Playing MAME and feeling cheated

[DisastrophE]

So I just finished playing through 1941 on MAME. I died a lot naturally. I love shmups but I suck at them lol. No worries though because I can just keep plugging in credits until I beat it. Though when I did I couldn't help but feel a little cheated. I mean it's great to beat games that you never could as a kid because you either ran out of quarters or didn't want to waste them all on one game. However it's not really that fun nor rewarding to just keeping feeding in credits til you reach the end.

So how do feel about this? Do you not care that you can run threw a game in a matter of a few minutes? Or do you maybe only limit yourself to a few credits and see how far you can get with that set amount?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to lament the change over to continue based arcade games, versus the type of game you try and achieve a high score. I personally don't have a preference, but it's often a topic of heated debate.

Anyway, I play through the entire game usually. Games that offer further gameplay through a continue based system are designed to be played this way. It's less about skill and more about how much money you have. There are many games I played as a kid that I couldn't afford to beat. The games are made to eat quarters, and a lot are nearly impossible to complete on single credit. I'm glad that MAME exists, so I can now play though all those games I couldn't as a kid. I also find the more you play through the entire game the less credits you often need... funny how that works.

So if your asking if I felt cheated, the answer is yes. But cheated because it used to take a roll of quarters to play through. But I don't feel cheated because I can play through the entire game for free nowadays. I guess it seems sort of a silly question to me.

Also, this topic probably belongs in Arcade Alley.

[Arctic Feather]

Personally I don't understand when people complain about having unlimited credits in a games (whether it be in MAME, or with a console port). If you want to you can just play through the whole game using as many credits as you want, or if you don't want to do that is it really that hard to limit yourself to a set number of continues?

[XYXZYZ]

So I just finished playing through 1941 on MAME. I died a lot naturally. I love shmups but I suck at them lol. No worries though because I can just keep plugging in credits until I beat it. Though when I did I couldn't help but feel a little cheated. I mean it's great to beat games that you never could as a kid because you either ran out of quarters or didn't want to waste them all on one game. However it's not really that fun nor rewarding to just keeping feeding in credits til you reach the end.

So how do feel about this? Do you not care that you can run threw a game in a matter of a few minutes? Or do you maybe only limit yourself to a few credits and see how far you can get with that set amount?

I used to think about this as well.

Read this-
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

The guy who wrote it may be kind of a jerk, but it definitely changed the way I look at playing MAME.

[Gentlegamer]

I used to think about this as well.

Read this-
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

The guy who wrote it may be kind of a jerk, but it definitely changed the way I look at playing MAME.Me too: now I play both MAME and real coin-ops strictly as one credit plays. Much more enjoyable actually.

[fahlim003]

I used to think about this as well.

Read this-
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

The guy who wrote it may be kind of a jerk, but it definitely changed the way I look at playing MAME.

And I vote against reading that as it's a lot of filler and name-dropping. Plus the author is more than 'kind of a jerk', at least has the reputation to be despite his moniker (icycalm). Topic author: consult method described by Arctic Feather as it pretty much boils down to not slamming the '5' key for more coins.

I don't know when I changed my position from inserting many coins to 1 credit per run but when I did it was with good reason. High scores aren't submitted if a continue is used in arcades, as world recording holding goes only scores one a single credit are accepted. Twin Galaxies or Arcadia. I wanted legitimate scores and in addition I wanted to be better at the game, whereby progress via score or stage/level increase on one credit is the only way. Yes, some of the best in the world credit feed, in order to get familiar with later, far more difficult stages/areas, but when it comes to score time it's one credit or bust. In the end, this depends on if the individual enjoys the game or not. If you do, then credit feeding once doesn't do much harm as you'll perhaps naturally seek to improve since it's enjoyable. It's safe to assume most of the people at the top of given score boards for certain games enjoy a game to such an extent that skill is not the only factor in seeing their dominance. Practice is the name of the game and one must crawl before they can walk if a large factor in being successful in arcade games specifically. To beat a game on one coin is the challenge and if the game is fun the experience is even moreso.

1941 is a very good example of a challenging game... on one credit. Anyone can beat it credit feeding but not so many have done it without. Credit feeding in many cases removes challenge and as such competitiveness. For me, cf-ing 1941 wouldn't mean jack and I haven't done anything anybody else couldn't do if they had the appropriate funds (or '5' keys). Plus it takes barely any effort, so why should I do this when I could... nothing? If my goal is fun, it's going to be different from someone elses viewpoint so perhaps I cannot see the forest for the trees but for me, for a run/score in a game to count and to actually have a sense of accomplishment it's one coin or nothing. Credit feeding is just one way to practice assuming the game is played more than once. Speaking for myself, I've probably dumped just under 10 hours into 1941 and I've not yet cleared it on one credit. It's a tough game and at times can be cheap, however several hours down the road in terms of experience and practice I'll eventually get it and it will be all the more satisfying. It's the entire mantra of arcade games, fun (the bait) and challenging (the hook).

[SegaAges]

I read that, and I think he needs to actually get out to arcades more and really see the money makers. Well, in different regions.

The huge money maker that everybody crowded around in Omaha (well last couple times I was there), Deal or No Deal. Yeah. I am serious. There was a crowd around it and it was out front.

Now for fun:

Why are the controls always spot-on and intuitive?
This is not true for every single game. No examples popup off of the top of my head, but they are not always spot on.


Why are there no cutscenes?
Really? I have no idea what games he plays, but many of the newer ones do have cutscenes.


Why are licenced games rare?
Apparently Guitar Hero Arcade (buttload of licensed songs), Nick Toons Racing and Fast and Furious (just to name the 1st 3 off of the top of my head), which happen to be everywhere I go do not count.


Why are the games extremely challenging?
Crazy Taxi (off of the top of my head), appeals to many people because of the fact that it is easy. Sure, your score may suck at the end if you are not good at it, but it appeals to everybody.


Why is there no padding (à la Halo, for example, where half the latter stages are a bad joke)?
I would give a different answer: most arcade games are generally shorter than big budget games. Yes, in my eyes, it is that simple.

[stargate]

I used to think about this as well.

Read this-
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

The guy who wrote it may be kind of a jerk, but it definitely changed the way I look at playing MAME.

There have been tons of INCREDIBLY sh!tty arcade games released.

[Hari Seldon]

So I just finished playing through 1941 on MAME. I died a lot naturally. I love shmups but I suck at them lol. No worries though because I can just keep plugging in credits until I beat it. Though when I did I couldn't help but feel a little cheated. I mean it's great to beat games that you never could as a kid because you either ran out of quarters or didn't want to waste them all on one game. However it's not really that fun nor rewarding to just keeping feeding in credits til you reach the end.

