1CCing: The intended way

[Gnarf]

I don't care what they failed to include or leave out. I judge and enjoy games as they are released (arcade or home port).

You don't see anyone saying that they 3-credit cleared a game. Using an additional credit automatically means practice to anyone who uses 1CC as a goal marker (any serious player).

There are no rules in the games as they are released that say that 3-credit clears are not legit or something.

Anyway. If your goal is to beat the game, you need a rule that limits the amount of lives you got. Otherwise you can't lose and the game is pointless (and yeah, like work and that). No continues is a good rule. If you play by that rule, breaking it is cheating. If you don't play by that rule, you might as well credit-feed your way through the game and move on to the next one. If you're playing for score, chances are the scoring mechanics already take using continues into account and any 1CC rule is irrelevant (because the best possible scores can only be achieved without using continues anyway). Maybe there's still need for some 1CC rule, and then breaking that rule is cheating.

Whether or not cheating is all right for practice or not is sort of a different issue. I certainly think it cheapens the experience when you're trying to beat the game, but I can see how it might be different when you're "putting together one ultimate performance" or something after having beaten the game. Not that I know much about ultimate performances.

I think that for a lot of games it makes sense to try to beat them without credit-feeding first. And that means following the no credit-feeding rule (or "strict policy" if you will).

[icycalm]

rob, if this was anyone other than you I would have deleted your last post and asked you to stop posting in this thread. You stopped having anything new to say several posts ago, and now all you are doing is repeating the same (already comprehensively refuted) points and boring the fuck out of me with your very particular personal preferences. "I like doing this and this; I don't like doing that and that." I mean who cares! Granted, your personal preferences are interesting up to a point, on the one hand because you are a very experienced player, on the other just as anyone's preferences are interesting: as another point on the "random people's preferences" statistical curve. But to be able to understand ANYTHING in depth you need to be able to step outside yourself and examine the matter from as many angles as possible -- preferably all of them. Most people can't do this, so their understanding of things remains anchored on the personal level -- simplistic, naive, and therefore wrong.

Anyway, I will reply extensively to your latest post; since I didn't delete it I am obliged to reply to it for the benefit of whoever is paying attention to this thread...

Because the desire to see what happens next is among the top three reasons to play a videogame. A stage select feature takes that away.

When I have RE5, what happens next will be in my top 3 reasons to play it.

Great, so you can understand this principle for many of the games out there. That's a good start. With a little bit of imagination you might one day be able to extend your understanding of this principle to ALL games. Or perhaps not. Either way, there's not much more I can do to help you with this.

Arcade shooters aren't typical of video games in general, which is why I like them the most.

This doesn't say anything. They may not be "typical" (i.e., in your use of the word, "popular") now, but they used to be. By sheer numbers there may well be more arcade-like games in existence than "modern" 3D action ones. This factoid, of course, still doesn't tell us anything interesting.

They are reliable and I know what to expect from series to series.

More waffle. Same thing applies to 3D action games.

I use the abilities I've been given on stage one for the rest of the game and the difficulty increases.

Just like in Devil May Cry then.

That is a winning formula.

Sure.

A long, story-based game

Story-based games do not exist. This is because the concepts "game" and "story" are mutually-exclusive. More on this in an upcoming article titled "On Narrative Delusions".

A long, story-based game can mix (or mess) things up with new abilities, characters, items, game styles and plot twists, so what happens next is far less predictable.

Same exact thing applies to arcade games. If you were taking your time with them, instead of rushing through them in order to get a couple extra points and make your spreadsheet happy, you would understand this.

I shoot stuff and score points, the background graphics change for no reason other than it's a new stage.

And that's a pretty damn good reason. But that's not all that changes between stages. Stage layouts, enemies and their patterns, enviromental obstacles, etc. can all change according to stage, and as a result of the thematical differences between stages. -- At least in the good games. And that's just awesome. It's why videogames can be such a trip.

The boss can look like a dragon or ship while shooting things. Not a whole lot to go wrong or a whole lot to impress with.

Oh, what a shame. rob is not easily impressed. :( What on earth are we going to do about that? Oh, I know, let's get the Trizeal guy to start doing the art for all arcade games from now on. Because, hey, what's the point of even trying if rob cannot be impressed?

Jesus fucking Christ.

I like the genre because I can predict what happens next.

Yes, if you credit-feed games of course you can "predict" what happens next. That's a given.

