next »

[Player 3]

Okay, let's take a look back in the 1980s, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth arcades were a viable business. In this thread, let us discuss what exactly made arcade games popular in these times. What made them addictive? How can games nowadays be made to be endless?

You Flash game authors can also teach us a thing or two on this.

[Richard Kain]

I prefer not to strive for addiction in game design. Skinner box is an approach that game developers lean on a bit too often.

And I don't think modern developers have any problems with making modern games endless. A LOT of modern games work in that fashion.

[Player 3]

Having your own three letters at the top of the hi-score table served the same function as graffiti -- it's your tag, signed on the machine for all to see. Perhaps it's no coincidence that tag graffiti became popular shortly after arcades became popular.

But these tags lose their novelty when some ne'er-do-wells decide to junk it up with tags such as ASS, for example.

What I guess I'm asking is the gameplay of arcade games, not just graphics or business tactics. The gameplay is what mainly made them, in my opinion. NAMCO was especially guilty of coming up with these genres, like chomp-all-the-dots (Pac-Man) and diggy-diggy-hole (Dig Dug).

[DavidCaruso]

The endless model of early arcade games was only popular because not much else could really be done at the time TBH. There's a reason that, once level design and stage progression started becoming prominent in the mid-80s, the industry immediately picked up on it and we started seeing games with real end screens. But here are some things that I see as most important in very early arcade games:

• Difficulty progression - Early arcade games didn't have much for stage progression, but they did get more difficult the longer the player lasted. That's a key thing for keeping the player interested; as he gets better at the game, the game has to present more resistance to him.
• Scoring - Almost the entire point of early arcade games. In later arcade games scoring is almost a sort of elaborate side goal to keep the player occupied on easier early levels and to inspire him to keep playing after the clear (the main goal), but here it's even more pertinent thanks to there not being a "clear" at all (disregarding kill screen glitches.) In a modern variation on the model, I'd say the more complex and involved the scoring system the better.
• Fairness - Early arcade games were designed to please the same two groups of people as later ones. On one hand, arcade operators obviously wanted to make money, so they wanted games that were as demanding as possible. On the other hand, if the players felt the game was cheating them or was unfair/impossible, they would simply walk away and the game wouldn't make any money. This resulted in a lucky balance, with games that were both fair and hard to master. That's also why arcade games are where you'll find some of the best pixel art and music in videogames at the time they were released; if players are going through the same stages 100+ times to clear the game, those stages need to look and sound pretty damn great. It's no coincidence that the Metal Slug series and Dodonpachi, games containing some of the most celebrated pixel art ever, were made for the arcades. But, bringing this back to the earlier endless arcade model: if you want to make a fair game then you should try to avoid all the randomized level design gimmickry prevalent in Flash games. Instead, create a small bunch of predefined scenarios with speed, enemy power, etc. parameters that scale up as the game goes on.

Also, how to make a game endlessly replayable in the modern era: make it a great game. No need for dumb gimmicks, achievements, or tons of useless collectibles.

[Richard Kain]

Also, how to make a game endlessly replayable in the modern era: make it a great game. No need for dumb gimmicks, achievements, or tons of useless collectibles.

There is something to be said for this. To this day, I still love playing Galaga. A good game well-executed needs nothing but itself to entice an audience. You should focus on making a solid game first and foremost. Trying to make games infinitely replayable is not a proper goal to work towards.

[SundownKid]

The games I have ended up replaying the most are not plot-based ones, but really tightly balanced and designed multiplayer games with a high amount of depth. It helps if things such as the graphics, sound, etc. are made with exacting attention to detail because it makes players want to come back.

[s0]

I do think there are games more inherently replayable than others. I mean how often have you played through, idk, your favorite linear adventure game, and by contrast, how mucht time have you spent playing your fave multiplayer game?

[noah!]

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

Yes, yes, but. Read it. It's rather good.

And besides, you really only have to scroll one page down before you get to the meat. To tl;dr: Players invest little up-front in an arcade game. If they find it boring, they leave. Therefore, the burden is on the developer to assault them junk-first with as much action and fun as the player can handle. Constantly. Otherwise they leave.

It's really all about streamlining. Taking out the filler. Shoving fistfuls of fun into the player's face. Muttering that they like it.

[XRA]

pretty much +1 everything in this thread.

It bugs me when people lump all arcade games together as "just tryin to steal them quarters!1".


