default header

Theory

Arcade Culture

Moderator: JC Denton

Arcade Culture

Unread postby Macaw » 15 Jul 2007 05:39

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

Totally awesome article, I hope a shitload of people read it.

The reason the west never understood the 1 credit concept like Japan did certainly has to do with the culture. Here in Australia I was too young to remember very well during much of the 90's exactly what it was like in arcades, but what I do remember is packs of casual looking people credit feeding through everything, whether it be Alien vs Predator or Raiden Fighters, people would just keep continuing until they either finished the game or had no more money. These are obviously people that, if they had finished the game through credit feeding, would never touch the game again because they have 'finished it and seen everything'

Now I don't necessarily mind if a person credit feeds a game to the end, providing that now that they have 'seen everything' they legitimately want to now try to get good at the game (if they like it enough) and therefore begin limiting themselves to 1 credit. Its only when someone credit feeds a game to completion and then never touches it again because 'they have already finished it and have no reason to play again' that I get pissed off, and I'm sure you and many other people feel the same way.

Whats completely ridiculous is sometimes, and I know from personal experience, people will credit feed an arcade game on an emulator, all the while saying 'this game is totally awesome!' and such, yet once they've reached the end they will never touch the game again. It all stems from the fact that these people need a reason to play the game more, and modern games achieve this by making the player have to play the game multiple times in order to unlock concept art or something retarded like that, stuff that the player KNOWS they wont give a shit about, but it still gives them a reason to play through a game they like again.

So obviously then the way people can get into playing arcade games more is for them to play for score, and simply understanding the fact that many arcade games either reset or alter (adding 1 point) the score upon continuing will make the player stop after 1 credit and start again from the beginning, and they will understand.


Another note, what is your opinion of a game like Shadow Over Mystara, that takes about one and a half to two hours to complete? I'm sure within a month of release many Japanese players were already able to do this, and you can imagine 5 separate people of this skill playing in a single day would take about 10 hours, making almost no money for the operator.
User avatar
Macaw
 
Joined: 28 Oct 2006 05:00
Location: Australia

Unread postby Tain » 15 Jul 2007 05:52

Bizarre. I just signed up to write a thread about this.

I loved this article. I don't know if I agree with 100.0% of it, but still. Tons of good points brought up that I never would have thought of, like the balance between the operator and the player and the ideas behind the one-credit rule. And I loved the view of HEY arcade.

I'm a young kid who is pretty much completely removed from arcade gaming. The closest thing I have is a Bemani-heavy student union arcade where I'll play the occasional Pop'n or IIDX with friends. These games definitely have enough of a following there, but I can't exactly experience the full social magic of things when practically nobody touches the few other cabinets. Yet, somehow, I've taken an interest in arcade games. And somehow, years ago, I heard of the one credit rule and it stuck. I guess I have the online communities like the ones mentioned in the article to thank.
User avatar
Tain
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2007 05:28

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Jul 2007 10:55

I am glad you enjoyed the article, guys. Strange as it may seem, half the people who read it end up hating it, and me.

For laughs:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?t=15097

Macaw wrote:Another note, what is your opinion of a game like Shadow Over Mystara, that takes about one and a half to two hours to complete? I'm sure within a month of release many Japanese players were already able to do this, and you can imagine 5 separate people of this skill playing in a single day would take about 10 hours, making almost no money for the operator.


That's a good question. The answer is I don't know. I wish I was in Japan at that time to see how it worked out, but I would imagine that that's one of the reasons games like that are not being made anymore.
Last edited by icycalm on 31 Jul 2007 02:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby MAXCHAIN » 15 Jul 2007 16:55

Hey, IC. I, too, really enjoyed this essay. Like Tain, I barely got to enjoy the arcade environment growing up. However, I've always appreciated the value of 1cc games because of the score factor involved. I've always enjoyed playing for score, so 1cc seemed like the definitive way to beat a game.

Whats completely ridiculous is sometimes, and I know from personal experience, people will credit feed an arcade game on an emulator, all the while saying 'this game is totally awesome!' and such, yet once they've reached the end they will never touch the game again


Like the posers on youtube who post "speedruns" of games and Credit feed till the end? I know what you mean. It definitely speaks about people's attitudes toward games as a whole. Like IC was saying, the few times I spent playing in an arcade I came under the impression that 1cc anything was literally impossible, and that arcade games existed solely for the purpose of eating quarters.

