you the controls in a way that even young children can learn. People who whine about modern games being only for the "hardcore," or to complex are just pulling a cop-out for their (to me) inexplicable inability to use a grand total of two more buttons than Street Fighter II.

The argument's totally ignorant bull****. I gotta hit the hay, but if anyone else wants to be indignant, feel free. Just remember to change your depends after you post your angry replies.

EDIT - I will concede that modern games are more intimidating to non-gamers (ie-people who are being won over now by the Wii), but for anyone who has grown up with videogames and/or has played them before, it's a non-issue.

[AMDman13]

If someone doesn't like more modern games then they just don't like them. You seem to like Transformers. Should I say that anyone who likes Transformers at age 25 is a retard..

The answer would be no. What ever floats your boat.  To each his/her own.

[Sir Auros]

If someone doesn't like more modern games then they just don't like them. You seem to like Transformers. Should I say that anyone who likes Transformers at age 25 is a retard..

The answer would be no. What ever floats your boat.  To each his/her own.

Poor analogy, but thanks for playing. If he said he didn't like modern games, I wouldn't have thought anything of it (I'm sure this board is full of people like that), but he wanted to trot out a tired old argument used by ignorant people. Also, I didn't say anything about people who don't like modern games, I said it about people who don't like them for a very particular, ignorant reason.

[hillbilly]

Although the manuals in these newer games might be getting smaller i only ever seem to have the time to play through the 30min "training" in any of these new games before something else needs to be done around the house.

now not all newish games are bad this way I have a blast playing games like counterstrike where you can jump on for short periods.

[Justin Z]

I fall into both camps, but I happen to mostly play older games.  Whoopee.  I enjoy arcade games and yet I own several consoles.  The evolution of buttons from NES to Super NES to PS to PS2, or whatever order it was, has not bothered me, but I've certainly seen it bother others.

Incidentally, I've never played Wii.

[AMDman13]

Poor analogy,

Fair enough.

Is it me or wasn't the Coleco-Vision the first console to successfully bring arcade ports to home. DK was the packaged game pack and it was done at least 10 years before the Sega Genesis. I was playing Coleco when most of the commentators where still walking around in diapers. 

[rooterman]

All I have to say is that back then it was the best time to be a teen. I think if you were too young to remember, you missed out on a magical time.

r

[BobA]

Bit of a one sided age oriented view.    They only consider the US decline so what about the thousands of arcades and mega arcades still pumping away in Japan?
Japan seems to be even more into consoles but the arcades LIVE!
 

[Sir Auros]

All I have to say is that back then it was the best time to be a teen. I think if you were too young to remember, you missed out on a magical time.

r

Which magical time, though? There was the one in the early days of the arcades, and then the age of 2D fighters and side-scrolling co-op beat-em-ups. I was in the second magical time.

[rooterman]

It was all good 

[Sir Auros]

Bit of a one sided age oriented view.    They only consider the US decline so what about the thousands of arcades and mega arcades still pumping away in Japan?
Japan seems to be even more into consoles but the arcades LIVE!
 

Yeah, but 99% of those games are train conductor sims...

[More Cowbell]

I'm in the middle too. I'm totally devoted to retro gaming but have several consoles and really enjoy the modern games. One good thing from modern gaming that helps to get back into the "play for 20 minutes and move on" mentality is playing against others on Live. I get all of the thrill of short bursts of fun like the classics, but I also get the sweet graphics and modern game play of the modern games. Win-win!

[Arcades R Fun]

Here's my take on the video. I'm keeping my opinions focused on that topic alone.

I found the video to be interesting but bland. It was unsettling to listen to  "Twenty somethings" provide the narration. They did not and could not provide the 1st person persepctive that would have made the video discussion more interesting.
They were not even born when I was playing 280 ZZZAP  and Lunar Lander in the late 70's! It's one thing to recite history and it's another to actually live it!

Arcades:
I have played the classics, the fighters, the light gun games and the big driving games from the 70's through today.

I have enjoyed them all. The only difference is now I pump in dollar bills instead of quarters.

That's the point...... Arcade games as we knew it from the "Golden Age" may have died in arcade centers, but arcades as a whole did NOT die out.  IMO they simply evolved. It was a natural progression to go from the arcade into the home because technology improvements allowed it to be so.


Now home consoles are king, but when people go out socially the arcade games will always be there in some form!

[rooterman]

I agree with you Arcades R Fun, it sounded strange with narrators who didn't actually live through that time. They talked about the games, but unless you lived it, you won't be able to fully understand or appreciate what gaming was like back then, and when it was such a new thing technologically and culturally. I don't think those feelings exist so much today.

r

[SavannahLion]

I found the video to be interesting but bland. It was unsettling to listen to  "Twenty somethings" provide the narration. They did not and could not provide the 1st person persepctive that would have made the video discussion more interesting.
They were not even born when I was playing 280 ZZZAP  and Lunar Lander in the late 70's! It's one thing to recite history and it's another to actually live it!

That's kind of a fustrating thing about it. Every time I introduce a new generation to gaming, there's always this difficulty they have when they try to wrap their heads around it. I had one kid (12 at the time) tell me that there was nothing older than the NES. So I break out the 2600 and he's convinced it's a ---smurfy--- Chinese knock off of the NES. He's got a better grip on old gaming now, but he's fallen victim to the, "gotta have the newest," syndrome that plagues a lot of people. Oh well... at least the latest introduction is a six year old and I've got her hooked on Pacman. Too bad she's convinced that Pacman is a "movie" by Disney and that there was no way I could've have ever played it since it wasn't around when I was a kid.   

[Green Giant]

I agree with you Arcades R Fun, it sounded strange with narrators who didn't actually live through that time. They talked about the games, but unless you lived it, you won't be able to fully understand or appreciate what gaming was like back then, and when it was such a new thing technologically and culturally. I don't think those feelings exist so much today.

r

What is with all these cold blooded cheap shot attacks at the 20 something crowd.  Yeah, we didn't see the birth of video games in the 70's, but we were around for the decline in the late 80's and early 90's.

So just remember you have absolutely no argument about any game post 1988 and the kids in the video have more insight than you could ever hope to have about the decline of video games.

Even though it was old, I always enjoyed a game of pacman when we went to black eyed pea.