So how do feel about this? Do you not care that you can run threw a game in a matter of a few minutes? Or do you maybe only limit yourself to a few credits and see how far you can get with that set amount?

Truth be told, I don't. Playing any game though MAME is hardly the same thing as the real deal anyway, and it's not a matter of the difference between the original hardware and emulation, it's that we are not 12 anymore. I don't mind if I have to use god knows how many credits to finish a game. I have a plethora of responsibilities I didn't had back then and most importantly, I lack the patience.

[Nonplus]

I used to think about this as well.

Read this-
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

The guy who wrote it may be kind of a jerk, but it definitely changed the way I look at playing MAME.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought of this first. He's a bit of a dick, and arrogant as hell, but I think it suits his writing style: the video game snob. Simply put, without people like him decrying the mainstream industry, there would be a lot less innovation and a lot more complacency.

But that's a bit off topic. Getting better at SHMUPS requires dedication and self-discipline, as well as some self-awareness as to where you keep screwing up. Maybe you get into a blind panic when bullets come at you and fling your ship backwards into some stray bullets. Cut that shit out. Try to get better at judging the absolute minimum amount of movement you need to get out of the way. The farther you move, the bigger chance you're going to hit something you didn't take into account. Sometimes, that means standing still. Just because something's coming at you does not mean it's going to hit, and you have to focus on getting better at figuring out when to move and when to hold your ground.

Also, try to play a variety of shooters. A lot of companies have their own unique style, and the more you get better at, the better you'll get at the rest. Sometimes you should completely stay away from the genre and pick up a platformer. The key is variety, and a platformer has a lot of the same difficulty issues SHMUPS have, and then some.

Do yourself a favor and devote an hour or two of back-to-back playing with some older SHMUPS. Don't just download twenty roms and flip between them every five minutes. You're not going to get any better if you don't give your brain time to adjust to each play style. Space Invaders, Atlantis--anything without rapid-fire. I'm not going to bullshit you: the genre evolved for a reason, and you only got two shots on-screen because the program couldn't handle anything more, but they rely less on accurate shooting and more on accurate dodging. Don't get me wrong, both are essential, but in my experience the better you get at sniping your enemies, the better you'll get at judging trajectories in general.

Also, get away from the bottom of the screen, it cripples dodging. They give you eight directions for a reason: you need them, and you can't move backwards if there's nowhere to go. If you're stuck at the edge of the screen, you're just screwing yourself over.
Edit: Whoops, I forgot two important things that've already been touched on: practice one-crediting and credit-feeding. Just remember to keep track of how many credits it takes to beat, and keep trying.

[Gapporin]

It's not just MAME -- any retro arcade compilation for PlayStation 2, Xbox, etc. will let you credit feed as much as you'd like. I agree with the previous posters who said that they only play with one credit. I've been playing arcade games via emulation/console for this way for as long as I can remember. Plus, it's the only way to get recognized on a website like MARP (http://replay.marpirc.net/).

[Hari Seldon]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought of this first. He's a bit of a dick, and arrogant as hell, but I think it suits his writing style: the video game snob. Simply put, without people like him decrying the mainstream industry, there would be a lot less innovation and a lot more complacency.

He is nor a dick nor arrogant, he is an idiot. The video game industry has outgrown arcades, what is left are a few pockets of resistance in japan and the odd arcade here and there. Whats worse is that the writer doesn't seem to have a clue of what arcades where about, all he has is a romanticized version of the hardcore gamer and the unhealthy image of some nut job glued to a screen dodging bullets. Arcade games are supposed to be harder to make more as much money as they can, end of story.

[betamax001]

Reading this makes me wanna go to an arcade...

[Nonplus]

He is nor a dick nor arrogant, he is an idiot. The video game industry has outgrown arcades, what is left are a few pockets of resistance in japan and the odd arcade here and there. Whats worse is that the writer doesn't seem to have a clue of what arcades where about, all he has is a romanticized version of the hardcore gamer and the unhealthy image of some nut job glued to a screen dodging bullets. Arcade games are supposed to be harder to make more as much money as they can, end of story.

But didn't he make that point? Arcade games are supposed to sap away as much money as they can, and we're supposed to beat it with as little money as possible.
Yes, arcades are dying: the machines are prohibitively expensive, each continue nets you fifty cents, and most people don't want to go somewhere to play video games when they can do it right from there home. Cave's doing what they can to combat upfront costs (http://kotaku.com/5241974/bullet-hell-developer-offers-arcades-its-games-for-free), but only time will tell if it actually matters (it probably won't, but we can dream).

[Hari Seldon]

But didn't he make that point? Arcade games are supposed to sap away as much money as they can, and we're supposed to beat it with as little money as possible.
Yes, arcades are dying: the machines are prohibitively expensive, each continue nets you fifty cents, and most people don't want to go somewhere to play video games when they can do it right from there home. Cave's doing what they can to combat upfront costs (http://kotaku.com/5241974/bullet-hell-developer-offers-arcades-its-games-for-free), but only time will tell if it actually matters (it probably won't, but we can dream).

Indeed, however he seems to have completely missed the point of why arcades existed in the first place. They used to be a place where you ended up paying more to play better looking games than at home. With that difference no longer a factor, they have no reason to exist anymore.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Anyway, I play through the entire game usually. Games that offer further gameplay through a continue based system are designed to be played this way. It's less about skill and more about how much money you have.

They are not designed to be played that way. You are either very bad at games or know very little about them. Anyone with skills for shoot 'em ups can appreciate how the games are designed with trying to finish the game with one credit in mind. That's how we play the games in Japan - the country that these games were designed in and the market they were catered for.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

They are not designed to be played that way. You are either very bad at games or know very little about them. Anyone with skills for shoot 'em ups can appreciate how the games are designed with trying to finish the game with one credit in mind. That's how we play the games in Japan - the country that these games were designed in and the market they were catered for.



Thanks for your assessment on my skills as a gamer and my knowledge about video games. I read the article above and learned that the Japanese and American arcades are very very different as are the attitudes toward the way an arcade is played. The author was also really insulting in some parts of the article, and suggested that this mental approach was only one way to treat these masterfully crafted skill challenges (or video games as I call them). Actually his arrogant tone throughout the article and yours are very similar. That aside, I did learn quite a bit.

I also find it hard to believe that a game like 1941 where the Americans blow up Japanese planes was made specifically for a Japanese market.

Then there's another school of thought that says these sort of games ruined the arcades.

I don't know if I believe that there is a right way to play a continue based arcade game. When your a small child and you get to play an arcade game 3 or 4 times a year, and your only allowed a dollar or two, it's kind of hard to master any game. And it was pretty hard for a kid like myself to envision that these games are ever meant to do anything but take your money for giving little in return.