It's good that way.

I am glad you are at least enjoying yourself.

Just looking at the graphics - impressive, imaginative graphics are such a rare thing in shooters.

Apparently, if your name is rob.

I'm playing Ninja Gaiden II on the 360 right now and small budget 2d shooters can't compete with those visuals.

People get banned from here for comments like this. If you are incapable of appreciating art at least don't flaunt your vulgarity in such a shameless manner.

In games that last an average of 25 minutes (and can be cleared in a day or a week without continues), there is not a lot to show.

I bet you also prefer Big Macs to French haute cuisine.

(Excuse the tone of my replies, but it was either this or delete...)

Stage select takes nothing away since it is not used (or even available) until the stage has been reached in a normal game. "What happens next" will already be spoiled.

Whatever. I guess there are different variations of "stage select", including the kind that can be made via save states. But like I said, I am not interested in all that shit. As long as stuff like that doesn't come as standard, you can do with the game whatever you want once you buy it.

And what the fuck does the fact that Recap didn't make these games have to do with anything?

Arcade shooters include continues.

The newer ones, yes. I think we have already established that.

How many times has their inclusion been challenged?

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? IT IS BEING CHALLENGED RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!

Is anyone really telling me that all of those developers include continues and don't want the player to use them?

Yes, I have already made this plain.

If they allow a game-ruining feature like that into a game, what else did they not want to include?

Things which it would be off-topic to discuss in this thread.

That doesn't say much for the intention of the designer and less for a person who thinks they know what the designer's intention actually is. He's saying they failed their own game. Maybe they would all rather be making a horsey sim or console shooter with more ships than R-Type Final.

More pointless, nonsensical waffle which would have gotten anyone else banned by now.

I don't care what they failed to include or leave out.

Well, I do, and this is my fucking forum and my fucking thread, so if you don't care about the subject of the fucking discussion don't fucking post in it.

I judge and enjoy games as they are released (arcade or home port). They include continues to take or leave.

You don't even know what the verb "judge" means. Look it up.

Score is an explicitly stated objective for many games.

Yes, but it is a secondary objective for the newer, stage-based games. When you beat one of these games you get a screen saying "The End", whereas there's no equivalent screen regardless of score. This should be enough of a clue for you. If it isn't, there's nothing I can do to help you understand this.

He only bothers with this to make early stages less boring

There are more valid reasons to take score into account including, for example, extends, and in games where scoring is tied to survival, which really are the best games. So no, he does not "only bother with it to make early stages less boring". You are just not thinking hard enough when you read our posts.

but he is really adamant about something he assumes they want you to do.

Yes, because it is plain that that is what they want you to do. If they wanted you to credit-feed their games on your first go they would not have bothered creating different-themed stages, and everything that goes with them. This is another one of those facts which it is clear that it's impossible for me to help you understand.

Yet I'm ruining the game (scene development) by working towards the clear objective

Towards the secondary objective. And yes, you are ruining the primary objective, but only for yourself, though if it never gave you any pleasure in the first place you are not ruining anything.

and not what I'm told they actually meant for me to do, maybe, but failed to prohibit.

There are lots of things designers fail to prohibit in their games, and this is one of the main reasons most games suck. But don't worry. I will eventually explain all of them. This is what criticism is all about.

Not playing score-based games for score is what ruins games.

Hey, something we can agree on. Though I am afraid we still don't agree on WHICH games are score-based and which not, and probably never will. Games with stages and "The End" messages, for example, are not primarily score-based, hence not playing them for score does not ruin them. Et cetera.

What the fuck does "play for score" even means? It is already clear from his remarks that he DOES play for score.

Understand at least the basic techniques and apply them from beginning to end of a score-based game.

Yeah, which is what we are doing. From beginning to end, the "end" here being the furthest point in the game we can get to without cheating.

It's the scene development of doing stuff for numbers.

lol. You take a term we invented to distinguish one thing from another, and redefine it as the thing from which we were trying to distinguish it. An obfuscating tactic worthy of the Sophists of ancient Greece.

It's to place score above clearing the game.

It's to stand game design happily on its head. To miss the forest for the trees. Et cetera. I get you.

He says he has no incentive to continue after he finishes a game, which means he doesn't.

Yes, he doesn't miss the forest for the trees.