[dfmaverick]

After watching the clip, here are my thoughts about the piece in general:

-It is titled incorrectly. The reasons for the downfall of the arcade are lightly touched upon in favor of how the revolution of the console is brought about and thus the evolution of video games as a whole rather than actually focusing upon the "Death of the Arcade."

There is a valid point made about the need for the arcade to die for the gaming industry to evolve into what it is today; however, that seems to be the focus rather than the reasons for the fall of the arcade.

I believe a G4 episode of "Icons" did a much better job on the death of the arcades.

-As someone else mentioned, in the production, it seemed as though they were all given a script and allowed to tell the story in their own words. (IMO They were all told the history of the arcade and each retold it and then someone took bits and pieces from each retelling and edited it together.)

It's a valid point that the piece would have rung more true if kids of the 80s had done the piece, but I figure that this is a piece done for the younger gen and thus they want the 20-somethings to promote this piece to capture the intended audience. That could also be why the focus is more on the evolution to consoles rather than why the arcade died.

Overall, I find the piece more fluff than substance. It may be due to the fact that I was expecting something different when I read the title than what they had intended.

[PsychoAU]

What is with all these cold blooded cheap shot attacks at the 20 something crowd.  Yeah, we didn't see the birth of video games in the 70's, but we were around for the decline in the late 80's and early 90's.

So just remember you have absolutely no argument about any game post 1988 and the kids in the video have more insight than you could ever hope to have about the decline of video games.

Even though it was old, I always enjoyed a game of pacman when we went to black eyed pea.

I completely agree with you, Green Giant.  People on this board always come at things with the idea that anything past 1985 is not worthy of being discussed.  Why is it that only the old games are considered part of arcade talk?  I am 25 and was very much a part of the arcade craze of the early to mid 90s.  Why is this time period any less important than the time of Pong and Asteroids?  I hate to agree with Sir Auros, but he is right one on thing.  Most of the problems is that the older generation is fixated on Pac Man and Frogger and totally discount anything that has come after by roping it all together as "modern" games in a way like they should be looked down on.  Get over yourselves.  There is more to gaming than Donkey Kong.

This mentality always comes back up when news comes out that the MAME team has cracked a new board (i.e. CPS3).  They always complain that it is not important to play all the modern games and that you should get a console if you want to do that.  Instead they think that the MAME Devs should spend all their time getting just the right beeps and boops of Space Invaders.  I know that living in the past is part of this hobby, but there's a point where it is just lunacy.

[jcoleman]

I am 25 and was very much a part of the arcade craze of the early to mid 90s.

There was no arcade craze in the early or mid 90s.  There was a "fighting game" craze.  The arcade craze was when GROCERY STORES had arcade games.  Drug stores.  Gas stations.  Convenience stores.  Waffle House (the one near my house had Super Pac-Man!).  THAT was a craze.  You were around for the last hurrah of arcades full of video games...don't get me wrong, I was there playing SF2, possibly right next to you.

Back to the "modern games have too many buttons" argument...that is a 100% valid reason for disliking a game (or class of games).  I like complex control schemes in some cases - but I personally find that a simple scheme like Robotron is all I need sometimes.  There are not many things more fulfilling (to me) in video gaming than a 65k score on Centipede...the type of play in which you become one with the machine....the type that is all-too-rare in mass-market games nowadays.  Occasionally you'll find it - fighting and driving games are where it's at - but it's rare.

There is a reason you will find that arcade games past '85 are not really worthy of discussion - the only things really worth playing at the time (IMO) were fighters.  Manufacturers began to realize they could get twice the price form each player.  Then they realized they could make the game very short but get your money again immediately...and make you keep pumping it right in.  The money reigned supreme (not that it didn't always, they're called coin-ops for good reason) but it seems like it got much more pronounced in that time period.  There aren't a lot of classic games past 1990 - the ones that are considered classics are fighting games...the SF series in particular.  I can't even name a game from the 90's that's not a fighter or side-scrolling beat 'em up.  That may be my personal preference, but I'm pretty sure it echoes a lot of feelings on the forums in general.

Another quick point - there is more to retrogaming than the games.  "Retro" is half the word and nostalgia is easily half the reason I have this hobby.  I used to get 2 free tokens at a local arcade for each A on my report card.  When I drop a token into my MAME cab and fire up Mr. Do, or Tempest, or Donkey Kong Jr., or Dig Dug, the feeling of being 12 years old at the arcade on a Saturday afternoon (celebrating making the honor roll!) comes rushing back.  It makes me remember the roller skating rink, the three neighborhood arcades (wow were we lucky!), old friends, first loves, and yes, even the grocery store.  Grand Theft Auto 3 can't hold a candle to that.

Coleman

[genesim]

I have great nostlagia for the early years and playing Donkey Kong and Space Invaders before that...but the fighting games are what made me serious.

Online does not give you the same interaction and the arcades had their last little sigh because of MK and SFII bringing audiences back from the wooing away that happened with the home cosoles.

I don't know about you guys, but MK looked like ASS on all the home systems.    For me, the arcades were always superior and that is why I made my own....and am still working on it.  

Until the Dreamcast, arcades were all there was.

And yes, fighting games were a "CRAZE" because MK sold in numbers not seen since the Pacman days.     If you calculate for inflation.   MK actually is up there with some of the greats.    I was there for both, and I know a craze when I see one.    MK conquered not only the arcades, but the home systems too.   A feat that nonone had done in the same way before..or perhaps since.     

[gbeef]

I wasn't around for the game craze im 27, i remember playing games like altered beast and golden axe. Those were the games that did it for me, as for the fighters im a huge fan of the them also. I dont really think arcades started to die until the 3D stuff started to release.. ex. playstion, sega saturn.... etc.

I think the thing that was appealing was the graphics and the experinces you couldnt get on  a nintendo.  like you could play daytona USA on console. I also persoanlly dont like playing a video game that take 50 hours to beat... simply dont have the time.
 Im not a WOW player...