I also disagree that you can't improve your skills using continues. If you play a game enough using the one credit method or by using multiple credits you still get better at the game. Anyway it's late and I'm tired and this is a pretty pointless argument, especially with you. I'm going to agree to disagree, even if you don't

[Sosage]

There can be only one Tim Rogers. I wish his clones would have a battle of the fittest, so only the strongest could survive and carry on with his style. In hopes of one of them breaking off and mutating into something that goes into a new and interesting direction.

Not to be too fucked up, but that article's point isn't exactly new. Penny Arcade made the same statement buried somewhere on their blog, which sparked the discussion in the more main of the gaming stream for a week...at least a year or two before the article in question. The very audience he dicks early in his article, had already been there and done that before he opened word.

As other have said, you need to learn to embrace the 1CC philosophy. Shmups become brilliant once death carries a real penalty (which now days is simply starting over without losing money). You want the ultimate lesson in the importance of learning the game and having incentive not to lose in an arcade setting? Time travel to the summer of 92-93 and try to play on a busy Street Fighter 2 machine. Make sure you only brought 2 dollars in quarters with you and did you remember to bring enough plutonium for the return trip?

[Mimi Nakamura]

I don't know if I believe that there is a right way to play a continue based arcade game. When your a small child and you get to play an arcade game 3 or 4 times a year, and your only allowed a dollar or two, it's kind of hard to master any game. And it was pretty hard for a kid like myself to envision that these games are ever meant to do anything but take your money for giving little in return.

That's probably because the game wasn't designed to be played by small children. As a child it was probably hard to understand, but now that you're a fully grown adult it shouldn't be too hard a concept for you to grasp.

If you ever took the time to properly play the games you would see quite clearly that the level designs are geared towards one credit completions. Just look at the frequency and order of the power ups, it's not that hard to see.

The right way to play a game is to play it the way it was designed to be played. You'll have much more fun if you do that.

[Nonplus]

Indeed, however he seems to have completely missed the point of why arcades existed in the first place. They used to be a place where you ended up paying more to play better looking games than at home. With that difference no longer a factor, they have no reason to exist anymore.

People started opening up arcades because there was no other way to play video games, and they lasted because the first consoles were down-right expensive. When the industry crashed, they went with it.
Games usually retail for around sixty bucks when they first come out, which actually means you generally pay a lot more to play it. It's more of an investment situation: you can pay fifty cents at an arcade, or you can just outright buy the game. Whether it saves you money all depends on if you think the game is worth buying or not.
But that's irrelevant: arcades are a social event. It's like going to a bar: everything's horribly overpriced but you're not there looking for the best deal, you're just trying to go out and have a good time.


If you ever took the time to properly play the games you would see quite clearly that the level designs are geared towards one credit completions. Just look at the frequency and order of the power ups, it's not that hard to see.

The right way to play a game is to play it the way it was designed to be played. You'll have much more fun if you do that.

Arcade games are not designed to be beaten on one credit, they're built to make arcade operators money, otherwise they wouldn't buy the company's machines. No operator wants to make fifty cents an hour on something they just spent $1200 on. Sure, every once in a while someone beats the system, but that true about life in general. Harley-Davidsons are not built to be the fastest motorcycles. While the industry has evolved and engineers continue to find more efficient designs, they've always stuck with the classic Harley look to support backwards compatibility between older and newer models. Every once in a while someone wins a tournament with one, but they're not designed for it.

[Ed Oscuro]

The question of whether using continues will make the game less fun, or help the player learn the game better (at the detriment of long-term earnings), was a central issue for arcade game designers back when "emulator" meant an in-circuit emulator and what we call emulation would be called simulation. Nonplus hints at this in the post above, but what Mimi Nakamura writes about games being designed for one-credit completions (by skilled, experienced players) is also correct.

Long before the 90s there was the score reset - you continue, you lose your points. Then Gradius syndrome, which has the downside of making the game difficult only when powerups are lost, so it gets easier when you stay alive, not harder. Neither was a complete solution.

Then a new group of efforts to refine and nerf the use of continues hit in the 90s. First was rank or difficulty adjustment (rank actually long predates the 90s, but it's a concept that was really refined in the mid 90s with games that offer rank control methods or implemented it in new ways). Continued play makes the game harder. If you die, or continue, the game plays at a reduced difficulty, usually at the game's initial difficulty after a continue. There are two benefits to operators: One, players feel like they still can continue, and see what comes next (but it's not the same as full difficulty so it doesn't work for preparation). Two, players who are good enough to survive will be rewarded by the increased difficulty weeding players out of the highscore list - players who have lots of coins but not skill who may have seen later areas, but at lower difficulty so they aren't prepared to deal with them. Of course, it takes everybody many credits to deal with the increased difficulty, so good players might just kill themselves quickly on making a mistake and insert another coin (this is why so many players put a reset switch in easy reach on their own arcade machines). The operators are raking in cash, then, from players who are only semi-serious about the game, and also from players who are already talented but working to perfect their game.

It helps that starting in the 90s many games have a set end, often after a second (harder) loop of the game, instead of being endless where you don't need to play at the highest level to maximize the score - you just have to stay awake. Playing off on this is another big idea that hit in the later 90s is exemplified by DoDonPachi, Battle Garegga, Raiden Fighters Jet, or Mars Matrix, a riff on the point-doubling of old Capcom games like Vulgus - chaining and the similar idea of learning to maximize scoring opportunities (in games like Battle Garegga and RFJ) lets good players score a whole lot more than simply shooting and bombing through stages will allow. Even in games without actual chain timers (DoDonPachi) or chains (i.e. so many disco guys caught without missing one in Dangun FeverOn), like BG and RFJ, you cannot practice how to make the highest score possible by using continues since using a continue resets difficulty, bombs (and bomb pieces carried, a big factor in Battle Garegga), or whatever else you have to keep an eye on as a player. Even some old Toaplan shooters - like Twin Cobra, Truxton, and Fire Shark - it helps the player rack up the best score possible to pick up the shot type items / change items in the right order / at the right time in order to score points more quickly. Using continues will again not help in practicing this order.

[Famidrive-16]

icycalm posts at shoryuken, lol

[Kid Ice]

Since most arcade games (especially shmups) are unreasonably difficult, I usually limit myself to a dollar in credits.

That article was too foolish to even comment on.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

If you ever took the time to properly play the games you would see quite clearly that the level designs are geared towards one credit completions. Just look at the frequency and order of the power ups, it's not that hard to see.

The right way to play a game is to play it the way it was designed to be played. You'll have much more fun if you do that.


I have fun playing it my way. Sometimes I play the game all the way through, and other times on a credit to see how far I get. And again, it is possible to master a game, that you continue on- I promise.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. I understand that in a perfect setting with a master player a lot of games can be done with one credit. But then again games are not truly designed to be played exclusively by master players. I also find it really hard to believe that some of those bullet hell games are really playable on a credit.

