Main > Main Forum
What Arcade Era Do You Identify With The Most?
Edwards80:
--- Quote from: HanoiBoi on May 23, 2010, 11:11:23 pm ---They really required no skill and you basically paid for time. Plus, it encouraged the wangs that always reached into their pocket for another quarter after you 'put yours up'. Learn arcade etiquette!
--- End quote ---
I don't think its fair to say they require no skill, but I can agree with your comment on the type of people it attracted sometimes.
I was waiting to play SF2 at a 10 pin bowling complex for about 10mins and put my money down to claim the next go after waiting politely. The chap then put it into the machine and carried on playing. He said he thought I wanted to watch him play :banghead: He did bugger off after that and left a credit to make up for it at least :)
HanoiBoi:
Sure, head to head games are different. Maybe I don't know what 'fighting' games are.
The games that I say require no skill are the ones where everyone's fighting for the same goal. Maybe I shouldn't say they require no skill. But, the thinking behind my comments are something like this....I've seen 5-8 year old's finish games like TMNT and the Simpsons by simply adding credits, jumping and attacking. Dodging and keeping the hits down is not really a necessity in the game. The only risk in sucking is adding more credits.
One quarter games require more skill.
manman:
yeah, you're thinking about a different type of game. The "fighting game" genre refers to games like those in the street fighter series, MK, etc where 2 people go against eachother. Of course you can play the cpu, but that I would agree doesn't take much skill, haha.
I messed around with my share of those TMNT style games, and while fun I would mostly agree that it doesn't take that much skill to get through them or anything. That said, the one thing I think is kind of funny about that argument that those games just suck quarters while older games let you "see how far you can get on one quarter" is... nobody is forcing you to continue. I mean, you can just wait the 10 seconds and presto- there's your start from the beginning after you lose game. You have the option to do what you like.
I gotta believe the earlier 'one game is all you get' games sucked quarters just as hard as these kinds of games though... I mean if you're playing to see how far you can get and/or beat your/someone else's high score didn't you end up pumping those quarters in to keep trying and keep getting better? Trying to improve and beat/set a record seems like the more fun/fulfilling pursuit, that's for sure- but I can't imagine that a tmnt style game ate quarters any faster.
Edwards80:
Stick someone who hasn't played many arcade games on Defender, then on TMNT and see which sucks credits quicker :)
I grew up playing the early nineties stuff and it did annoy me then that you could just complete games by paying to play all the way through. I find trying to play through on limited credits makes the games more fun. Setting a limit of 10 continues in Metal slug etc.
kagaden:
My father was big on the early retro stuff and introduced me to arcades when I was a toddler... I still have a love/fascination with Dragon's Lair.
For me though, Street Fighter II is the greatest arcade game ever made. Those years of going to random places or malls and finding a street fighter machine with a crowd of people around it all waiting to throw down made for an incredibly unique way of meeting people with common interests... then pitting skill against skill, sharing moves/secrets, urban legends, etc.
Too awesome, SFII wins it for me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version