[KenToad]

This thread turned weird.     I'm 30 and I consider myself as having seen the last of the golden age of arcade gaming.  I can remember when it seemed every diner or convenience store that my dad would take me into would have a giant box or two that I could go over and pretend like I was playing.  We were lucky that we had a good arcade that kept the classics around when arcade games retreated back into the arcades in the mid to late 80's, so I visited the arcade every day, with or without money, just to take in the sights and sounds of the soon-to-be classics.  I also really liked that foosball-ish hockey game with the plastic bubble over it.  I vividly remember a Red Baron sitdown, Star Wars upright, Karate Champ VS., Sinistar, Bosconian, a Ms. Pac cocktail, Gyruss, Galaga, Space Invaders, Q-Bert, Congo Bongo, Kung-Fu Master, Yie-Ar Kung Fu, Zaxxon, Tron, Spy Hunter (my fave, for the music!), Zoo Keeper, Dig Dug.  I remember the day I first played four player Gauntlet and when we all realized that our healths were inexplicably ticking down like quarter-hungry time bombs.

Yes, let's all take a deep breath and remember the good days of arcade gaming, folks, even if we weren't all there to see them.

 

[Sir Auros]

jcoleman - The late 80's and early 90's had games in all of those places as well, so I don't know what point you're trying to prove there. In regards to the control argument, disliking complex controls is not the same thing that Artifact was implying. He very strongly implied that modern controllers are only enjoyable by "hardcore gamers" and that they aren't normal people somehow and that normal people cannot use modern controls. All of those statements are false. That's the key difference between an opinion and what he tried to pass off as an opinion. I can't stand people who hide behind the defense that what they're saying is an opinion when it's not.

Re:Other youthful people (Green Giant, etc.) - I know, the attitude on these forums has shifted a lot since I first joined. Now there's more cranky older guys and if you're not restoring a classic*, you're likely to be ignored.

*Classic, of course, excluding any game made past 1986.

[CheffoJeffo]

A well-produced video and interesting to get another point of view (although I think that understanding of the timelines  and events is a little lacking).

If you want what I would consider to be a more accurate, and interesting, representation as to what happened, check the Icons episode that dfmaverick mentions.

FWIW, my belief is that there were lots more normal people playing arcade games in the golden age than are playing consoles now, so perhaps Artifact's comment about controls wasn't too far off the mark. 

[Barry Barcrest]

That video would have made more sense if the people in it were actually around at the time of the games they are talking about. They say that SFII and MK were the last bounce, but they didn't mention the rise of the immersive games like the outrun simulator, hard driving, afterburner 360, 8 player daytona, ridge racer 1:1 scale, Finally ending in Dance Dance Revolution series. These carried arcades well into the 90's before they finally gave up the ghost.

[Justin Z]

Ironically, I completely agree with your post in regards to the video.    They are definitely all old enough to be around to see the death of arcades, though their historical knowledge may be lacking.  I'm only 27 but I was literally going to arcades with my dad when I was 2, so my memory goes back pretty far.  I definitely do remember arcade machines being in grocery stores and lots of other random places, in fact there were three different stores near my house, all with different games at different times (Paperboy, Mario Bros., Elevator Action come to mind).  Thing is, this piece was titled "The Death of Arcades," right?  So what does those machines disappearing have to do with it at all?  I thought that was a tangent that didn't make much sense given the context of what the video was supposed to really be about.  So while I liked the piece, I feel it lacked focus.

[jimjim]

One part of the evolution that I saw in the arcades was of a movement towards games that had a hard time being replicated at home.  These were games where there was a focus on unusual controlers that were too big and bulky, or just too expensive for the home console market.  This could be like a skiing game, skateboard control, fishing control, Harley Davidson racer, etc... Sega usually was the main developer for getting these out in arcades.  Ironically, when Sega put the Dreamcast out, they did try to port some of these to their console.

Another part that wasn't mentioned was how the console market killed the pinball market.  From what I understand, and I don't have figures, there are more pinballs now sold for the home market compared to being sold to arcades, or put on routes.  I'm sure there are many other reasons for these, but the lack of arcades couldn't of helped the pinball market.

[saint]

Editing scissors taken to thread, bickering sliced out, thread restored(?).

Oh, and all you dang 20-something console players... GET OFF MY LAWN! Danged youngsters....

[FrizzleFried]

 

Yah!

[Sir Auros]

Two other things that bugged me about the video:

1 - None of those people has as much gaming cred. as someone from a game website and it showed.
2 - I really don't think the Sega was what killed arcades. Few of the Genesis games looked as good (or played as well) as the arcade versions and once home consoles started to catch up, arcades went ahead of them again to 3D..

[Green Giant]

*Classic, of course, excluding any game made past 1986.

Food for thought, insurance companies generally quote any vehicle 25 year or older as a classic.  That would make anything after 82' a nonclassic.  On a brighter note, a few years from now all the games I grew up on will be considered classics by you old fogies, but sadly I will be one by then.

*  Also, don't forget all the driving sims that came out in the early 90's.  I must have lost tons of cash in Cruisin USA.  It sort of sucked when I could play the same game on PS, but before that it was a blast.  So stop arguing that nothing but fighters came out after 86'.

[Sir Auros]

Uh...did you think I was arguing that? I was being sarcastic about the view people have on what is a "classic."

You also had the heyday of side-scrolling beat-em-ups in the late 80s - early 90s. Then on the console side you have several new (at the time) genres that weren't possible in arcades. Could you imagine playing Dragon Warrior in the arcades? Imagine how much that would cost on a playchoice.

[Green Giant]

I followed everything you were saying Auros.  Just reitterating it for all the people that kept knocking anything that wasn't made in the 70's.  I saw the crap you got about defending modern gaming.  I agree with you, there is no way 120 million people are video game experts.

120 million+ sold PS2's to date

[RayB]

If "complexity" of gaming wasn't an issue to certain demographics, we wouldn't have the explosion known as the Casual Gaming market (crazy growth, and most of the games would bore the average Playstation gamer to tears)

[BrentRadio]

I thought the video was ok, nothing special.

I find this thread much more interesting though! I like seeing the young'uns and the old fogies going at it. As for me, my console of choice was the Atari 2600, still have it and 350 carts too. I never did like the NES controller, too many buttons. But I was 18 at the time and had too many other things on my mind (girls, drinking, parties, girls, booze, girls, working, and girls who were drinking) to learn what button A did and what button B did. Give me a joystick and 1 red button and I would kick your ass in just about any game. That's just the way it was for me. And yes, I grew up in the golden age of the arcades, and no matter what anyone says, it was never the same after the crash in 83. Yeah you may have played Pacman, or Frogger, but if you weren't there to experience the thrill and awe of seeing it for the first time with 10 people around it waiting to play it, then you missed out. There will never be, and there never has been the same feeling as those days.