It also doesn't help that your elitist attitude and the author's treat "the arcade game" as a divine entity flawlessly designed, and meant to be marveled at by the gaming masses. It's hard to swallow because (through MAME), I've found that there are a lot of shitty arcade games. You wouldn't know it from the article though, would you?

And really there isn't a game that's designed to be picked up and played with 1 credit. If a game is to be mastered you need to play a lot. And the fact that these games offer continues at all, points to both sides of the argument.

And who is the joke really on? The hardcore one credit player who undoubtedly spends way more on a single game, or the dumb (replace "player" with "American") player who continues through to completion and saves a wad of cash on what, may in fact be, a mediocre game. The more I think about it, maybe this attitude is one started by game publishers to create an environment that breeds this hardcore mentality. It probably makes them more money. I'm half joking. Sort of. Maybe.

While I do see it from your point of view, I don't agree that it's the "right" way. It's a different way, but not the right way. While it can be more rewarding to some to play your way, it's sorta sounds more religious than fun. I'm sorry there are a lot of games that just aren't that good.

[Flack]

So I just finished playing through 1941 on MAME. I died a lot naturally. I love shmups but I suck at them lol. No worries though because I can just keep plugging in credits until I beat it. Though when I did I couldn't help but feel a little cheated. I mean it's great to beat games that you never could as a kid because you either ran out of quarters or didn't want to waste them all on one game. However it's not really that fun nor rewarding to just keeping feeding in credits til you reach the end.

So how do feel about this? Do you not care that you can run threw a game in a matter of a few minutes? Or do you maybe only limit yourself to a few credits and see how far you can get with that set amount?

It's not just MAME. The same thing occurs when you actually buy a machine. I personally went through this after buying my Gauntlet machine. I have great memories of playing Gauntlet for seemingly hours with my friends back in high school, and one of the reasons I bought my Gauntlet cabinet was so I could invite my friends over and we could relive those times. When you own a machine though, it's the same as MAME -- you can keep plugging in credits, and on a never-ending game like Gauntlet, it really kills it. With unlimited credits, you can play Gauntlet literally forever (or until I kick you out). Once your mind makes that realization, it's over. I never play my Gauntlet machine any more for that reason.

Like a few others have said, when I sit down to play a game I'll just say something like either no continues or a finite number (like "only 4 credits on Metal Slug") or something).

[kedawa]

I typically play through using as many credits as it takes the first time, and then see how far I can get on one credit thereafter.

[kedawa]

If arcade games were meant to be played through on one credit only, why the hell do they have continues in the first place? Even games that have dipswitch settings to enable/disable continues default to allowing continues.

[XYXZYZ]

It's not just MAME. The same thing occurs when you actually buy a machine. I personally went through this after buying my Gauntlet machine. I have great memories of playing Gauntlet for seemingly hours with my friends back in high school, and one of the reasons I bought my Gauntlet cabinet was so I could invite my friends over and we could relive those times. When you own a machine though, it's the same as MAME -- you can keep plugging in credits, and on a never-ending game like Gauntlet, it really kills it. With unlimited credits, you can play Gauntlet literally forever (or until I kick you out). Once your mind makes that realization, it's over. I never play my Gauntlet machine any more for that reason.

Like a few others have said, when I sit down to play a game I'll just say something like either no continues or a finite number (like "only 4 credits on Metal Slug") or something).

You could lock the coin/bucket doors and tell your wife to hide the keys.

[Hari Seldon]

They are not designed to be played that way. You are either very bad at games or know very little about them. Anyone with skills for shoot 'em ups can appreciate how the games are designed with trying to finish the game with one credit in mind. That's how we play the games in Japan - the country that these games were designed in and the market they were catered for.

By skills you mean pattern memorization? Given enough time a monkey can do that. No wonder why the "experts" in those arcades look so beat up, their brains are gone already.

[Flack]

You could lock the coin/bucket doors and tell your wife to hide the keys.

Unfortunately my other new hobby is lock picking. :/

[Ed Oscuro]

And again, it is possible to master a game, that you continue on- I promise.
No, it's not (depending on the game).

It's nice to know my posts are appreciated... :shameful:

[Ed Oscuro]

By skills you mean pattern memorization? Given enough time a monkey can do that. No wonder why the "experts" in those arcades look so beat up, their brains are gone already.
Because watching television is so much more taxing on the brain, right? That means spouting off on forums must be like Baby Einsteins for adults!*

You're looking for something in arcade games that's not there. Even games that aren't purely memorization still must be learned.

*No refunds.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

No, it's not (depending on the game).

It's nice to know my posts are appreciated... :shameful:

Where in my post did I say all games? In fact you admitted "depending on the game." I don't see how we are even in disagreement? Take for instance 1943. I've played through it several times using continues. I then play on one credit, to see how far I can get, and each time I get further. How does that not reinforce what I say Not all games are like this one, and I never made a claim as such.

I've read every post in this thread, BTW.

[Ed Oscuro]

I didn't intend to take that quote out of context, but I think it means something other than what you intended it to. Welcome to the wild, wooly world of English - when you don't specify that you mean a subset of the group, it's assumed that you intend the statement to be read as a generalization. For example, if I say "SKY IS BLUE" I mean all skies, don't you think? Anyhow, it's good to know you're repeating points that you don't think there is disagreement about. How confused are you?

Bottom line - some games will simply have the credit feeding problem, that's life. Frankly it doesn't get me down in games like, say, Gradius Galaxies where I have to use the continue and even the damn Hint system to figure out how to get through parts of Stage 6 consistently.

With arcade games, if you're using continues that means you aren't consistent enough to play it for score (i.e. correctly), so there's something to shoot for. Arcade games have thin enough content that even if it's excellent, you'll wear through it quickly and soon few arcade games will seem satisfying.

Myself, I've never cared for arcade games that try to pass of a deep serious story (Treasure you crackin' me up), but still a lot of the content in arcade games does well to stimulate a certain feeling or emotion, and I don't find that gets old (for example, the ship select tune "Odyssey" in Battle Bakraid feels better than all the game's graphics combined). Add in good playability that taxes the memory, reflexes, and my spatial reckoning to cobble together solutions when the pattern or my reflexes don't hold, and a good time is had. Recently, Galaga '88 has been doing this for me.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

I didn't intend to take that quote out of context, but I think it means something other than what you intended it to. Welcome to the wild, wooly world of English - when you don't specify that you mean a subset of the group, it's assumed that you mean that as a general statement.

No harm done. I just got irritated at Ms. Nakamura's and that author of the article's hardline stance that the one credit system is the only way to play and enjoy an arcade game. That and the notion that American players are a cretin breed of gamers, who somehow don't know how to properly play an arcade game. Then there's the whole arcade games are far superior to console games claim.

