A lot of people here are showing their lack of knowledge (including the director of the video) by misrepresenting the issue. It's not that arcades were dissed and a handful a fanboys are whining about it, an entire style of gameplay was marginalized and dismissed as shallow because you refuse to consider it's form of depth. Considering most anything is accepted as depth and replay value by mainstream gaming media (i.e. being able to play through the game in a jester's cap) I can't see how this is being ignored, if not intentionally.
For instance with Final Fight, like any arcade-style game, success comes not only from your ability to read the mechanisms of gameplay, but being able to put that knowledge into practice through reflexes. This can be quite an undertaking for the player since you're required to have a certain amount of skill in order to succeed (compared to MMO's which require time and little else.) This learning and application process is known as depth. Of course, none of this will be apparent to someone who writes a game off as a "credit-muncher" or "button-masher". They're forever doomed to insert credit after credit, watch the ending, and assume they've accomplished something, later pissing on the game because it pissed on their abilities. The problem with this, is that they're setting artificial goals, like someone playing chess and thinking he won because he made a neat looking pattern on the board.
The games described as "complex and artistic" do not have goals and do not require skill, only that you devote a tremendous amount of time to mindlessly build stats and keep on top of other players. Moreover, being given a larger template or sandbox does not change the depth of actual gameplay. Most of these updates have less to do with artistry than milking profit as much as possible before the eventual necessity of making another game sets in. It also seemed odd that there would be so much praise for WoW from such frugal-minded people. A high-end computer, $50 a month for broadband connection, 50$ for the game itself and a $15-20 subscription fee each month, not to mention additions to the utility bill if you want to get detailed. Seems that this all adds up to more than a couple of quarters.
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/
A very nice if strongly worded article that'll at least give you an idea where some of us 12 fanboys are coming from.
http://youtube.com/ninjasrok
Fitting that I end with a link to videos of someone who beats simplistic quarter eating button mashers in one credit. Similar feats of skill can be found on super-play.co.uk if you're interested in seeing more.
Play Value - The Death of Arcades
A lot of people here are showing their lack of knowledge (including the director of the video) by misrepresenting the issue. It's not that arcades were dissed and a handful a fanboys are whining about it, an entire style of gameplay was marginalized and dismissed as shallow because you refuse to consider it's form of depth. Considering most anything is accepted as depth and replay value by mainstream gaming media (i.e. being able to play through the game in a jester's cap) I can't see how this is being ignored, if not intentionally. For instance with Final Fight, like any arcade-style game, success comes not only from your ability to read the mechanisms of gameplay, but being able to put that knowledge into practice through reflexes. This can be quite an undertaking for the player since you're required to have a certain amount of skill in order to succeed (compared to MMO's which require time and little else.) This learning and application process is known as depth. Of course, none of this will be apparent to someone who writes a game off as a "credit-muncher" or "button-masher". They're forever doomed to insert credit after credit, watch the ending, and assume they've accomplished something, later pissing on the game because it pissed on their abilities. The problem with this, is that they're setting artificial goals, like someone playing chess and thinking he won because he made a neat looking pattern on the board. The games described as "complex and artistic" do not have goals and do not require skill, only that you devote a tremendous amount of time to mindlessly build stats and keep on top of other players. Moreover, being given a larger template or sandbox does not change the depth of actual gameplay. Most of these updates have less to do with artistry than milking profit as much as possible before the eventual necessity of making another game sets in. It also seemed odd that there would be so much praise for WoW from such frugal-minded people. A high-end computer, $50 a month for broadband connection, 50$ for the game itself and a $15-20 subscription fee each month, not to mention additions to the utility bill if you want to get detailed. Seems that this all adds up to more than a couple of quarters. http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/ A very nice if strongly worded article that'll at least give you an idea where some of us 12 fanboys are coming from. http://youtube.com/ninjasrok Fitting that I end with a link to videos of someone who beats simplistic quarter eating button mashers in one credit. Similar feats of skill can be found on super-play.co.uk if you're interested in seeing more.