Not my loss

And from where I'm standing, not his either!

but avoid telling anyone how to play or maintain their high score listings because people don't like armchair advice. Not that straight/fake will make its way to any threads. This is just one reason people don't take to this idea.

Do I fucking look like someone who give's a fuck what ideas people "take to" or "don't take to"? People are idiots. We've already established this. If you enjoy following the crowd no one's stopping you. Just stay the hell of this forum if that's what you want to do.

Has anyone here claimed that "practice is not beneficial"? Did I perhaps miss that comment? If not, why the fuck are you refuting a claim no one even made?

You've both agreed with each other that using continues is like using a cheat device. So the most efficient practicing method a game allows is cheating to you. You must see that the continue-as-Game Genie thing discourages practice.

More sophistry, lol. I would have been impressed if you were doing this consciously, but it is plain you just can't spot the logical errors in your own reasoning. Looky here:

1. You've both agreed with each other that using continues is like using a cheat device.

2. So the most efficient practicing method a game allows is cheating to you.

3. You must see that the continue-as-Game Genie thing discourages practice.

Numbers 1 and 2 are correct. Number 3 is not. Continue-as-Game Genie discourages the kind of practice we regard as cheating-- not practice in general! And in fact not continuing ENCOURAGES practice, and the most enjoyable kind of practice as well! The kind that allows the player to fully appreciate the whole game -- both its primary and secondary objectives instead of just the secondary.

So you might not disagree that it's beneficial, you just don't want people to do it.

Meh. I don't give a fuck what people do. Like I said, people are idiots and will always do idiotic things. In my capacity as a critic, however, it is my self-imposed duty to tell people what I see as the optimal way to enjoy a game. What they do afterwards is their own business.

In context, I meant that he'd be much less critical if he accepted the challenge of mastering a game that has more layers than just shoot stuff.

It is clear from his posts that he accepts this. You just need to read more carefully.

Geometry Wars is fun and not bad to look at, either.

What does this comment have to do with this thread? (Don't answer: just try harder to stay on topic in the future.)

By the way, how does scene development work in a game like UN Squadron? I mean, is it a bad game if they make you choose stages? Do you select the same order every time? How do you decide on the order? What about randomized stages where you don't even get to choose? Questions go to Recap.

I don't know specifically about UN Squadron because I haven't played it, but most -- if not all -- games I know of that give you a choice between stages, STILL have stage progression, meaning that you can't choose the later stages from the start. This fact perfectly answers your spurious objection. The rest of the questions can be answered/discussed in individual threads about specific games. Feel free to start as many as you want (but make sure you are serious about them: don't just flood the forum with new threads as a reaction).

[JoshF]

Rob, you keep defending using tools for scoring practice. I think we're in agreement here that there doesn't need to be an absolutist rule when there's an obvious difference between what some experts choose to do with tools after they're appropriately experienced with the game and what the average youtube kid or IGN man-kid does. Also, there's a difference between someone who really is an expert and someone who purposefully fucked up a game for the sake of the back or their baseball card. Maybe not on the scoreboard, but in terms of appreciation. There's also appreciation in attempting and exploring a game at a higher level than a 1CC rather than just knowing that the possibility is there.

I'm interested to know why you're bringing the tee ball equipment to your first go through games like Metal Slug 3? I think this is where the biggest contention is.

[rob dot]

rob, if this was anyone other than you I would have deleted your last post and asked you to stop posting in this thread. You stopped having anything new to say several posts ago, and now all you are doing is repeating the same (already comprehensively refuted) points and boring the fuck out of me with your very particular personal preferences. "I like doing this and this; I don't like doing that and that." I mean who cares!

The original post is a rehash of something he's been saying for at least three and a half years, so I thank you for saying I've only been repeating myself for posts. Personal preferences - that is what this thread is about from post number one. That is exactly my point. The mock quote is how most of the thread reads, but I am introducing a different point of view into this discussion. That is my motivation to post in this thread.

Great, so you can understand this principle for many of the games out there.

And that it doesn't apply to every game out there and especially not with the same degree of importance. Like Geometry Wars, a pure shooting game. Games like that embrace a no continues ever approach most of all and you guys don't like them. Why? Because it is not about no continues ever, it is about appreciating game artwork. I do appreciate good game artwork. Metal Slug 3 looks fantastic, it also turns dull as hell.

enviromental obstacles

Things like this are nearly dead in modern shooters. Which is a big reason why graphics have dropped in importance. There is no relevance to what is happening in the foreground. The foreground is littered with abstract obstacles, point icons and numbers.