But just because someone younger who grew up in the late 80's and early 90's didn't get to experience those feelings and emotions doesn't mean that their arcade memories aren't just as strong for them. There were plenty of "classics" during that time, just classics to a different set of people. We can argue that Galaxian is a classic, and so is Galaga that came after it and Space Invaders that came before it. The same goes for MKII. SFII came before it and other great fighters came after it.

I think it's best to give props to each era, for what each brought to the arcade, and to the memories of the people who lived through it. The cool thing about this hobby is that it brings all of us together. I never played MKII before, but when I came across one for only $16.33 I did a little research and found out that it IS a classic. So I am proud to own it, even though I suck at it and don't know ANY moves, I still like it. There are lots of "newer" collectors who have some of the older classics in there collection. And to me that brings it full circle. We can all get along! 

One of the reasons why I collect and restore these old games is to preserve the memories of my childhood and to pass that on to future generations. Everytime I have an arcade party, the kids play my classics constantly the entire night, and that is all the reasons I need.

Brent

P.S. The golden Age was the only time in arcade history that little kids were pimping themselves out and working the streets to get a couple of quarters to play some Dig Dug and Donkey Kong...   If you don't believe me then watch this...     

[NickS]

 

Very Funny.

[jcoleman]

jcoleman - The late 80's and early 90's had games in all of those places as well, so I don't know what point you're trying to prove there. In regards to the control argument, disliking complex controls is not the same thing that Artifact was implying. He very strongly implied that modern controllers are only enjoyable by "hardcore gamers" and that they aren't normal people somehow and that normal people cannot use modern controls. All of those statements are false. That's the key difference between an opinion and what he tried to pass off as an opinion. I can't stand people who hide behind the defense that what they're saying is an opinion when it's not.

I meant the time when just about EVERY grocery store, drug store, gas station, convenience store, and Waffle House had at least one arcade game.  That was certainly not the case in my area in the late 80's and early 90's.  Artifact's opinion* is that console games are getting too complex for non-gamers (i.e. the majority of the population, of which we are obviously not a part) to pick up and enjoy quickly.  There is a lot of agreement on that and that's why the Wii has been so successful (try to buy one!), not to mention the tons and tons of successful casual games that are out there now.  There's plenty of room for both, however, and I totally agree with BrentRadio's comments.

BTW, your "old fogey syndrome" comment is just as bad as us "old fogeys" taking "cheap shots" (as GG said) at the 20-something crowd.  Age-ism is BS no matter which way it goes, so let's all just try to get along - I'll look you up when I finally pick up a 360 and we can play SF2. 

* (he was clearly making a point by humorous exaggeration when he made the "have a PHD in the room" comment, not taking a personal swipe at anyone)

[RandyT]

I have a theory as to why the Wii is enjoying success in a market where it is clearly outclassed from a technological standpoint;  It came with a pack-in that even the old fogeys can jump in and play without going through a 30-minute tutorial, or reading a book.  It's marketed to "casual gamers" and those who have been cast aside by the recent gaming trends.

I agree with RayB.  There is clearly a market for a "gimme a simple game to enjoy for a 10 or 15 minute break I might have in my busy day."  I think those who can afford to spend 5 hours a day playing a video game can safely be considered "serious gamers."  They are the same people who will pay the $75 for the latest title, and who will think nothing of learning complex control schemes that utilize every button on the gamepad (x2 because the left trigger is a toggle.)  Honestly, I enjoy the depth that some of the more complicated games provide, but I just don't have the time for them. 

I also remember the first time PONG showed up at the local K-Mart next to the "2-plays for a quarter 5-ball pinball machine."  This was literally like someone seeing an automobile rumble past them for the first time on a horseshit and mud covered unpaved street.  We see cars everyday and the machines of today make the early ones look ridiculous at best.  But the people who were around the early ones at the time, experienced the quantum shift in society and the way we perceived things as a result.  Just like with cars, every new game spawned speculation about what would be next and the form it would take.  Imaginations ran wild, and there just weren't enough quarters in the universe to satiate the gaming desires of the young people of the time.  There will probably be some technology that represents this same "step" around the corner, but there hasn't been one since then.

As for the decline of the arcades, it was simple economics.  Based on the above, it didn't take people long to start looking at how much they were spending, 25 cents at a time.  And the more poorly you played, the more it cost.  All of the home video game companies tapped into this as a marketing strategy and quickly had people doing the math and realizing that once they made the investment in the console, the $25 game could save them a quarter every time they played it!  Sure, the games weren't as advanced as the arcades at the time, but they were still fun and could provide a reasonably similar experience.  Every time the home  console advanced, it placed another nail into the coffin of the arcade.  I still remember the day that I personally called it over...Sega Saturn and Sony Playstation had been out for a few months and I was taking a stroll through the local arcade.  There were the big, "can't do it at home" type games, redemption machines and fighters.  A few people on the fighters, a few kiddies playing the redemption machines, and everything else pretty much static.  The console had finally taken over.

The problem with the hobby is that us old farts can show the younger group the games that inspired many of us, and like the first automobiles, were the foundation for what we know today.  But unfortunately, there's no way to fully convey the experience of living through both the dawn and eventual demise of of the arcade phenomena.

RandyT

[Malenko]

I was going to reply before watching the video, but I'm glad I watched it first.

First off, the video was quite shallow and Harry Potter came off as completely uncompelling. Also, the guy with the really horrid sideburns had a super annoying lisp. I'd prolly nail the tattoo chick if given the opportunity. The Icons show on G4 did an exponentially better job of doing what this "show" tried (and exceedingly failed) to do.

The dumbest point I saw was saying Final Fight sucked... it was a great game back in the day... they stated you could take it home and die all you want, but the game was $50, thats 1 start and 99 continues, if you cant do that in final fight in the arcade you should stick to needlepoint.

Another "point" in the video was that you cant play sports games at the arcade....
Yeah NFL Blitz, NBA Jam, and NHL Open Ice were abysmal. If you want less "modern" examples; Pigskin , Arch Rivals, and Hit the Ice. All good sports games (the olders at their time) imo   

I don't really understand the attack on the Neo Geo though, the games were arcade perfect, the ROM data was exactly the same! The price point is what killed it, not the games. If you bought a Neo Geo , you went in knowing that 90% of the games were fighters.... I own 2 NeoGeos.