PS: Yeah, SHMUPs dot com has a lot of dicks in it.
MAXCHAIN
 
Joined: 29 Apr 2007 07:06
Location: U.S.

Unread postby filterpunk » 17 Jul 2007 00:39

icycalm wrote:I am glad you enjoyed the article, guys. Strange as it may seem, half the people who read it end up hating it, and me.

For laughs:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?t=15097


I think of the issue as a little more grey than the fairly black-and-white perspective of your article. That said, I also think that people bitching about it not being objective is a little silly. As far as I'm aware, this site is largely focused on writing and talking about particular games/types of games that interest <i>you</i>. Are people so dense that you need to preface every sentence with, "I think" or "In my opinion," just to avoid confusion?

Putting all that aside, most arcades games have a different dynamic going on than most console or pc games. It's the pacing, the difficulty, the environment you're playing in, the whole package. Shoving drawn out cinematic sequences into that kind of game wouldn't work too well, but there are plenty of games that are designed in such a way that the inclusion of that sort of thing makes the whole game more cohesive.

Neither approach is necessarily better or worse - they're just distinct methods of crafting a game that succeed or fail depending on the context of who's playing them, where they're playing them, and why.
User avatar
filterpunk
 
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 10:41
Location: Portland, OR

Unread postby el_clown » 17 Jul 2007 02:31

Hey! I've just registered in this forum to tell you that I love this article, even though I don't completly agree (opinions are like noses). I normally check up on this site, and this post just blew my brains out.

I'm from Spain and I can recall that 15 years ago I had at least 3 arcades near home. I'd go waste some of my breakfast money everyday after class and everyday I was leaving the place in full wonder (and bitterness sometimes if that morning I spend to much in the breakfast), the arcade was a magic place. Don't get me wrong, I had home consoles, but no matter how much I played Street Fighter II at home, it just didn't seem the same to me as in the arcade. Then home consoles started to get better, and when Dreamcast came out it seemed like the world had gone crazy, as Sega released Naomi, an Arcade Motherboard based on the Dreamcast. That meant that home console ports of arcade game would be PERFECT. However, no matter how much similar the game was on Dreamcast, how great the Arcade stick felt, how cool were the games, from my point of view, it still could not beat the arcade expirience, it just didn't felt the same way.

Now all the arcades are gone, if I want to spent a few coins in a coin-op I have to take the bus or the metro, and go to a place where I'll find some Naomi cabinets in very poor condition and the last HOTD, Time Crisis DX cabinets. Fortunately I bought a Naomi2 GD-ROM set and Atomiswave Cabin, so I can still enjoy great Arcade moments in my bedroom. And when some of my friends find me playing VF4 or GGXX in the arcade they ask: Why bought that when you can play all those games in a PS2 or a DC??... And with a big smile in my face I answer: I just doesn't feel the same way!

However I know I'm just lying to myself, no matter how hard I try to emulate an Arcade at home, it won't matter if I buy an AW cabin or a Neo Cab, Net City, Naomi Uni, whatever... it still won't feel the same way...
el_clown
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2007 00:54

Unread postby Perfect Stranger » 17 Jul 2007 17:41

Hey,

I just registered to comment on this article too. Funnily enough, my favorite arcade in Tokyo is the HEY in Akihabara too, if only because it's the only place I can be almost guaranteed to find competition (read: people who actually know how to play the damn game) in my game of choice, KOF XI.

The one-credit rule was something I've been familiar with all along, having played more than my share of Metal Slugs, Time Crisis, etc back in the day, but I just wanted to stress that while the rule does exist amongst fighting game players too, it's not exactly very important. The whole point of playing fighting games is not to get better against the computer, as it is in other games, (and also the reason for the one-credit rule) but to get better against others players and kick their ass. I can clear most fighting games with 1 credit after just some basic memorisation and familarisation with game mechanics, but that still doesn't stop my ass from getting beat down all the damn time by the salarymen in HEY. In fact, I'd say that the other is probably encouraged - when faced with a superior player, there is no way just playing once and leaving after having been soundly defeated will lead to you improving. No, the trick is to keep playing, to recognise what tricks the experts are using to stomp your face in and how to avoid them, and this process takes a shite load of 100 yen coins.

Credit-feeding? More like paying tribute to the king.

Yes indeed, I'm going to be sad leaving Tokyo after my exchange program is done at the end of this month.

