Author Topic: Vigilante is Hard???  (Read 1232 times)

nodtveidt

  • Guest
Re: Vigilante is Hard???
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2007, 02:16:54 AM »
Great article, Mike. Really puts everything in perspective, lots of truth there.

esteban

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24063
Re: Vigilante is Hard???
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2007, 03:42:31 AM »
This kinda counter balances the shitty reviews.
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/
That was fun to read through. Plus, it was longer than 200 words! Amazing, considering how many things pass off as "articles" these days. Great article.

I don't fully agree with all of the points the author made, but that doesn't matter, because I am having fun thinking about everything. Really, my biggest complaint is the way he glorifies the arcade business model (pay-per-play), because he conveniently ignores lots of stuff. The great arcade games are *well-designed games*, period. There are many arcade games that have very cheap / artificial / ill-conceived challenges in them... points at which we can debate on how much "skill" is actually required (at these points in a game, one has to ask: was this designed as a "checkpoint" where 1CC'ers hit a wall? Or is it a hallmark of excellent game design?).

Then there are countless games where you literally quarter-feed for TIME (to extend the clock). These games are the antithesis of what the author is talking about, but he fails to acknowledge that his beloved arcade business model handily lends itself to a "pay for 30 additional seconds" formula as readily as it promotes a "skill-based" formula. Indeed, it is only in the arcades that an "insert X coins for X additional minutes of game time" business model makes any sense at all.

Furthermore, the arcade business model is only good for promoting specific genres and specific types of games. I will point out the obvious: game developers were constrained by the arcade business model. Sure, the business model probably raised the minimum standards for skill-based games (this is the author's strongest point, I think), but he fails to acknowledge the shortcomings: developer's were even less likely to take chances / experiment / be creative with arcade titles than the chances they took / take with console titles.

Anyway, I actually like this article, I just think it fails to acknowledge that consoles, too, have been wonderful for "hardcore" gamers... though he does seem to be focusing his critique on the later-era consoles (indeed, he seems to say that the 16-bit console era marked the end of widespread skill-based home games, which I agree with).

Ha! I could babble on but I'll stop there. :)



« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 03:46:20 AM by esteban »
  |    |