It is telling you what is important right there with the things you must interact with.

If they wanted you to credit-feed their games on your first go they would not have bothered creating different-themed stages,

Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP. And then we get Geometry Wars, which, not coincidentally, can't be continued in. Or all of those other old games without stages or continues that both of you have cited. Continuing goes hand-in-hand with stage-based games. They want you to continue and varying background graphics were at one point a successful way to bait players to do this. At one point, which is why the focus has shifted back to score.

The primary reason shooters are still alive in the arcade is score. "The End" is a sign, not a reward. The end in a score-based game is the result.

[rob dot]

I'm interested to know why you're bringing the tee ball equipment to your first go through games like Metal Slug 3? I think this is where the biggest contention is.

That entire thing is about massacring game design in a game someone claims to enjoy. It pains me a bit to see someone treating Mars Matrix like MUSHA. I don't like MS3. I'm not giving 100% effort to games that aren't worth it. I'm not saying it makes the game better, it alerts me to some of the game's flaws.

[JoshF]

I don't like MS3.

Yeah but the way you found that out seems like a big gamble.

Off topic, but I wouldn't say MS3 has "filler" either. Those guys knew they were the last people to be able to make a game like that, and the only ones who could pull it off. I'm glad they threw everything they could into the game.

[icycalm]

The original post is a rehash of something he's been saying for at least three and a half years

This issue has not been discussed and thoroughly explained anywhere else that I am aware of, and certainly not the extent that it has been here. There is no rehashing. This is all new stuff.

so I thank you for saying I've only been repeating myself for posts.

Again, complete failure to understand what I am saying.

Personal preferences - that is what this thread is about from post number one.

It's like I am talking Chinese. And even if I was talking Chinese you would still have a chance of understanding something via babelfish. I just can't believe you still have no clue what the thread is about. I'll just put it down to a damaged ego, so as not to put it down to pure idiocy and be forced to ban you.

That is exactly my point.

A point which I have spent way more time explaining to you that it is wrong than I should have.

The mock quote is how most of the thread reads, but I am introducing a different point of view into this discussion. That is my motivation to post in this thread.

You introduced your viewpoint ages ago and then it was comprehensively refuted. I do thank you for the opportunity of refuting your erroneous viewpoint for the benefit of my readers, but there is nothing to be gained by reiterating your same tired points and by me reposting my refutations of them.

Great, so you can understand this principle for many of the games out there.

And that it doesn't apply to every game out there and especially not with the same degree of importance.

Yes, but it does apply to the heighest degree for the kinds of games we are discussing.

Like Geometry Wars, a pure shooting game. Games like that embrace a no continues ever approach most of all and you guys don't like them. Why?

Because I grew up playing games like these for years and now I want something more. I have explained this very extensively in an article. Perhaps you got into games last year and Geometry Wars looks exciting to you, but me and Recap have outgrown this stage decades ago. Sorry :( Give it a few more years and perhaps you'll be able to begin to understand us.

Because it is not about no continues ever, it is about appreciating game artwork.

Now you are saying that I am a liar and putting words in my mouth. Awesone.

enviromental obstacles

Things like this are nearly dead in modern shooters.

WHO THE HELL IS TALKING ABOUT MODERN SHOOTERS HERE? WE ARE TALKING PRINCIPLES FOR FUCK'S SAKE! PRINCIPLES DUMBASS, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THERE'S LIKE A BILLION ARCADE GAMES WITH ENVIROMENTAL OBSTACLES OUT THERE AND ONLY LIKE 12 "MODERN SHOOTERS". WE ARE TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO APPRECIATE THE BILLION ONES! JESUS! WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE SUCH DUMB READERS? EVERY LITTLE FUCKING POINT HAS TO BE EXPLAINED TO THEM AND THEN THEY STILL NEED FUCKING BABELFISH AND TRUTH SERUM BRAIN INJECTIONS! FOR FUCK'S SAKES!

Which is a big reason why graphics have dropped in importance. There is no relevance to what is happening in the foreground. The foreground is littered with abstract obstacles, point icons and numbers.

Yes, so the conclusion is that all new games should have art by the Trizeal guy and all old games should be credit-fed to death the moment they are powered up. Fucking dumbass.