To reply more to this thread, I'm 27 I enjoyed a multitude of arcade games, frogger, bad dudes, pac man,Street Fighter Alpha, MKII  been there played that, hell I even owned kickman on my C64. More often then not I played games at my local corner store, who always had 2 machines; one of the first I played was Break Thru, and that is the game that sucked me into arcades. If I didn't play at the corner store I either played on the rare trips to the mall or roller rink, or every Saturday at the bowling alley. The only real arcade was at the mall 20 miles away and I didnt have a car or a way to get there short of my parents or friends when they went with their parents.

As for no classics post 1985?
memory dont fail me now......

Tetris
Smash TV
Arkanoid
Ikari Warriors
Contra
Rampage
Out Run
Shinobi
Golden Axe
Street Fighter II

I could list a hundred or so great games but those can still be revered to as classics imo.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Mortal Kombat II on SNES was a downright AMAZING PORT, yeah the fighters were scaled down but other then that it felt like MKII at the arcade. Street Fighter II ,and all the variants as well, were ported superbly to SNES.

I dont get the Wii and other then bowling all the games have sucked on it, my nephews only play the GC games I bought them on their Wii and Tony Hawk downhill jam

[TOK]

The people in this video touched on a point with the Final Fight comments, but completely failed to cite something much more important. When Street Fighter 2 Turbo came out for the SNES, it was one of the biggest hyped releases and most expensive games of all time. I remember being in Electronics Boutique and the pre-order price was $75.

Mortal Kombat wasn't more expensive than regular titles, but it was a huge release on both the Genesis and SNES.

They don't even seem to know enough about the subject to touch on the arcade game/console overlap, let alone on arcade games themselves. They talk in stereotypes, too, which is ironic, since thats mostly what they are... Wild Tattoo Girl, Nerdy Sweater Man, and Big Sideburn Guy. The slightly older looking scruffy dude seemed to be the only one who might have a clue.

[SavannahLion]

I don't really understand the attack on the Neo Geo though, the games were arcade perfect, the ROM data was exactly the same! The price point is what killed it, not the games. If you bought a Neo Geo , you went in knowing that 90% of the games were fighters.... I own 2 NeoGeos.

Please tell me you're not an NGF fan. 

I was thinking about their comparison between Arcades and the console ports. Did these people actually play any of the console versions and arcade versions? They say the ports are "exact" right?

I remember the exactness of console ports was always a sticking point between pro-console and pro-arcade gamers. The desirability of owning the NeoGeo was precisely for this reason. Even way back then, many of us were torn between buying a NeoGeo or a car (most of us went for the car. The possibility of sex is a damned good motivator).

[RayB]

Randy: You really nailed it with the "first time you saw a car" analogy. I can't quite remember the exact first time I saw a video game, but I remember one of them being when we were on familiy vacation and stopped off at a little fast food joint in the New Hampshire mountains to eat. They had a Berzerk and a SpiderMan pinball.  Berzerk TALKED man! The feeling I had as a kid, seeing this big standing "monolith" was that it was "computer technology", and for a quarter, *I* could be allowed to interact with this technology. To a kid like me, who had not yet seen or played a home video game, this was just AWESOME!

[Green Giant]

The first time you saw a car analogy doesn't really hold water as an age determination.

I am 23, and I can still remember the first time I went into an arcade.  It was amazing to me.  I ran away from my parents, and after they found me, they had to force me to leave.  Its not like in the 80's they were so common that by the time you turned 3 they were no big deal.  I can remember the crowds of people waiting to play dragon's lair. 

I had no access to computers or video game consoles before I played my first arcade, so the shock and awe carried through to my generation.  I remember visiting my dad's rich friend who owned 3 arcade games and a pinball.  Ever since then I wanted my own too, and now I have fulfilled that dream.

[RandyT]

The first time you saw a car analogy doesn't really hold water as an age determination.

Everyone had their own "awakening moment" to every technology, be it cars, TV, microwave ovens or video games.  However, the thing that changes that moment is the knowing, by experiencing it, what life and society was like before any of those things existed.  This allows one to see how the world changed to accommodate, even in the possibly negative ways, such as kids not getting as much exercise and fresh air as they should and the greater dependency on the TV and the machines that some said "possessed their souls"

RandyT

[SavannahLion]

The first time you saw a car analogy doesn't really hold water as an age determination.

To every single one of us, cars have always been a part of our daily lives. So seeing their fundamental importance to us is something we take for granted. We know it's important to us and our lives, but we never really experienced what it was like before. Arcades have always held some measure of influence on my life. I remember feeding quarters into PONG and Tempest before I knew how to read instructions, count money or verbally speak.

What Randy is describing is the notion that a person is realizing that they're standing at the cusp of a change so radical that life forever after (or until the next fall of civilization ) will never be the same again.

The automobile is probably the best example of this, but that's not to say it's the only one. Telvisions had a similar effect as entire families gathered around a ---smurfy--- black & white 9" screen when they realized they can watch their favorite program instead of just listening. Or that feeling a person had when the CD player was introduced to them and they realized that they didn't need to rewind or fast forward like they did with audio tapes.

Seeing something for the first time is unquestionably an awesome feeling, even if it's old by other people's standards.

Seeing something for the first time, realizing it represents a radical change in society, then riding the crest of that change is something rarely matched.

Neither of those feelings are any less genuine than the other. They're both good sex, just different kinds of sex.

Edit: Looks like I took too long to compose....

[CheffoJeffo]

The first time you saw a car analogy doesn't really hold water as an age determination.

Everyone had their own "awakening moment" to every technology, be it cars, TV, microwave ovens or video games.  However, the thing that changes that moment is the knowing, by experiencing it, what life and society was like before any of those things existed.  This allows one to see how the world changed to accommodate, even in the possibly negative ways, such as kids not getting as much exercise and fresh air as they should and the greater dependency on the TV and the machines that some said "possessed their souls"

RandyT

 

EXACTLY

 

[Sir Auros]

I meant the time when just about EVERY grocery store, drug store, gas station, convenience store, and Waffle House had at least one arcade game.  That was certainly not the case in my area in the late 80's and early 90's.