NB: with regards to the point on licensed games being rare in the arcades - Be sure to check out the Jacky Chan licensed fighter on the 3rd floor in HEY. (When last I went, it was next to the 1-player AOF2 machine close to the staircase) A hiliarious example as to why more aren't made.
Perfect Stranger
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2007 17:23

Unread postby icycalm » 17 Jul 2007 20:46

@MAXCHAIN: You had me confused for a second. Around these parts, "IC" stands for insert credit -- the website. You can call me icy if you want. Just clearing that up!

filterpunk wrote:I think of the issue as a little more grey than the fairly black-and-white perspective of your article.


What is that supposed to mean exactly?

See, If I were to write "Communists are evil", and you were to say that "I think of the issue as a little more grey than your fairly black-and-white perspective", then that would mean something. It would mean that you don't think that ALL communists are evil, but only some of them under certain circumstances.

But, dude, you just read, like, a twenty-page article, in the course of which I bring up dozens of different points. Which of these points do you think I present as black and white? And where are the grey areas that, in your opinion, I neglected to mention?

If this subject interests you, get into specifics, otherwise spare me the blanket statements (except if they are to agree with me :). I'll be sure to reply at length to each and every point you bring up. This is, after all, what this thread is for.

filterpunk wrote:As far as I'm aware, this site is largely focused on writing and talking about particular games/types of games that interest <i>you</i>.


All games interest me. The reason I sometimes focus on certain types of games more than others is explained here:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/regarding_the_ac/

filterpunk wrote:Are people so dense that you need to preface every sentence with, "I think" or "In my opinion," just to avoid confusion?


Yes.

As for the rest of your post... I'll just say two things. One, that you are making the same mistake as many of the Shmups guys, which was to misread this article as an attack against console or computer games. So you are basically trying to defend something that no one here has attacked. And two, let me tell you that cinematics really only belong in the cinema. I am not going to explain this second statement right now... perhaps another day, in another article.

el_clown wrote:Hey! I've just registered in this forum to tell you that I love this article, even though I don't completly agree (opinions are like noses).


Hi, welcome to the forum!

And yes, opinions are like noses, but it's very important for a man to be able to tell the difference between opinions and facts. Because facts are quite unlike noses!

@Perfect Stranger: The point you bring up is correct. Indeed, since credit-feeding in versus fighters is obviously useless, it is much easier for the average Joe to grasp the essence of those games. (This is also one of the reasons why many more Westerners are into fighters than shooters.)

Perfect Stranger wrote:Credit-feeding? More like paying tribute to the king.


Awesome line! I may steal it at some point.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby filterpunk » 20 Jul 2007 12:27

icycalm wrote:If this subject interests you, get into specifics, otherwise spare me the blanket statements (except if they are to agree with me :). I'll be sure to reply at length to each and every point you bring up. This is, after all, what this thread is for.


I'll see if I can be a little more elaborate here, since my post was definitely lacking in specifics. I thought it was kinda off due to smoking too many cigarettes over the weekend and feeling hungover, but Monday turned out to be the start of a sinus infection that's had me knocked out all week. I'm still sick, so hopefully this isn't just as disjointed or nonsensical. I won't pull out a dozen specific lines from the article, since we've both likely read it a few times by now, but I'll try to refer back to certain things you covered.

From the article:
games released in the arcades are of a much higher quality, on average, than games released for the home console market.


This is likely true, but it also strikes me as reaching a little bit...or at least a little too narrow in it's focus. It's a relatively safe bet that there are fewer games released for arcades (maybe I'm reaching here?) in comparison to home consoles. This is partially due to the concerns involved when creating an arcade game that you mentioned, such as an operator's profit expectations or the careful design choices a developer has to make to keep customers plugging quarters into the machine. It's a high risk market for just about everyone involved, but I doubt many of them expect to get rich playing in it and if a game fails? That's a lot of cash down the drain.

On the other hand, developers for home consoles are playing a completely different game, struggling to earn revenue from a massive pool of potential customers. The sheer quantity reflects that, with the PS2 alone having over 2400 titles available, each one tailored towards different demographics. Like arcades, if a game fails, it can mean a lot of wasted cash, but there's that sucker element involved. Like you said, customers continuing to plug quarters into a machine is effectively a vote for it's quality - with consoles, once you've bought it, that's it. The developer and publisher made a buck and that says sweet fuck all about its quality.