If they wanted you to credit-feed their games on your first go they would not have bothered creating different-themed stages,

Or if they didn't want players to credit feed, since basic design choices all point to COIN OP.

Nonsense. Complete nonsense. This sentence has absolutely no meaning!

And then we get Geometry Wars, which, not coincidentally, can't be continued in. Or all of those other old games without stages or continues that both of you have cited. Continuing goes hand-in-hand with stage-based games. They want you to continue and varying background graphics were at one point a successful way to bait players to do this. At one point, which is why the focus has shifted back to score.

More random disjointed rubbish that ignores every single point that has been made in this thread. I've had enough with your stupidity -- go back to Shmucks.com you fucking dumbass.

"The End" is a sign, not a reward.

Yes, dumbass. And guess what exactly it signals. That's right, THE END. Fucking dumbass.

The end in a score-based game is the result.

Great reasoning! The end is not the end but the thing that never ends. Good-bye dumbass.


For everyone else reading this thread: I am going to leave all this shit up for a few days and then I'll probably clean it up.

[BlackerOmegalon]

This thread makes realize that one main reason I'm not able to 1cc certain games (or progress farther) is because I'm trying to always score highly in them, when I should just try to get past whatever stage I'm stuck in.

I've kinda always knew this was a problem, but I felt like if I did something like panic bombing, or anything else that ruined my score, then I probably should just write 1up's Time Crisis 4 review, as I wasn't playing skillfully.

Additionally, I think watching certain super play videos might have not only spoiled the suspense, but it spoils finding the best strategies. I will also get disappointed (more like embarrassed) when I see something stupidly simple being done at a place where I was trying something extremely elaborate and difficult that didn't work anywhere near as well.

[Recap]

So basically we have to remind mainstream fuckwads that videogames are not only about pretty pictures, and score-focused fuckwads that they are not only about skill.

I'd rephrase that with the word "numbers" instead of "skill". It could be a little bit misleading. Clearing a game (or "scoring") without having cheated before (the point) requires indeed more skill.



About time, BTW.

[lock]

I think there's something that must be explained about the people that make games and what they thing about the continue feature. Everybody use to talk cheaply about them. You can read them on gaming forums, saying stuff like "If I were one of them, I wouldn't do it like this or that", "I can't understand why they didn't include a online mode" and stuff like that. But the fact is that in a game company you can find two king of people: the game designers (programmers, graphical artist, etc etc...) and game sellers (producers...). The fact is that the game designers doesn't give a shit about unlockables, continues, tutorials, online downloables, etc etc... That's the job of the game sellers. They just want to put in the magazine advertisements that the game has online functions, has 100 levels, can even make you the cleaning and even a blowjob, all in other to sell the game.

As a game designer, I prefer to get centered in the game itself. In the game level design, in to make an easy to play funny game, in to create and attractive environment for the player, etc etc... That doesn't mean that I wouldn't care about a continue feature at all and that kind of stuff, if I have time to. But for me the priorities are very clear, and I believe that if the game world wouldn't move so much money, the games would be a complete different thing now.

[Offtopic]
PS: Also, the game creator never wants to make a crapy game. There are of course incompetent game creators too but the truh is that in most of cases, the producer is the one who decides how much money they will invest on the game, and the release date.
[/offtopic]

[Recap]

The fact is that the game designers doesn't give a shit about unlockables, continues, tutorials, online downloables, etc etc... That's the job of the game sellers. They just want to put in the magazine advertisements that the game has online functions, has 100 levels, can even make you the cleaning and even a blowjob, all in other to sell the game.

That may be the way for modern domestic games, but the arcade industry, saving the couple of giants, doesn't work like that at all. Arcade developers are small companies where the producer for a game is usually part of the development team or has worked in game design before. They work for themselves and just look for distributors/publishers if they can't handle that labor.

Arcade games, once released, are as 'personal' as commercial video-games can get. The continue feature, as I said, is just protocolary stuff. The required etiquette.

[icycalm]

THE GAME GENIE

It seems the Game Genie is a staple for just about every NES player. Except for me, that is. I've never used a NES Game Genie in my life and I'm not about to start now. I don't even own one, if I saw one for a good price then sure, I may pick it up, but the only circumstances I would EVER use it are to make a game harder or to find some hidden sound test or equally cool trick. To cheat with the Game Genie, to me, would be like cheating on my NES.