That was the case where I was at that time, and I wasn't living in a major metropolitan area, either. I think a certain style of games died off in arcades in the 80's, but I don't think that was the death of arcades. Get what I mean?

Artifact's opinion* is that console games are getting too complex for non-gamers (i.e. the majority of the population, of which we are obviously not a part) to pick up and enjoy quickly.  There is a lot of agreement on that and that's why the Wii has been so successful (try to buy one!), not to mention the tons and tons of successful casual games that are out there now.  There's plenty of room for both, however, and I totally agree with BrentRadio's comments.

I can't recall who said something before your post here about casual games, but the key demographic is non-gamers. As I read it when Artifact first said it, he was implying that only hardcore gamers (which would exclude many, many gamers) can enjoy modern games on non-Wii consoles. Casual games are a lucrative market, but it's more because they're tapping a previously untapped market (ie - old people).

BTW, your "old fogey syndrome" comment is just as bad as us "old fogeys" taking "cheap shots" (as GG said) at the 20-something crowd.  Age-ism is BS no matter which way it goes, so let's all just try to get along - I'll look you up when I finally pick up a 360 and we can play SF2. 

I'm not saying it isn't, but from my viewpoint, I was responding in kind to perceived ageism from someone with a decidedly old fogey attitude. I do think things have shifted on this board from when I joined back in 2003 and young people who also play modern consoles are in the minority. As for SF2 on Live...let's wait until the HD remix comes out or I build a joystick. 

* (he was clearly making a point by humorous exaggeration when he made the "have a PHD in the room" comment, not taking a personal swipe at anyone)

I still just can't respect the argument that there's too many buttons. Non-gamers can be intimidated by the controls (but they can learn them regardless), but people with experience with games have nothing to fear.

[CheffoJeffo]

* (he was clearly making a point by humorous exaggeration when he made the "have a PHD in the room" comment, not taking a personal swipe at anyone)

I still just can't respect the argument that there's too many buttons. Non-gamers can be intimidated by the controls (but they can learn them regardless), but people with experience with games have nothing to fear.

But, WHY can't you respect it ?

You can disagree and that is fine, but the fact that others have chimed in with the same sentiments indicates that perhaps you SHOULD respect the viewpoint, even if you disagree.

As for the shift since you joined ... I'm not so sure. I know for a fact that many of the old timers play current console games (and would probably like to give you the smoke of love!). And you say it as if it is a bad thing.

I think that the fact that we now have more members well-versed in the history and preservation of vids is a good thing. But then, I am an old fogey.

 

[Sir Auros]

I can't respect it for the reasons I've been over again and again. It's not an opinion, it's a falsehood. Anyone familiar with videogames should be able to sit down and use a modern controller without difficulty and it's just coming from ignorance to say that modern games are too complex or you need to read a manual to be able to understand how to play. If you're familiar with the basics that a joystick will move you around and buttons do stuff, the bulk of modern games will guide you through everything.

The time issue or disinterest in genres, those I can respect. Bunk about the controls, I cannot, because it's just flat-out wrong.

It's a moot point about others expressing similar "opinions," since most of those were edited out since they weren't so much similar thoughts as they were retribution for a perceived slight.

[CheffoJeffo]

I can't respect it for the reasons I've been over again and again. It's not an opinion, it's a falsehood.

...

t's a moot point about others expressing similar "opinions," since most of those were edited out since they weren't so much similar thoughts as they were retribution for a perceived slight.

You know, you really are arrogant [EDIT]

My opinion was mine and posted as such.

Please don't take the tranq-route and declare that your opinion is all that matters and that anybody who disagrees is just wrong. Try to appreciate that there are people who PREFER to play a simple game like Galaga instead of a more involved console game.

It doesn't make them wrong, just like playing the latest and greatest on your 360 doesn't make you right.

 

[AMDman13]

I still can't believe that the Coleco-Vision wasn't mentioned as the first console to successfully port the arcades at home. Their ports were true to the arcade back in 1982-1985 and I'm not talking 2600 quality ports here.

They had DK, DKJR, Frenzy, Venture, Turbo, Space Panic, Carnival, Lady Bug, Slither and Zaxxon just to name a few. They also offered a steering wheel and trackball for different types of games.

I'm 33, so I'm not sure where I stand.

I remember being little and waiting in line to play Pacman, a little older waiting in line to play Double Dragon, and even older waiting in line to play SF2. I think I probably fall in between. Anyway I can now play all these games at home in there native resolutions on a 27" arcade monitor on my own cabinet! I guess that's the beauty of this hobby!

[Sir Auros]

I can't respect it for the reasons I've been over again and again. It's not an opinion, it's a falsehood.

...

t's a moot point about others expressing similar "opinions," since most of those were edited out since they weren't so much similar thoughts as they were retribution for a perceived slight.

You know, you really are arrogant [EDIT]

My opinion was mine and posted as such.

Please don't take the tranq-route and declare that your opinion is all that matters and that anybody who disagrees is just wrong. Try to appreciate that there are people who PREFER to play a simple game like Galaga instead of a more involved console game.

It doesn't make them wrong, just like playing the latest and greatest on your 360 doesn't make you right.

 

I've never been saying that. What I've been saying all along is that the comments in question were not opinions. I've never said I disagree with people who would "prefer to play a simple game," but the idea that only hardcore gamers can enjoy modern games. I've been arguing with him writing off modern games because only certain people can use the controls, not that he prefers simpler games.

That's the "opinion" he was pulling out, and I don't care if you do think I'm arrogant, that is not an opinion because it can be proven factually wrong.* I even stated that in my last post, so I'm not sure why I'm repeating it. I guess if you can call me arrogant, I can say that I'm going over it again because I think you must be a little slow. 

Also, I never said your opinion wasn't posted to express similar thoughts, but that many of the other people posted solely to gang up, not express their opinions on the argument. Now, if some of your posts got edited out too...

*Example - My wife is not a hardcore gamer. She hadn't played games since the NES. When the Wind Waker came out, she played it and beat it. She plays the occasional modern "hardcore" game with no trouble whatsoever with the controls. She doesn't play much because she would rather watch TV or read, but the controls have never been an issue. I know other people who only got into gaming again with the PS2 or Xbox1, and those have just as many buttons (almost an identical control scheme) as the current generation.