Problem is, you're pitting a relatively niche market (in the overall, international sense) against a comparatively massive one - there's some degree of overlap between people who buy consoles and people who go to arcades, but in many instances, people fit into one category or the other. I can't quote exact statistics, but let's say that for every 100 console games that come out, there are maybe 20 arcade games coming out, most of which the average console gamer will never be aware of, let alone play. There's bound to be plenty of shit in that pile of 100 games, but there are probably at least 5 that will be pretty damn fun to play. That might be overly optimistic, but the specific numbers aren't my point. There are other factors going on that make a statement like "games released in the arcades are of a much higher quality, on average, than games released for the home console market" difficult for me to agree with wholeheartedly. Will those 5 good console games be better or worse than the new arcade games at that time? Your argument boiled down to the arcade games being better because of the challenge, the spot-on controls, the arcade atmosphere, all that good nitty-gritty arcade crack and console games being shittier because of a host of peripheral annoyances and design pet peeves like cut-scenes.

That's where the big disconnect is for me. 5% quality games in the console world means something different than 5% quality games in the arcade world and the criteria for what makes for a quality game is often very different. (I suppose I could've said just this much and shut up, but whatever - I'm long-winded, sick, and cranky today)

I mean, you talk about greed and marketing steering development, reviews and previews and fan boys putting out spin and disinformation - that stuff is really, really obnoxious, I agree...but that's all bullshit floating on the surface. The real meat of the article for me is that there's something inherent to arcade games that consoles can't quite grasp - one credit play, unique controls, hardcore challenge - it all comes with the territory and only whiny douches who complain that it's all "too hard" or can't understand why someone would play on one of those "big honkin' arcade things," as I saw some forum moron recently describe. Your article seems to be railing on the crap culture that's developed around gaming in the last 10-15 years, particularly console gaming, rather than the games themselves.

I'm not trying to take you to task over just the initial statement or even nitpick the entire article, because I happen to agree with a lot of it. The reason I described it as black-and-white is that it's disjointed - you say that arcade games are better than console games, but instead of going into the reasons, it turns into a criticism of the game industry and media, then you touch on all those things that are great about arcade games. All that stuff is great, but why is it necessarily <i>better</i>? Whether you intended it this way or not, it came across as you saying, "arcade games are higher quality because of one-crediting and that breeds a desire to improve and challenge yourself." To me, that's a pretty one-sided way of looking at it. If you aren't going to talk about the positives and negatives that both console and arcade games offer, why not just talk about the unique things arcade games have to offer and leave the rest out of it?

All games interest me. The reason I sometimes focus on certain types of games more than others is explained here

No explanation necessary, I just meant that you're focusing on what <i>you</i> want to focus on and providing your opinion/thoughts/observations/whatever about those topics.

As for the rest of your post... I'll just say two things. One, that you are making the same mistake as many of the Shmups guys, which was to misread this article as an attack against console or computer games. So you are basically trying to defend something that no one here has attacked. And two, let me tell you that cinematics really only belong in the cinema. I am not going to explain this second statement right now... Perhaps another day, in another article.

See above re: the attack against console or computer games thing.

As for cinematics, I'm about 95% certain we'll disagree on that, but I'm interested to read what you'll have to say about them. :)
User avatar
filterpunk
 
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 10:41
Location: Portland, OR

Unread postby MAXCHAIN » 21 Jul 2007 13:14

@MAXCHAIN: You had me confused for a second. Around these parts, "IC" stands for insert credit -- the website. You can call me icy if you want. Just clearing that up!

Whoops! I'll keep that in mind.
Whether you intended it this way or not, it came across as you saying, "arcade games are higher quality because of one-crediting and that breeds a desire to improve and challenge yourself."

I think you're looking too deeply into this facet of the article. He's not saying that you should be playing one or the other, he's just saying how you should be playing arcade games, specifically.
As for cinematics, I'm about 95% certain we'll disagree on that, but I'm interested to read what you'll have to say about them. :)

As am I.
MAXCHAIN
 
Joined: 29 Apr 2007 07:06
Location: U.S.

Unread postby filterpunk » 21 Jul 2007 20:01

MAXCHAIN wrote:I think you're looking too deeply into this facet of the article. He's not saying that you should be playing one or the other, he's just saying how you should be playing arcade games, specifically.


Well, it was never my intent to go into this so heavily, but I felt a more in-depth explanation of why I said the things I did was in order. Granted, I probably went overboard and came off as asking icy to justify his whole article, but hey - at least it's gotten a few of us talking :)
User avatar
filterpunk
 
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 10:41
Location: Portland, OR

Unread postby Molloy » 22 Jul 2007 19:02

Wonderful article. I often use the sporting analogy when I'm talking about what I like about gaming.