Sure, it would seem innocent enough, using the Game Genie every now and then, but it just doesn't work that way. You use it one time, think "well that wasn't so bad", then you use it again, then again, each time more frequently. Give it an inch it takes a foot. And how do you suffer? You start to suck shit at all games. You get stuck at a hard part for 15 minutes before calling your old buddy Game Genie to bail you out. How many times have you read a post on a message board that says something like "Man, I really suck now, I can't beat anything. Damn Game Genie ruined me". Those are the kinds of testimonials I see.

So, basically, I don't use Game Genie for the same reason I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, I'm afraid I'll become dependant. True, I don't trust myself, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I pride myself on what games I can beat and if I used a Game Genie on a game, even if I beat it legitimately later on I would feel cheap. The Game Genie helped me master it. Probably the most cheating I would ever do is use a Game Action Replay to save my state (actually had one of those for a short period of time as a kid).

http://deathspork.flyingomelette.com/ne ... genie.html

Really old article too. Circa 2000-2002. Only thing is, the last sentence doesn't quite make sense, if you take it together with the rest...

[A.Wrench]

THE GAME GENIE

Probably the most cheating I would ever do is use a Game Action Replay to save my state (actually had one of those for a short period of time as a kid).

http://deathspork.flyingomelette.com/ne ... genie.html

Really old article too. Circa 2000-2002. Only thing is, the last sentence doesn't quite make sense, if you take it together with the rest...

He might mean using the thing in a game with no save feature at all, just to continue where he left off. When I got my first (and only) Gameshark for my game boy at around twelve, that was what I thought save states were all about. Now I can go back to my favorite level of Super Mario Land any time I want, just like in Sonic 3!

For the most part this thread is talking about arcade games, but he's talking about games that might be difficult to complete in one sitting not because of actual difficulty, but because of the amount of levels. I feel no shame in saving state halfway through Megaman 2 on my laptop because I have to go to class, picking it back up later. But chances are I'd end up just playing from the beginning next time anyway...

The guy's article reminded me of that gameshark I got when I was a kid. Reminded me how at first it seemed totally awesome using it to catch any pokemon I wanted, but after a little while it was obvious that it sucked all the fun out of the game. It wasn't about having the pokemon at all (well, I don't know what schoolyard politics were like back then either), it was about catching and training them. But talking about cheat devices is kinda offtopic, huh. I just woke up, so please be gentle, Icy.

[JoshF]

Haha good luck with that.

[icycalm]

People say stuff like that a lot. "I just woke up so please be gentle." What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Did anyone FORCE YOU AT GUNPOINT to post in this forum RIGHT AFTER WAKING UP? Because, yeah, in that case it would have been an excuse. Otherwise, why the fuck are you posting in my forum right after waking up? Or while drunk? Or without having slept in two days? Or et cetera et cetera. (I have already heard of all the dumbass moronic excuses.)

So yeah, there's no fucking excuse for posting stupid shit, and EVEN LESS for POSTING STUPID SHIT WHICH YOU REALIZE THAT IT MIGHT BE STUPID.

Read. The. Fucking. Thread. Jesus.

[A.Wrench]

All I meant is, the guy probably was just talking about saving states to pick up where he left off. When you're a kid and games are these huge things (as was likely the case in his post), or when you're playing just to kill time between other things, save states can be used sparingly without ruining everything, it's just a matter of restraint. I don't think that contradicts anything else he said.

[Okage911]

That may be the way for modern domestic games, but the arcade industry, saving the couple of giants, doesn't work like that at all. Arcade developers are small companies where the producer for a game is usually part of the development team or has worked in game design before. They work for themselves and just look for distributors/publishers if they can't handle that labor.

Arcade games, once released, are as 'personal' as commercial video-games can get. The continue feature, as I said, is just protocolary stuff. The required etiquette.

I think lock labeling the producer as the game seller (as in distributer) might have led to a bit of a misunderstanding. The people who normally make the decision to put in all those extras are the publishers. The producers are just the people that plan the production time line as well as try to keep their team from being screwed over too much with junk cluttering up their game. That is, unless the publisher sends over their own producer.

Smaller game companies need publishers most of all, mainly because they usually don't have the funding for licensing and distribution. Yes, they can make their game and look for a publisher after or even try to use their own money for the above mentioned things, but with the first option, the publisher will more often than not have the final say in what stays and what goes or else they pull their funding. Many smaller companies don't go for the second option because the risk of failure is too great.