[Ed Oscuro]

Then there's the whole arcade games are far superior to console games claim.
One I'm often finding myself in agreement with, personally speaking. Console games often weren't designed with long-term replayability in mind, just one big blast and you were done. When the next game in a franchise would be released the next year, and the developers had a limited window to develop the game anyway, it's no big surprise. It's often still the case, but there are examples from every era of games that break the mold.

I think that arcade games of the mid-90s and later had to focus more closely on the question of long-term replayability because gamers increasingly had powerful 3D-capable consoles in their homes that could play games nearly as flashy as in arcades. To sell an arcade operator on an arcade game they had to create much more refined products than before that would keep players busy for years and years.

On Shmups Forum I know a lot of the regulars blast through many mid-to-late 80s arcade PCBs of games like top-down shooters (Guerrilla War / Guevara is not one of these), but people are still working on the games I mentioned in my first post (most anything Cave, Psikyo games, late Seibu Kaihatsu, and so on). Games like early Toaplan (Twin Cobra, Fire Shark, similar titles like Raiden and so on) are fun but somebody will natural skill may end up reaching the game's limit in its ability to test them.

Back to the message - I think it comes down to what you're looking for, but console games often use methods that strike me as bad to add difficulty. I think the first Ninja Gaiden, as fun as it can be, is a good example of going overboard with the wrong kind of "replayability." Of course, to be fair...console games didn't sit still either, but as I mentioned, the '90s is often thought of as a sort of stagnating period where graphics was put above all else. I love the N64 Zelda games but won't pretend that there's new challenges to be had there (outside the minigames that Nintendo wisely added).

Also, thanks for ignoring my snippy "how confused" line, that was out of line.

[Kid Ice]

It's funny. The more gaming events I see actual human beings at, the more humble they tend to be about their gaming skills.

A couple NAVAs ago there was a Street Fighter IV tournament. I made a decent showing in the practice rounds (for my age, so I was told), but was eliminated handily in the first round. But as I watched the tournament continue up to the final round, it occurred to me that the skill differential among all the players competing was not that great...with more practice and a little luck, I could've been in the final round...anyone competing that day could have.

I've been to countless gaming nights and events and found that seasoned gamers tend to compete pretty closely in all sorts of games, even ones they are not familiar with.

In all this time, all those hours in arcades as a kid, all these adult gaming events I've been to, how many master-class performances have I personally witnessed?

ZERO

How many times have I witnessed someone one cc a shmup or speedrun a Super Mario, Castlevania, MGS etc. ?

ZERO

How many times have I witnessed someone play an arcade game for over two hours on a single quarter?

ZERO

But somehow, the internet is crawling with these people. I know it's the old "I haven't seen it so it doesn't exist" argument, but still....keep in mind now, I live in a major metropolitan area. I'm not in Iowa. I've been at this for 30 years.

Now I know a good number of people have posted speedruns and amazing performances on YouTube, but in no way does that represent a norm in the U.S. or elsewhere. It's safe to say if you took 25, maybe even 250, hell probably more like *2500* random people off the streets of the U.S. against me in a high score contest on a Cave shooter, I would prevail. And I can't one cc SHIT.

But up in Canada where Anthony Michael Hall's girlfriend lives, or overseas in Japan, kids walk into arcades and one cc Batsugun for breakfast. Anyone who can't is a moron who shouldn't play, write about, or even think about video games.

[Ed Oscuro]

Maybe I've been spoiled by being at Shmups where there's not very much trash talking, and I have better sources of information than people who can't play the games well try to tell the rest of us what's good or bad about them. You're less likely to find discussions about what's wrong with Nintendo's business strategy and more about making hidden bonuses appear, or how to clear tricky sections of games.

It's nice to learn from masters.

[Kid Ice]

Maybe I've been spoiled by being at Shmups where there's not very much trash talking, and I have better sources of information than people who can't play the games well try to tell the rest of us what's good or bad about them. You're less likely to find discussions about what's wrong with Nintendo's business strategy and more about making hidden bonuses appear, or how to clear tricky sections of games.

It's nice to learn from masters.

Like 14,950 of your other posts, I have no idea who or what the hell you're talking about.

[Ed Oscuro]

It's a bit of perspective for your comment that good gamers apparently don't exist because you haven't seen them. I'm not sure what the point is of saying that you have a long experience observing mediocre to good gaming and that you have also observed people being pricks about playing well. Is the lesson to be happy with being a crap gamer? Okay, so you suppose you could beat most people by playing a Cave game as if it were 1941...great? This Internet thing has an amazing power of sharing information so that you anybody can have access to quality guidance or competition. If bombing your way through a Cave shooter better than some random person who plays Halo or Counter-Strike is the only yardstick of success you aspire to for that game, that's okay too, but don't assume that all good players are jerks.

ZERO

ZERO

ZERO

Who are you so worked up about, Ice? Mimi is just being Mimi and that Icycalm guy is a notorious jerk, and doesn't practice what he preaches anyway. The guys in King of Kong are just a bunch of nutcases, but not everybody with ability at games is like that.

The comments about business strategy are generalized about this Forum - just think to the last time there was a "so-and-so company's business strategy is going nowhere and my evidence is that I play games." GamePolitics tries to cover that, and most player discussion is futile there as well. The first part was a pretty direct response, I thought, to your little rant. You seem to have successfully divined this through reading my post. I also had to make a guess as to what yours is about, since you're not responding directly to anybody. Not terribly hard to do.

Shmups is the name of another Forum. There's a sad lack of drama at the moment, but there are topics I find more interesting and fresh (http://shmups.system11.org/viewforum.php?f=5) than "top Genesis games" or "tell me all the variants of this game because I'm going to dur butter them all up and eat zem." The evergreen topics were cool back in 2002, but I'm trying to get my money's worth out of all this junk now ;)

[Mimi Nakamura]

The question of whether using continues will make the game less fun, or help the player learn the game better (at the detriment of long-term earnings), was a central issue for arcade game designers back when "emulator" meant an in-circuit emulator and what we call emulation would be called simulation. Nonplus hints at this in the post above, but what Mimi Nakamura writes about games being designed for one-credit completions (by skilled, experienced players) is also correct.

Long before the 90s there was the score reset - you continue, you lose your points. Then Gradius syndrome, which has the downside of making the game difficult only when powerups are lost, so it gets easier when you stay alive, not harder. Neither was a complete solution.