People talk about how games don't have the emotional palette that movies or books have but I disagree, they just stimulate a different set of emotions. Something more like a game of tennis or chess. I know playing Ghouls and Ghosts (What!? There's a second loop? Fuck!) made me want to cry a hell of a lot more than Aerith dying in FFVII did!

Good arcade games all have such a beautifully balanced difficulty curve as well. With console games you can have a particularly hard boss. Shinobi on the PS2 comes to mind. The bosses are extremely tricky to make up for the fact you have infinite continues. But you can't just go back to the start of the game and hone your skills. You're stuck playing that boss over and over and over. It's not an elegant solution. With an arcade game you get a chance to warm up on the earlier levels and get a better understanding of the game mechanics. In a console game you're being thrown into a difficult situation cold. In the arcade frustration is short lived, you only get a two or three lives and the stress is diffused. In the console game you're faced with this brick wall. Is it any wonder many titles get played to a certain point and then lie on the shelf gathering dust?

I'm from Ireland and the 1 credit rule was very much in effect during my childhood. There were always tons of kids hanging around the arcade with no money watching you play. Nobody ever continued because they were trying to eke the most time out of a single credit. I got very proficient in certain games that weren't particularly brilliant, but that I could play well. Vandyke was the first game I learnt to 1CC. It was my specialty and I'd often gather a crowd of 10+ kids watching.

That's the single thing I really miss about arcades. The social aspect. I was in an arcade last year playing Samurai Showdown 3. If anybody here has played it you'll know the AI is pretty damn brutal. Two kids of about 9 or 10 came in and were looking over my shoulder. Kid #1 "Do a fireball" Kid #2 "Uppercut!". This proceeded for two or three minutes. I think I died on the second opponent.

Kid #2 looks at me in disgust. Kid #1 "You're shit".

Hehehe. Being called ghey and a fag just isn't the same on Xbox Live. It's so much better in person.
User avatar
Molloy
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 20:40
Location: Ireland

Unread postby MAXCHAIN » 23 Jul 2007 18:41

That's the single thing I really miss about arcades. The social aspect.

I agree! That's really part of the magic of the arcade. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING like facing off, head-to-head in your favorite game against someone else. Playing against someone new always gives me a huge rush, but I'm always stuck playing with my bro or a few friends (friends who pussy out after a couple of rounds after getting their asses kicked.) Although, that's not the only thing I miss, but it's a big part of it.
MAXCHAIN
 
Joined: 29 Apr 2007 07:06
Location: U.S.

Unread postby PetitPrince » 25 Jul 2007 02:14

Like most people here, I find this article extremely interesting. So much in fact thatI translated it into french. Is it okay to spread it to some french gamer forum that might be interested in discussing about it ?

And since you now live in Lyon, you should have some fluency in french... et tu pourras vérifier par toi-même la qualité de la traduction :)
There's an hardcore Tetris community. I'm part of it.
User avatar
PetitPrince
 
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 01:30
Location: Switzerland

Unread postby icycalm » 25 Jul 2007 14:15

Wow dude, that was mighty nice of you. From my limited knowledge of the language I might even say I am happy with the faithfulness of the translation -- and I am well aware how difficult it is to translate text that contains so many technical terms and slang expressions ("shovelware", etc.).

so yeah, S++

And of course you can link your translation wherever you want to in order to discuss it with French speakers, but please always link the original article as well so that a) it will keep rising in Google, and b) I can track back the discussions and read them for my own amusement.

On another note, though I appreciate your effort in adding images to the translation, I think it's a bad idea because, let's face it, they are pretty crappy images. If this was done tastefully by a professional publication it would have turned out awesome, but as it is it's better to have no images than to have crappy ones...
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 25 Jul 2007 14:23

filterpunk wrote:From the article:
games released in the arcades are of a much higher quality, on average, than games released for the home console market.


This is likely true, but it also strikes me as reaching a little bit...or at least a little too narrow in it's focus.


If it's true, how can it be reaching? As for being narrow in focus... well, most 100% true things are narrow in focus. The more you expand your focus the more likely it is that you'll end up with a false statement.

I see your problem, though. You are not really understanding what I am saying. If you were, you would likely have no objection.

See, I am not saying that games released in the arcades are BETTER, on average, than games released for the home console market.

I am saying that games released in the arcades are OF A MUCH HIGHER QUALITY, on average, than games released for the home console market.

Can you see the difference? I choose my words very carefully, you know.