EDIT - Now, do you really need to continue this, or can we get it back on topic? Mind, I will respond if people keep having at it, but I'd rather talk about the video's substance and/or the real death of arcades.

[CheffoJeffo]

idea that only hardcore gamers can enjoy modern games.

!=

Product Design, input and interaction design have not been focusing on targeting HUMANS. they targetted hardcore gamers instead.

What he said that was that the console design was targeting hardcore gamers, not that only hardcore gamers can enjoy modern games.

In fact, he specifically cited the Wii (which, last time I looked was a modern gaming console!) as a counter example to that trend.

When we create a game, we try to create entertainment that is appealing to everybody. Here there is a lot of talk about the casual and the hardcore market. We don’t look at casual versus the hardcore. There are a lot of hardcore gamers who play a lot of casual games. And within the casual games, we can win some of them over and get them to play the games that are more hardcore. We are trying to break down the psychological barriers even between those two groups.

To my mind, ARTIFACT's posts are completely consitent with what Miyamoto says.

again these are all povs and its great that we have dif. povs

 

[jcoleman]

my pesonal pov is that Product Design, input and interaction design have not been focusing on targeting HUMANS. they targetted hardcore gamers instead.

He's not afraid of the games (sorry for speaking for you here Artifact), he's just not interested in complicated control schemes.  It's his point of view.  You disagreed and then you called him an "old fogey" and a "regular old retard[ation]".

I can say that I'm going over it again because I think you must be a little slow.  

You see, that's the problem here.  It's not a "perceived slight," it's you being a jerk.  I can agree with Artifact that controls are too complicated for many games, targeted toward the hardcore gamer, etc. etc., and I can also agree with you that complex controls do not automatically make a game not worth my time and in fact can be quite rewarding.  

What I don't agree with is your constant need to be "right" and have the last word, and being a complete jerk about it.  At the end of the day I'm sure you think you feel better that you got the better of someone, but did you *really* gain anything by it or have you just lost something?  Trust me I have been that guy and it's really not that rewarding in the long run.

Anyway, back on topic.  I think we are probably comparing apples to oranges with respect to the death of arcades vs. the death of arcade GAMES.  I think a fair argument can be made that the general arcade game craze died off in the mid- to late-80's.  Of course arcades stuck around b/c they were a draw to people who wanted to play for a while but didn't have home consoles.  But at this point operators must have seen a drop off in route revenues b/c cabs started disappearing from those unusual places like K-Mart and Waffle House (that one still cracks me up for some reason).  That's not to say you don't see the occasional game in a place like that, but I remember a time when EVERY major store had a game or two.  Arcade revenues went up again due to the new 50 cents a play std, games that let you continue, and the general fighting game craze (which certainly did not match the initial hysteria - you didn't see SNL making shorts about that, did you?).  Immersive games kept it going once people could play SF2 at home, and *THEN* you have the death of arcades.

Coleman

[FrizzleFried]

>cofullugh<

>couofgh<

>coshitugh<

...friggin' cold.   Bottom line is that some people don't want to be BOTHERED with modern games as they are CASSUAL GAMERS who want to get in play and go.  MOST modern games don't subscribe to that formula.  There ARE exceptions of course.

[CheffoJeffo]

I guess if you can call me arrogant, I can say that I'm going over it again because I think you must be a little slow. 

Not really ... slow is starting a simple cab conversion project in 2004 and still not being done in 2007 ... oh wait ... maybe I am slow ...

 

[PsychoAU]

To say you prefer not to play complicated controls is one thing.  Saying that people can't learn how to play complicated controls is another.  Auros is saying that people can learn the controls.  So I agree that saying that games are too complicated to learn is wrong (even if it is an opinion).

The video was saying that a simple game that gave you 10 minutes of fun for 25 cents was great, but not worth $50 for the same 10 minutes over and over on a console version.  So developers had to give games more depth to justify asking for $50.  Most console ports of arcades were only worth renting, playing a few times, and taking it back. 

It's exactly why I think the Wii craze will die very quickly.  There are only so many times you can play bowling or tennis before you get bored and wonder why you spent $250 for that.  If simple games still made money, then some simple sports games would be all you need.  Instead, all the Wii people are complaining about having to wait for Nintendo to release the new versions of Metroid, Zelda, Mario, etc. 

Simple games just don't command the price that consoles are asking for. 

[CheffoJeffo]

So I agree that saying that games are too complicated to learn is wrong (even if it is an opinion).

But, who said that ?

EDIT: FWIW, I used to play a lot of Falcon 4.0. If ever there was a game that was too complicated to learn, F4.0 was it. Obviously I don't think that games are too complicated to learn -- and get off of my lawn!

[Sir Auros]

[

I can say that I'm going over it again because I think you must be a little slow. 

You see, that's the problem here.  It's not a "perceived slight," it's you being a jerk.

Oh look, it's another person overlooking someone else's insult to flame me for responding in kind.  He called me arrogant, I called him slow, and neither one is really what I'd consider an insult, but they're not overly nice, either. As I said, I had already said what I was repeating for him.

Wii Play is a counter-example of new generation games actually embracing some of these concepts from the old arcade-style games... where you can enjoy a 30 minutes game and don't need a PHD int he room to figure out how to work the controls.

Even with the sarcasm, he's implying that modern controls are overly difficult when they really shouldn't be if you're familiar with the joystick/button input configuration.

my pesonal pov is that Product Design, input and interaction design have not been focusing on targeting HUMANS. they targetted hardcore gamers instead. hence the exponential number of buttons on home consoles over the years.

That says to me that he thinks that the current generation of consoles (and previous generations excluding the Wii) are targeted at hardcore gamers and not "humans." Why are you speaking for him when he refuses to speak for himself? Part of the reason I said he sounded ridiculous in the first place was because he wouldn't back up his "opinion." If he had clarified that [he doesn't care for those controls and that he didn't mean that people can't enjoy them], then I would have left it at that.

Finally, I'm not bringing the hostility, you guys are, so why don't you just knock if off before the thread has to be edited again?

[CheffoJeffo]

Why are you speaking for him when he refuses to speak for himself?

His posts speak for him just fine -- you are the one reading other meanings into them (BTW -- only he can tell us what he implied ... you can only report what you inferred, which was different from what I did, which should be reason enough to assume that things aren't as cut and dried as you make them out to be).

Or maybe he is afraid of post hell (I guess I am not).