Then a new group of efforts to refine and nerf the use of continues hit in the 90s. First was rank or difficulty adjustment (rank actually long predates the 90s, but it's a concept that was really refined in the mid 90s with games that offer rank control methods or implemented it in new ways). Continued play makes the game harder. If you die, or continue, the game plays at a reduced difficulty, usually at the game's initial difficulty after a continue. There are two benefits to operators: One, players feel like they still can continue, and see what comes next (but it's not the same as full difficulty so it doesn't work for preparation). Two, players who are good enough to survive will be rewarded by the increased difficulty weeding players out of the highscore list - players who have lots of coins but not skill who may have seen later areas, but at lower difficulty so they aren't prepared to deal with them. Of course, it takes everybody many credits to deal with the increased difficulty, so good players might just kill themselves quickly on making a mistake and insert another coin (this is why so many players put a reset switch in easy reach on their own arcade machines). The operators are raking in cash, then, from players who are only semi-serious about the game, and also from players who are already talented but working to perfect their game.

It helps that starting in the 90s many games have a set end, often after a second (harder) loop of the game, instead of being endless where you don't need to play at the highest level to maximize the score - you just have to stay awake. Playing off on this is another big idea that hit in the later 90s is exemplified by DoDonPachi, Battle Garegga, Raiden Fighters Jet, or Mars Matrix, a riff on the point-doubling of old Capcom games like Vulgus - chaining and the similar idea of learning to maximize scoring opportunities (in games like Battle Garegga and RFJ) lets good players score a whole lot more than simply shooting and bombing through stages will allow. Even in games without actual chain timers (DoDonPachi) or chains (i.e. so many disco guys caught without missing one in Dangun FeverOn), like BG and RFJ, you cannot practice how to make the highest score possible by using continues since using a continue resets difficulty, bombs (and bomb pieces carried, a big factor in Battle Garegga), or whatever else you have to keep an eye on as a player. Even some old Toaplan shooters - like Twin Cobra, Truxton, and Fire Shark - it helps the player rack up the best score possible to pick up the shot type items / change items in the right order / at the right time in order to score points more quickly. Using continues will again not help in practicing this order.

Amazing post! Ed, you have fantastic knowledge!

[Mimi Nakamura]

Arcade games are not designed to be beaten on one credit, they're built to make arcade operators money, otherwise they wouldn't buy the company's machines. No operator wants to make fifty cents an hour on something they just spent $1200 on. Sure, every once in a while someone beats the system, but that true about life in general. Harley-Davidsons are not built to be the fastest motorcycles. While the industry has evolved and engineers continue to find more efficient designs, they've always stuck with the classic Harley look to support backwards compatibility between older and newer models. Every once in a while someone wins a tournament with one, but they're not designed for it.

I know quite a few games designers, none of them ever design anything with making money in mind. If they did, the games they design would be terrible.

Besides, if what you say is true, why are almost all arcade beat 'em ups in Japan set on easy mode?

[Ed Oscuro]

Amazing post! Ed, you have fantastic knowledge!
Well thanks! That said, I just picked it up here and there...and some of it's just obvious when studying how these games are put together. One can see what sort of problems newer games solved compared to older ones by playing them.

If somebody wants to talk to folks who really knows the internals of arcade games...in terms of hardware, poster Womble from Shmups Forum posts very intriguing things about how arcade games actually work (and some history as well), and another guy who goes by the name Dragon1952 says he worked on arcade games for Capcom - he also has shared some interesting insights.

I know quite a few games designers, none of them ever design anything with making money in mind. If they did, the games they design would be terrible.

Besides, if what you say is true, why are almost all arcade beat 'em ups in Japan set on easy mode?
Actually, I approached this topic in my post. If you look at old arcade flyers, such as those with English text on The Arcade Flyer Archive, they make explicit references to being big money earners. Dragon1952 (who I mentioned before) recently wrote a little bit about arcade games being tweaked after their release for better earnings - with updated ROMs sent out to operators. So at some point arcade game designers were thinking about these issues.

On the topic of beat-em-ups being set to easy...that's a genre I've always had trouble getting a grasp of, mainly because the timing and distance judgements are much more involved than learning a shooting game where you always can expect that bullets should pass really close to your ship / fighter / person without doing damage if they don't actually touch.

More to the point I think that a lot of arcades will put in a few scrolling beat-em-ups (like Golden Axe) just to get people in the door, and hopefully they'll spend some money. If you have floor space to cover, you might not be able to fill it all with games that pull in more money, and you also want a good mix of things. I bet DreamTR could write more about this subject, since he has experience in this area.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Because it makes more money than if it were set harder? The reason I would think that is then it becomes a great value: cost vs playtime. Encourages repeat business over time instead of eating a few quarters in 10 minutes, then that person never touching that machine again out of disgust. Gauntlet fury, in other words. LOL

[Mimi Nakamura]

Because it makes more money than if it were set harder? The reason I would think that is then it becomes a great value: cost vs playtime. Encourages repeat business over time instead of eating a few quarters in 10 minutes, then that person never touching that machine again out of disgust. Gauntlet fury, in other words. LOL

But the original point was based upon the premise that games were designed to be difficult with continues in mind to make money. Now you're saying that games are set on easy to make money?

The real reason why arcade beat 'em ups are set on easy is that people can have time to practice their combos / strategies against weak computer opponents.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Actually, I approached this topic in my post. If you look at old arcade flyers, such as those with English text on The Arcade Flyer Archive, they make explicit references to being big money earners. Dragon1952 (who I mentioned before) recently wrote a little bit about arcade games being tweaked after their release for better earnings - with updated ROMs sent out to operators. So at some point arcade game designers were thinking about these issues.

On the topic of beat-em-ups being set to easy...that's a genre I've always had trouble getting a grasp of, mainly because the timing and distance judgements are much more involved than learning a shooting game where you always can expect that bullets should pass really close to your ship / fighter / person without doing damage if they don't actually touch.

More to the point I think that a lot of arcades will put in a few scrolling beat-em-ups (like Golden Axe) just to get people in the door, and hopefully they'll spend some money. If you have floor space to cover, you might not be able to fill it all with games that pull in more money, and you also want a good mix of things. I bet DreamTR could write more about this subject, since he has experience in this area.

Interesting. What I meant was the designers do not design the games with the intention to make money at the inception of their design. Their intentions are to design a good game, money making comes later - publishers, distributors, etc., are there to do that job.

[Icarus Moonsight]

But the original point was based upon the premise that games were designed to be difficult with continues in mind to make money. Now you're saying that games are set on easy to make money?

The real reason why arcade beat 'em ups are set on easy is that people can have time to practice their combos / strategies against weak computer opponents.

No, I didn't say anything before. That was my first post in here, I think. :p

I'd say the premise is to make more coin, whether that is affected optimally by a high, mid or low diff. Which ever pulls the most is where the jumpers are going to be flipped. I'm sure it would vary by the machine and multiples of other factors.

[Kid Ice]

It's a bit of perspective for your comment that good gamers apparently don't exist because you haven't seen them.