The rest of your post is made up of a few obvious (and completely irrelevant) facts, as well as several misunderstandings (how many times must I repeat that this was not an attack on console games?) which will likely become cleared if you understand the above.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby filterpunk » 25 Jul 2007 16:03

icycalm wrote:If it's true, how can it be reaching? As for being narrow in focus... well, most 100% true things are narrow in focus. The moment you start expanding your focus the more likely it is that you'll end up with a false statement.

I think we're both failing to understand one another, as your response indicates to me that you think I failed to comprehend the article even in the slightest. I've obviously not communicated what I was trying to very clearly, so let's just call it a day and move on.
User avatar
filterpunk
 
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 10:41
Location: Portland, OR

Unread postby icycalm » 25 Jul 2007 23:05

filterpunk wrote:your response indicates to me that you think I failed to comprehend the article even in the slightest.


That's not true. Actually, I am certain you understood pretty much everything, because you come across as an intelligent person from your posts, and, let's face it, the things I explained weren't exactly rocket science.

The rest are just details.

(Though, to be clear, I still stand 100% behind each and every one of them.)
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby alpha5099 » 27 Jul 2007 20:38

I too have registered for the express purpose of asking about your Arcade Culture article. I thought it was a really interesting read. It appealed to my interest in media anthropology: I'm currently kicking around the idea of doing some research on arcades when I'm studying in Japan next year.

Sorry to see that the guys at the Shmups forum ripped you a new one. Not sure what there problem was. I used to post there a lot, but fell away from it a few years ago. Looks like some of the current crowd there is less than friendly.

Anyway, to my question. I was curious about the one credit philosophy. Being an at-times avid shmup player, I understand the philosophy of not continuing. But when I play a game, i usually find myself restarting a lot. According to the Japanese philosophy, when you get a game over, you have to leave the game? Or would you be allowed to play another game (assuming there wasn't a line)?
alpha5099
 
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 20:32

Unread postby icycalm » 27 Jul 2007 23:59

The future of media anthropology in your country does not look very bright! I mean what kind of question is that? I hope you are not seriously expecting an answer.

And welcome to the forum!
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby alpha5099 » 28 Jul 2007 05:40

Not an especially nice welcome. And I don't think my question is especially unreasonable. Continuing at the game over screen and starting over seem different to me. As you had gone to so much trouble to explain arcade etiquette, I was curious if you would clarify a point I thought had been left somewhat unclear.

And it's not an academic question. It's etiquette. I'd like to spend a decent amount of time in arcades while I'm studying abroad next year, and I just wanted something clarified to avoid a potential faux pas.
alpha5099
 
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 20:32

Unread postby Molloy » 29 Jul 2007 19:34

Goodness, icy must have been in a crabby mood when he made that post! :)

Seems like a reasonable enough question to me as well. I'm surprised I didn't think of it.
User avatar
Molloy
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2006 20:40
Location: Ireland

Unread postby icycalm » 30 Jul 2007 01:12

Guys: Of course it's perfectly acceptable to start over as many times as you wish if no one's waiting.

alpha5099, I apologize if my comments offended you. I just found the question, you know, a bit silly. I guess I take too much for granted, having spent way too much time in those kinds of places.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby alpha5099 » 30 Jul 2007 02:51

Maybe it is a little silly. But I was kind of surprised by your article, as I hadn't really expected the one credit philosophy would be so prevalent. By the attitude I've received in the States, I expected it to be a fairly rare, niche approach, so I was very interested by your article about pretty much the entirety of the Japanese arcade going public followed it as well.

During your article, you made several references to people leaving the machine once they had a game over. Now, you were trying to make a point about continuing being extremely taboo. But it sounded to me almost as if you were expecting to vacate the game the moment it was game over. Perhaps in Japan this one credit philosophy was so deeply ingrained that even something as simple as playing another game was frowned upon.

As I said, I was just concerned that someday, I might be some jackass ugly American hogging a machine all day.
alpha5099
 
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 20:32

Unread postby Macaw » 30 Jul 2007 07:43

alpha5099 wrote:Perhaps in Japan this one credit philosophy was so deeply ingrained that even something as simple as playing another game was frowned upon.


Do you really think people would walk in, play a game once, and then leave the arcade because they 'aren't allowed to play again' ??

Playing a game multiple times and playing a game with a single credit are totally different things.
User avatar
Macaw
 
Joined: 28 Oct 2006 05:00
Location: Australia

Next

Return to Theory

cron