Anyone here ever go into a gameworks and happen to see recent-gen-gamers sit down and try to play old classic games and just moan the entire time about it?  So used to being force-fed how to play and rewarded for nothing that the simple concept of just shooting down incoming missiles becomes so foreign to them when presented minimally....  

[moi]

I could write many things about arcade so I'll just write about one thing from teh arcade games that made them fascinating:
infinite hardware.

Devs could just stack as many chips as they liked and even customize existing hardware until they had the powerhouse required for their games. Some of these games had the equivvalent of a dozen personal computers of the time under the hood.
Some of these hardware were indredible for the time, check out power drift from SEGA to understand what I mean.

Of course everything became dull and boring with the advent of 3D because all you could do was increase the number of polygons on screen or sthg. Also 3D arcade games were never as good as 2D ones.

[dustin]

For me (and it's mentioned in noah's article and a bunch of other peoples posts) it's the fact that I know every death is my own fault.  Like I know it's possibly to get through all of 1942 on 1 credit, I've seen it done and when I die in that game it's never bad controls it's always just me.

This same thing is what makes rougelikes addictive for me.  When I die I know it's my fault.  There is something clear I could have done to stop it.

In lots of console games this isn't true.  Particularly things like mario party where there is a lot of luck, or things like wii sports where I often feel the controls are in my way.  (note unlike the author of the article I love both these games but I like them for different reasons then I like arcade games for).

[1982]

It's really all about streamlining. Taking out the filler. Shoving fistfuls of fun into the player's face. Muttering that they like it.

I like this design philosophy on laid back gaming.

[sublinimal]

It bugs me when people lump all arcade games together as "just tryin to steal them quarters!1".

I think it would be interesting to see a modern arcade game with micropayments. Maybe it'd cost a quarter, and you'd get 10 cents back for each completed level. Just brainstorming.

[1982]

I think it would be interesting to see a modern arcade game with micropayments. Maybe it'd cost a quarter, and you'd get 10 cents back for each completed level. Just brainstorming.

Or what about making a game that is exclusive "by invitation only" like google wave was. Each player, upon completing so many levels gets three single-use codes they can give to their friends, so they can download the game and play it too.

There can be a secret that is revealed in the game as well, along with instructions: "You must not describe to anybody what this secret is. You may only mention it by name. Only those who play the game are allowed to know it."

Make it free to play, and it'd be a phenomenon. Everyone will want to join in and know the secret. TIGS should make this.

The secret would be spoiled in a first instance, how you prevent that? Unless the secret is somehow different in every play turn.

[1982]

People would be trusted to keep it to themselves. I think the vast majority of people would.

It requires only one person to spoil it  Trust is not enough, unless it is some sort of contract which has 50 000 dollar fine. Many reality-TV shows use such contracts.

[1982]

One person can't tell everybody.

Contracts would be OTT; Trust is enough. People who break the secrecy would only reveal to the world that they cannot be trusted. That social judgement would be a heavy burden to carry.

Youtube.

You can reveal the secret anonymously, so there is no fear of losing your face. In the other hand, not all care about their reputation or social judgement. But if this game is all about inside joke between indie devs in closed circle, then nobody cares.

[1982]

One person can't tell everybody.

Contracts would be OTT; Trust is enough. People who break the secrecy would only reveal to the world that they cannot be trusted. That social judgement would be a heavy burden to carry.

Youtube.

You can reveal the secret anonymously, so there is no fear of losing your face. In the other hand, not all care about their reputation or social judgement. But if this game is all about inside joke between indie devs in closed circle, then nobody cares.

But secret should be made in such way that it cannot be revealed, it can be only experienced.

[s0]

Devs could just stack as many chips as they liked and even customize existing hardware until they had the powerhouse required for their games. Some of these games had the equivvalent of a dozen personal computers of the time under the hood.
Some of these hardware were indredible for the time, check out power drift from SEGA to understand what I mean.

Yup, arcade games def used to be the "avantgarde" when it came to hardware power and graphics.

It's a shame that a lot of new arcade games seem to run on mid-quality PC hardware. Takes away a bit of the "magic" imo.

[1982]

You're over examining it.

I believe that when basic idea is good, it should be done properly and not blindly.

[moi]

I reckon there is an analogy between arcade games and flash game (real-time optimization of rentability).
that said arcade games did offer the player "bang for their buck".
When I'm done playing a flash game I generally feel tired, frustrated and stupider than before.