I don't know what definition of "good" you're using, but I've seen many good gamers and regularly spend time with good gamers (and happen to be one myself...I already confessed I'm not a one-credit shmup master, and I happen to think 3/4 of the people who claim to be on the internet are full of it)


I'm not sure what the point is of saying that you have a long experience observing mediocre to good gaming and that you have also observed people being pricks about playing well.

When did I say I've observed people being pricks?


Is the lesson to be happy with being a crap gamer?

What is a "crap gamer"?



Okay, so you suppose you could beat most people by playing a Cave game as if it were 1941...great? This Internet thing has an amazing power of sharing information so that you anybody can have access to quality guidance or competition. If bombing your way through a Cave shooter better than some random person who plays Halo or Counter-Strike is the only yardstick of success you aspire to for that game, that's okay too, but don't assume that all good players are jerks.

At what point did I say all good players are jerks? I apologize for being nasty before but dude, again, what the hell are you talking about? It's hard for me to tell if you're even responding to what I or someone else wrote.


ZERO

ZERO

ZERO

Who are you so worked up about, Ice? Mimi is just being Mimi and that Icycalm guy is a notorious jerk, and doesn't practice what he preaches anyway. The guys in King of Kong are just a bunch of nutcases, but not everybody with ability at games is like that.

I'm not emotionally involved. Maybe you have my posts mixed up with someone else.

[Ed Oscuro]

When did I say I've observed people being pricks?
Just possibly those people you included in that "3/4" percentage you totally didn't pull out of your butt. So your post really wasn't related to anything in the thread? And you ask me what I was writing about? :above me: Oh, okay then.


But the original point was based upon the premise that games were designed to be difficult with continues in mind to make money. Now you're saying that games are set on easy to make money?
Icarus' point seems accurate. Probably these are older games that are just there to add some variety to the arcade. If new beat-em-ups (that aren't tournament-style fighters) are added to such a place they'll probably be left at their default settings. Older games set with lower credit buy-ins are just there to keep folks busy if their favorite machine is taken or if they're waiting for somebody to arrive - anything to keep them from simply lounging around without paying.


The real reason why arcade beat 'em ups are set on easy is that people can have time to practice their combos / strategies against weak computer opponents.
I'm not sure about this, since strategies and timing for different games seems totally different to me. Also, are we talking about one-versus-one tournament fighters, or games like Golden Axe?

[Kid Ice]

Just possibly those people you included in that "3/4" percentage you totally didn't pull out of your butt. So your post really wasn't related to anything in the thread? And you ask me what I was writing about? :above me: Oh, okay then.

Just because I happen to believe a good number of people exaggerate their gaming accomplishments doesn't mean I think they're "pricks". That was your invention.

It's true I didn't take some kind of survey to find out the exact number of gamers who exaggerate their arcade gaming aptitude online.

My post was related to conversation about the ability of gamers to complete games on a single credit, also discussed by at least three other people in the thread.

Now I hope I can go back to ignoring your senseless posts as I have for the past seven years or so. In fact I think I'll go ahead and make that official right now.

[Mimi Nakamura]

I'm not sure about this, since strategies and timing for different games seems totally different to me. Also, are we talking about one-versus-one tournament fighters, or games like Golden Axe?

I was talking about one-versus-one fighters. They're always set on easy, even I can finish them and I'm not the best at fighters.

Street Fighter IV, Tekken 6, Virtua Fighter 6 are always set on easy.

We often see test arcade games, and sometimes there are staff there to ask us questions about how they can improve the game before the official release. One questions that's always asked is "Was the difficulty OK, was it too hard / too easy?".

If a game is good people will play it. It's not a case of tinkering with the difficulty to trick people into putting in more money. Or perhaps the philosophy is different in Japan and overseas (both in a business and design sense)?

Game centres here are usually operated by games companies, like Sega or Taito - so game centres are a great place for those companies to conduct direct market research. It's not in their interest to cheat the customers out of money as it is their reputation on the line. The staff are very polite and the cabinets are constantly being cleaned and joysticks / buttons are regularly checked for responsiveness by technicians.

Independent game centres are usually even cheaper as it's the only way they can compete. However they're usually quite dirty and the joystick calibration isn't maintained as well.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'd say it's self-evident that the game design philosophy can diverge quite a bit. Take JRPGs vs WRPGs as a comparator. But things like the near complete lack of genres in western-developed commercial releases, such as the shmup and vs fighter. That seems to actually be market forces and consumer demand more than philosophy. That also gets muddled into it... It would be hard to draw out any accurate distinctions without giving the subject more time than it's worth. LOL

And it's not "tricking people" into putting in their money... It's giving the customer what they want, or at least, what they would seem to want more or less of. Earnings can be used as a benchmark. Direct marketing and research is not really a factor in US arcades (if, you can find one!), so personal feedback from customers is not nearly as economical or helpful. A third party can only tweek as much as the DIPs and jumpers will let them.

[Ed Oscuro]

I was talking about one-versus-one fighters. They're always set on easy, even I can finish them and I'm not the best at fighters.
Well, that's because few people play them against the machine - and if they do, somebody else can always walk up and put a credit in (causing the not-expert-player either to learn, or run away crying LOL ).


Just because I happen to believe a good number of people exaggerate their gaming accomplishments doesn't mean I think they're "pricks". That was your invention.
I like how you didn't expect somebody to wonder if you weren't talking about the other people in this thread when you made your claim that there's lots of people lying about their gaming accomplishments. I'm not taking blame for wondering who you were slagging off (excuse me, it's not an insult, right).

[kedawa]

Who has made claims about their gaming accomplishments in this thread?

[Kid Ice]

I like how you didn't expect somebody to wonder if you weren't talking about the other people in this thread when you made your claim that there's lots of people lying about their gaming accomplishments. I'm not taking blame for wondering who you were slagging off (excuse me, it's not an insult, right).

I don't think someone is a "prick" for such innocuous behavior as bragging about their gaming acumen on the Internet. Whether I accused anyone here of doing it is irrelevant, and a transparent attempt on your behalf to drag others into this tiresome debate we're having about something I supposedly said that anyone who can read already knows I didn't say.


Who has made claims about their gaming accomplishments in this thread?

Exactly.

[Ed Oscuro]

Who has made claims about their gaming accomplishments in this thread?
It seemed aimed at the people in this thread who have said these accomplishments are possible.

I don't think someone is a "prick" for such innocuous behavior as bragging about their gaming acumen on the Internet.
Back to what you actually said - you basically said you believe that 3/4 of gamers on the Internet are liars. Let's put aside that I believed (wrongly, but I think justifably) you'd been paying attention to the thread and were slamming folks like Mimi or myself for saying that high level play is possible. Your observation may be true to a point, in which case you've been watching the wrong groups - that's what my original response said.