Or maybe he doesn't spend all of his time here.

Even with the sarcasm, he's implying that modern controls are overly difficult when they really shouldn't be if you're familiar with the joystick/button input configuration.

Hey, I can play Defender and some of the control schemes for modern games confuse the bejeebus out of me.

I could learn, but why bother when I could just play ... Defender ?

 

[Sir Auros]

He responded before, so he had a chance to clear up my inferences. I don't like it when people cop-out on the opinion crutch rather than just explain themselves.

Not really ... slow is starting a simple cab conversion project in 2004 and still not being done in 2007 ... oh wait ... maybe I am slow ...

That, I really have to give to you. 

[PsychoAU]

But, who said that ?

All these people (including you)...

Wii Play is a counter-example of new generation games actually embracing some of these concepts from the old arcade-style games... where you can enjoy a 30 minutes game and don't need a PHD int he room to figure out how to work the controls.

Artifact's comment about controls wasn't too far off the mark.

Back to the "modern games have too many buttons" argument...that is a 100% valid reason for disliking a game (or class of games).

They are the same people who will pay the $75 for the latest title, and who will think nothing of learning complex control schemes that utilize every button on the gamepad (x2 because the left trigger is a toggle.)

[CheffoJeffo]

But, who said that ?

All these people (including you)...

Wii Play is a counter-example of new generation games actually embracing some of these concepts from the old arcade-style games... where you can enjoy a 30 minutes game and don't need a PHD int he room to figure out how to work the controls.

Artifact's comment about controls wasn't too far off the mark.

Back to the "modern games have too many buttons" argument...that is a 100% valid reason for disliking a game (or class of games).

They are the same people who will pay the $75 for the latest title, and who will think nothing of learning complex control schemes that utilize every button on the gamepad (x2 because the left trigger is a toggle.)

I disagree ...

ARTIFACT said that the Wii is a situation where you can enjoy a 30 minute game without having to work to learn the controls. That is a very different thing from saying that people can't learn complicated controls.

Same reasoning applies to each of the quotes you provide...

My quote follows from the above ... since ARTIFACT didn't say what you attribute to him, my saying that his point has merit does not indicate that I said that people can't learn complicated controls (as I explained, I played F4.0 ... if you have ever played a game with more complicated controls, please let me know ... I know all about learning complicated controls).

jcoleman's quote indicates a preference (e.g. the use of the term disliking) for uncomplicated controls, not an inability to learn.

RandyT's quote explicitly states that the complex control schemes can be learned, so how are you attributing him with a "can't be learned" position ?

[Sir Auros]

Can we all at least agree that the video was stupid?

[CheffoJeffo]

Can we all at least agree that the video was stupid?

 

I didn't think it was stupid ... I did, however, think that they were wrong ...

 

[Sir Auros]

Can we all at least agree that the video was stupid?

 

I didn't think it was stupid ... I did, however, think that they were wrong ...

 

Ugh. The crap theories on the end and the emo kids? Really?

[genesim]

The separation for me with modern games...with exceptions of course, is that they aren't as fun to me.

As for the controller scheme, I don't care what new gamepad you use, you cannot get the feel of Centipede without a roller ball...Ikari Warriors without a Rotary...Tempest without a Spinner...Pacman without a 4 way...Battlezone without dedicated dual sticks(i.e. at least 4-way...preferrably 2-way)...Tron without combination....etc. etc.

No matter how much you hug the new game pads, there is more then a little missing.   It isn't about complicated, it is the fact that the originals cannot be done properly!

I for one HATE using my thumb for 360 moves as opposed to using my whole hand.   It is much easier and makes for better gameplay.   

Also, games I feel are meant to be played standing up.      Not sitting on your fat ass eating chips.

[Green Giant]

Also, games I feel are meant to be played standing up.      Not sitting on your fat ass eating chips.

You need to play a couple games of Halo or (insert favorite multiplay shooting game) with some friends.  Either there isn't enough alcohol or you have the coolest head of anyone I know.  By the end of playing everyone is on there feet laughing and talking *expletive deleted* to everyone else.


- On a side note, it might be possible only "hardcore" gamers bought the xbox/PS2 with complicated controls, but that would also mean there are 144,000,000+ "hardcore" gamers out there.

[genesim]

Thats the problem nowadays...too many wimps.

Halo has an end.   Fighting games can go on for infinity. 

Standing up is in line with a victory pose.    Sitting down just looks stupid if you are trying to put something in someone's face.

Same goes for the online experience.    Where is the fear in getting your ass kicked?   Gee that is so threatening...type type type. 

All I can say is if you get too tired/drunk then you shouldn't be playing video games.    Unless ---my bottom--- is completely passed out, I can go on and on like the energizer bunny.    Hours and hours and hours.    My hands give up before my legs that is for sure. 

Incidently...a multiplayer shooter is very possible with a well made CP panel.   I have every key on the keyboard covered, and then some.    I HATE gamepads, and I hate Keyboards even more.    They are both fragile pieces of crap.

Arcade stick TROUNCES a thumb pad...could it get any more Strawberry Shortcake?

[Dudeman]

EDIT: FWIW, I used to play a lot of Falcon 4.0. If ever there was a game that was too complicated to learn, F4.0 was it. Obviously I don't think that games are too complicated to learn -- and get off of my lawn!

I had that game and hated it. Trying to land was a b#$ch.

[RayB]

Also, games I feel are meant to be played standing up.      Not sitting on your fat ass eating chips.

HEY! That's called PROGRESS. I will now get off your lawn.

 

[Justin Z]

EDIT: FWIW, I used to play a lot of Falcon 4.0. If ever there was a game that was too complicated to learn, F4.0 was it. Obviously I don't think that games are too complicated to learn -- and get off of my lawn!

I had that game and hated it. Trying to land was a b#$ch.

Heh I had Falcon 3.0 and I always had autopilot do takeoff and landing!    I guess you couldn't do that with 4.0?

[TOK]

I love flight sims... I think taking off and landing in Falcon 3 was easy compared to getting the 610k of free conventional memory required to launch the game. 

One thing that appeals to me a lot with the old games is that now that I have a young child, I can play something for 10 or 15 minutes. I'm still usually playing one newer PC game a couple nights a week after she's in bed, but the short games really have a lot of appeal to people pressed for time.