Thus far, the following points seem clear to me:
-Originally, continuing in arcade games by spending more money was not possible. This "feature" was added later on in order to make some extra money off of weak players, who just
had to see what "happened next".
-Though in the short- and medium-term this "feature" did end up making extra money for the operators, in the long run it was a bad idea because it confused most players (especially non-Japanese ones), misleading them in thinking that the goal was to see the ending screen instead of getting good.
-Thus the continue "feature" seems to have been one of the main factors for the decline of arcade gaming. Had it never been widely adopted, the purpose of arcade gaming would have been instantly obvious to most everyone, and so more people would end up playing these games correctly -- and thus PLAYING THEM, period, instead of, you know, not playing them, as happens now.
-It is also clear that design-wise, arcade games have never benefitted from the continue "feature" (indeed, the opposite seems to have been true, as explained by Recap). Designers themselves have no plausible reason to love the idea of players continuing in their games (only the operators do), and in general it seems that the player is spoiling a great deal of their work (suspense, etc.) by doing so.
-To sum up: nothing good seems to have come about by the introduction of this "feature". Not a single damn thing.
-Now zinger, rob and others may claim that continuing helps them get more enjoyment out of mediocre or bad games -- and I can understand this argument. That's like saying that using a Game Genie or Action Replay code or a FAQ or cheat can make a mediocre or bad game
less of a waste of time than it is. Fair enough. But then again I never use Game Genies or Action Replay codes or FAQs or cheats of any kind because I always do my damnedest to only play the best games out there. If you are only playing great games, what you want is to spend AS MUCH time with them as possible -- so not only do I avoid doing anything that might shorten the experience but I also try actively to lengthen it, by, for example, not even reading the fucking manual if, say, I am playing some very complex strategy game where reading the manual is paramount.
-From all the above, it would seem to me a very good, if impractical, idea to REMOVE the continue "feature" from all upcoming and future arcade games.
-What would such a move do to people like zinger and rob? How would it affect their gaming habits? Let's go one step further and consider how things would have turned out if continuing had never been introduced in the first place. Would zinger and rob be missing it now? Would they be saying "Hey, you know what, I wish there was a way I could press a button and just keep playing even after the 'Game Over' screen?"
-No, they wouldn't be saying it, because that's what Action Replays and Game Genies and emulators do. So they would already have this "feature"; they wouldn't need to wish for it (except perhaps with the newer games).
-To sum up: continuing is a form of cheating, no different from Game Genies, Action Replays and cheat codes, only it is built-in to the game (like many other kinds of cheat codes), and easily available (unlike them). This unique form of cheating exists only because the operators want it to and is a bad idea. There's a very good reason all other kinds of cheat codes are hidden, and this is in order to give even the more stupid players a chance to realize that the experience of playing games
is degraded by cheating of any kind, except perhaps in games which were mediocre or bad to start with. But keep in mind that cheating is not the only way to improve the experience of playing mediocre or bad games: there are many others, including drugs, alcohol, money bets, etc.
-Last thing I have to say. If rob really does credit-feed every arcade game on his first go in order to see if it has lots of "filler", then I have to say that seems to me a pretty absurd practice. If it works for him, fine -- but it still seems absurd to me. I guess you really prefer early '80s arcade games, which had no real "stages" to speak of? Because that's how you seem to playing the games -- as if the stages did not exist (I obviously mean looks-wise, not design-wise). In that case, fair enough. But most people, even hardcore arcade fans, prefer the late-80's early-90's period exactly because of the varied stages, backgrounds, etc, which is the part of the game that your credit-feeding routine ruins. But like I said, this is one case where I am willing to say "to each his own". And would you also speedplay/fast-forward modern 3D games to the end as well, if this was possible, to gauge how much "filler" they had? Perhaps you would, but that would also seem to me an absurd practice. Why not just play them normally and simply stop when you hit the filler? I guess in that case you wouldn't know exactly
how much filler there was -- perhaps not too much, in which case it'd be a good idea to persevere... So yes, I can see the usefulness of this practice, but you are still utterly destroying any kind of impact/suspense the game would have had on you -- and for what? To save a few hours on a few bad or mediocre games? I don't know. It just seems absurd to me.
JoshF wrote:Personally I don't see anything wrong with using a credit for practice after you've already cleared a game.
From all the above I would say that continuing at ANY point in an arcade game is just as right or just as wrong as using Game Genies, Action Replays, FAQs or cheat codes in any other kind of game. Me and Recap disdain all these aids for reasons explained. Most people use them now and then and feel that they enhance their enjoyment of at least some games.
I think I need to write an article on cheat codes, game guides and the like...
