jackfrozt wrote:Unlike the others, I agree to it 100%
That's the correct opinion to have ;)
Moderator: JC Denton
by icycalm » 15 Nov 2007 03:19
by loser » 08 Mar 2008 17:58
Space Invaders became very popular in part due to its new style
of game play. Up until its release, video games were timed to a clock,
and once a player's time was up (plus possible bonus time), the game
ended. With Space Invaders, the game ended only when the player had
exhausted the three allotted "lives" or when the invaders landed on
the bottom of the screen: a person could therefore play for as long as
their skill level allowed.
I introduced a number of elements that were new in video
games. First, enemies respond to your movement and attack you. Until
Space Invaders came out, most video games involved nearly
non-interactive situations where the player unilaterally attacked the
targets within a set amount of time. In Space Invaders, the enemies
react to the player's movement and attack back. Also, even if the
player has their laser base in stock, the game is over when the
invaders reach your territory. I think these new elements added more
thrills in the game, and gained popularity among young players. In
fact, the game was unpopular among the arcade distributors when it was
first introduced.
by loser » 08 Mar 2008 19:10
by icycalm » 08 Mar 2008 19:23
loser wrote:If the post is inappropriate, I apologize for spamming the forum, and please feel free to delete it.
loser wrote:The quotes explain the birth of gaming where play time is proportional to skill, which is a major point in the article: "Only the skilled may live -- the rest will die."
by icycalm » 13 Apr 2008 17:18
A poster seen hanging in one Shibuya game room highlights a public-service message from the National Police Agency, which regulates arcades as well as pachinko (a gambling game played with steel marbles) and slot-machine parlors. Over a picture of two smiling youths, it reads, MANY ADULTS CARE FOR YOU. NOW OUR FUTURE IS IN YOUR HANDS. YOU DO NOT BELONG ONLY TO YOURSELF. YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL OF US. Adults want Japanese kids to leave the arcades, go to work and save the country. But they're too busy saving the world, one Gundam battle at a time.
by Strifer » 25 Aug 2008 09:57
by adrenalinq » 27 Aug 2008 12:25
by icycalm » 28 Aug 2008 16:39
It was intended that the car-smashing bonus rounds from earlier Street Fighter games would return [in SFIV]. Ono later stated that the bonus stages would not be in the arcade game, but they may be in the console ports. He cited the reason being that the time players spend on bonus stages takes money from arcade operators.
by Molloy » 30 Aug 2008 10:57
by Jedah » 30 Aug 2008 11:43
by Mr. Apol » 30 Sep 2008 04:05
by mees » 30 Sep 2008 19:34
by ashn0d » 30 Sep 2008 23:26
by icycalm » 07 Nov 2008 20:52
Okano’s Top Five Shooting Games
5. Chorensha: This is a game I spent a lot of time on and gave me lots of fun. It’s a very minor title that was developed by amateurs on the X68000 computer – you can find it really easily online. It’s not ruled by arcade business models so the game does not need to actually actively try to defeat the player. There is some kind of rule in the arcade which is to defeat the player in 3 minutes: if we don’t do so, the game won’t be profitable and won’t find a place in arcades. Chorensha experimented with what a shooting game would be like without this rule. One play would last something like a dozen minutes: if it lasted more, players would feel bored, less and they would feel angry. It works!
by Cpt. Coin-op » 11 Nov 2008 01:32
mees wrote:I was wondering: is the NES Ghosts N' Goblins substantially different from the arcade version?
by BlackerOmegalon » 21 Nov 2008 14:15
Kikizo: Is there anything you wanted to implement in VF5R that you were unable to do, due to time or technology limitations?
Osaki: Hmmm, well, One thing I would really liked to have done is introduce some sort of internet versus match between arcades. You know, arcade-to-arcade play. The issue is, of course, the lag. In consumer games, people are satisfied with a small degree of lag being present, but in the arcade environment, that just isn't going to fly. When you play games online
at home, when things go badly, you can at least blame it on your bad LAN cable, or something like that. But in arcades, where we charge a hundred yen per game, we can't be making excuses for lack of quality like that.
Kikizo: This is something we noticed when talking with you previously as well as talks we had with several other Japanese developers
, the people in Japan who develop videogames love western first person shooters yet for the Japanese public it remains a niche genre. Why do you think Japanese developers enjoy them so much while the people buying games in Japan seem to be uncaring for the genre?
Osaki: I think it's because in foreign markets, FPS games are kind of considered "flagship" titles for demonstrating new technology and the power of the hardware. In Japan's game market, fighting and racing games fall more into this line of thinking. So game companies here naturally want to check the newest FPS games out to see how the technology is being put to use. Stuff like FEAR and STALKER uses a new engine, as does the Unreal series. Plus, most of them are very well developed. Call of Duty 4 in particular is extremely impressive. It has the look and feel of an arcade game in places: it's very speedy and it keeps 60 frames per second. Well, on the 360, anyway. The fact that the game is challenging is good, too. The match recording system in CoD is also excellent - we actually referred to the way it works when making the recording system in the arcade version of VF5.
by new_pornographer » 22 Nov 2008 19:26
by icycalm » 30 Jan 2009 23:01
bloodflowers wrote:The older arcade manuals advised operators to set games to be hard enough that their players could only last for 3 minutes, to maximise profits. It's there in black & white, in a lot of Capcom ones.
by Recap » 30 Jan 2009 23:59
by icycalm » 31 Jan 2009 03:17
Don Daglow wrote:I really was influenced by the coin-ops, but here, since we weren't trying to eat quarters, we didn't have to think about how you would try -- without being a coin-op, which I had never designed, but from my observation of people -- to kill off the player and get another quarter without actually being unfair, and in being unfair, making him angry. But you're still trying to get that next quarter.
The great thing we had in those early days with the simple consoles was we could do coin-op style games, but we already had the quarters. We didn't need to balance for that. We could balance for the actual experience of feeling good about owning the game, rather than having to think about the quarter mentality.