I spend a lot of time posting at Shmups Forum (http://shmups.system11.org/index.php), and people are helping each other become better players and not lying about their scores, which would be a pretty dick move - something we would laugh off if it happens but consider a pretty serious charge to make against a player. I don't like people promoting the idea that high level play isn't possible or that normal people don't achieve it (which is not what you're saying, I know).

Anyhow, it's cool that you've had a beef with me these past seven-soon-to-be-eight-if-we-don't-end-this-soon-years; I know I get carried away at times but I try not to.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Who can 1CC Gauntlet? That's what I'd like to know! LOL

Maybe VTF INO? I grabbed his one man playing two player Ikaruga off youtube and I watch them often enough, I'm considering burning them to DVD. They do exist, but some games were never designed for 1CC play or even attempts at, competitive, tournament or otherwise.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Well, that's because few people play them against the machine - and if they do, somebody else can always walk up and put a credit in (causing the not-expert-player either to learn, or run away crying LOL ).

It's definitely true that the majority of people want to play against human opponents, but game centres do also have one player only cabinets for those who want to practice.

[jaekwon15]

i agree with the op. this is why i have never bothered to download certain classics on psn/xbl. whats point in spending ten dollars on a beat em up that has infinite continues. there is no challenge, and no repercussions for losing. i find playing these games to be more boring than anything else.

btw, as a kid i was able to beat golden axe, altered beast, and indiana jones and the temple of doom on one quater. only because i could only afford to play these games once a week with a 1 or 2 dollar budget.

[Gentlegamer]

Who can 1CC Gauntlet? That's what I'd like to know! LOL
You see how high a score and what level you can get to on 1 credit. Feeding quarters into a game with no end in order to continue your progress is actually a rip-off.

[Nonplus]

I know quite a few games designers, none of them ever design anything with making money in mind. If they did, the games they design would be terrible.

Besides, if what you say is true, why are almost all arcade beat 'em ups in Japan set on easy mode?
While I've heard a lot of people say they didn't do something for money, I usually have a hard time believing it. They might enjoy their job, they might like pushing their skills to the max, and they might really be trying to put out a great product, but I just have a hard time believing they didn't do it for money. (Of course freeware games aren't being lumped into that category, although it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of their designers weren't hoping to get a foothold in the industry).
I can't really comment on beat 'em ups, mainly because I don't play them, but if I had to guess I'd say not enough people played them on the harder settings.
EDIT: I thought you were talking about games like Legendary Axe and Captain Commando. I haven't a clue why they lower the difficulty on fighting games.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Maybe there is a psychological reason too. Again, to increase earnings...

Someone is more apt to credit continue if it took 1c to get to the boss parts than if they get burned down by the 3rd cpu standard level challenger. Then you can design the game so the bosses are real cheap cheeze, even on the lowest diff.

Just a thought and somewhat of an observation. Geese, Rugal... That bastard from Street Fighter IV. No, I will not dignify that guys existence by referring to him by name, refuse. LOL

[Sosage]

i agree with the op. this is why i have never bothered to download certain classics on psn/xbl. whats point in spending ten dollars on a beat em up that has infinite continues. there is no challenge, and no repercussions for losing. i find playing these games to be more boring than anything else.

That's where it becomes your choice on how to play the game. Almost every game allows you to not continue and quit/restart. Same issue with MAME or having the arcade board at home. The platform doesn't make a difference in this case.

...and designers/artists/musicians may not be, in principle, concerned about money -- but their sales/marketing/investors sure as hell are. The latter twists the arm of the former. Not the other way around. Besides, there is nothing wrong with working on your craft and being able to feed your family at the same time. People should try it. It is kind of nice.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Maybe there is a psychological reason too. Again, to increase earnings...

Someone is more apt to credit continue if it took 1c to get to the boss parts than if they get burned down by the 3rd cpu standard level challenger. Then you can design the game so the bosses are real cheap cheeze, even on the lowest diff.

Just a thought and somewhat of an observation. Geese, Rugal... That bastard from Street Fighter IV. No, I will not dignify that guys existence by referring to him by name, refuse. LOL

That doesn't make sense. Surely higher customer turnover would result in more money. One person using a credit for 15 minutes makes less money than 3 people using a credit each over the same time period. If someone is practicing, they're not going to continue on the final boss, they would surely let the continue timer run down and begin again from the beginning.

Besides, if you think Seth is a difficult boss then I can understand why you use so many continues to play games. I can beat him without breaking a sweat and I don't play VS beat 'em ups very often.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I know SNK is known for cheap bosses, but the Blueman Group Reject takes the cake... Then shoots it out of his Kenmore Elite bellybutton.

I've seen it a lot with SF4, people go through with few problems then hit the Beth-wall.

What's the pass-aggro crap about? I'm nothing special, but I'm not horrible either. This is leisure activity for me, comp and challenge is great, but I can't play Blue Wish Resurrection Plus worth two shits when I'm three sheets windward. I still manage to enjoy it though. LOL

[kedawa]

Having a lower difficulty setting in a 1on1 fighter will keep the lone player at the machine longer, increasing the liklihood that a second player will join in and start up some competition which is where the real money is made.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Having a lower difficulty setting in a 1on1 fighter will keep the lone player at the machine longer, increasing the liklihood that a second player will join in and start up some competition which is where the real money is made.

How about on a cabinet set to VS CPU only? What you say makes perfect sense on a standard VS cabinet though, 1 on 1 competitions are definitely the money makers.

Outside of Japan I've lived in London and, for a short time, New York. The customer service is world's apart. Here, the customer is God. Pleasing the customer comes before making money, anyone who's worked in the service or retail industry in Japan will know this. In the long run having happy customers will provide greater financial rewards, so it's good for everyone.

Going from experience, and judging people's views on here about companies being only interested in making "a quick buck", it seems that, generally speaking, Japanese companies tend to have long-term strategies, while American / British companies prefer to opt for short-term gains. I guess in the end they all make around the same amount of money though.

There are many things I dislike about Japan, but customer service isn't one of them!

[Icarus Moonsight]

I wouldn't consider attempting to maximize earnings by changing default settings to what makes the most "making a quick buck" in a shady sort of way... More like, common sense fused with rational self-interest (which excellent customer service ultimately comes down to by my reckoning) and a form of customer service. It is impersonal, but it counts.

Actions where making a quick buck come into play is setting everything on max diff, minimum lives per credit, maximum coins per credit, maximum credits per play, maximum points required set for extended play/lives or outright disabled... Douchebaggery, basically.

I do understand what you mean though about things being somewhat customers serve the company centric in the US. I've seen the attitude manifest recently on this board even, from the customer end too. The ideal arrangement is to have the providers serve the customer, I support that wholeheartedly. Some still hold it, but for many, it's a lost value.