Arcade vs. Home Console: Which would you rather play?

[Keatah]

You often have people say they prefer home versions due to more manageable difficulty, but I don't understand that, myself.

 

It's simple. Pac-Man is too hard, I never make it past level 2 or 3 at best. I'm not wasting a quarter on that! The home versions and derivatives were much more palatable. I was thankful many VCS games has children's versions. And today MAME helps here, too.

 

 

I'd rather play the home version of almost everything.

Exceptions are ones with unique control schemes and/or displays. For example, Tempest. And Tron.

 

That's right. I enjoy the convenience and reliability afforded by home hardware. With emulation, today, I can be playing 5 different arcade games one moment and out grilling burgers'n'brats the next! All without a 1/2 hour car ride or disappointment of an operator having replaced a favorite or having a game have a hardware malfunction of some kind.

 

 

There are arcade related videos on YouTube that were filmed back in the day. One video touches on how much time is spent designing and testing an arcade game. Specifically, there's a video where Atari put Asteroids Deluxe out on location for play testing. If memory serves, they said the typical arcade game takes well over a year from design to manufacturing.

 

Back then it was an art form and exploration of technology. The attitude was something like "What can we do?". Whereas the attitude today is "How much money can we make and how fast." Most game company employees of the old days were there for the enjoyment. Today's game company employees are there to pay off student loans and get throug the corporate grindwork.

 

That something took a year or more was evidence of a lot of thought and TLC. Not like today's garbage smartphone games or rail shooter racing & fighting games. Not like the shit today which is whipped up in a week or two.

 

And also game designers BITD had to be technically capable and educated and knowledgeable in several disciplines. They had to understand the canvas of circuitry. Today anyone can make games and put it on the internet. Whether they're good or bad doesn't matter anymore.

 

Back then they would playtest these things in house, and very casually too. That was the source of the popular exclamation how cool it would be to work at Atari. All the games in the break room - with the developers just down the hallway. This apparent care-free availability and those random gaming sessions was at the crux of creativity. Today everything is stifled by corporate rules and regulations. And the need to do things at a hyperspeed pace. Faster Faster Faster. Bullshit!!

 

 

Out of all the arcade games that were released up to and including laser disc games, I don't know many of them that suck. Even the b/w games.

 

Just an example of TLC. Quality vs. quantity.

 

 

Arcade games are going to have controls that are tailored for that specific game. There are two games that come to mind that I would question why they used a joystick and not a spinner: Time Pilot and Gyruss.

 

You can probably name a whole bunch of Atari 2600 games where the controls are questionable. Super Sprint comes to mind as to why the driving controller wasn't used.

 

Probably cost and parts availability. Or someone in marketing had the notion a joystick stands out more than a dull-looking rotary knob.

 

Again, with Sprint Master, it was already 1988/1989 and the VCS was in it's waning years no doubt. How many people would still have their driving controllers? Or worse yet, have to purchase them for the 1st time. Cost! Cost! Cost! Best make the game work on hardware everyone had, joysticks. For a set of driving controllers would double the price.

 

A perfect example of getting a lesser gaming experience because some fagboy beancounter was worried about numbers on the paper.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Keatah

[ledzep]

It's simple. Pac-Man is too hard, I never make it past level 2 or 3 at best. I'm not wasting a quarter on that! The home versions and derivatives were much more palatable. I was thankful many VCS games has children's versions. And today MAME helps here, too.

 

There's a difference between a game being too hard and a game being too hard for you. I know I truly suck at Defender, Robotron, Star Castle, a few others. But Pac-Man? I suck at it because I hate the game but I know that game has patterns that can be learned, like most games (even the hard ones) so if I wanted to be good at Pac-Man, I could. As with any of the arcade games. And there's something to be said for dealing with a game in its original form and mastering it, something I'd love to have the chance to do if old-school arcades were still easily accessible.

 

Regardless of your love for the home versions, those aren't the arcade versions. So you're playing a near-copy, but not the actual game. It's like hearing songs you like at karaoke night at a bar - that's not the song you like, it's someone else approximating it. Now, there is a small minority of crappy arcade games out there that are no worse or actually better on home consoles. I can't think of any off the top of my head but there I'd agree that playing the limited arcade version might be the worse choice.

 

That's right. I enjoy the convenience and reliability afforded by home hardware. With emulation, today, I can be playing 5 different arcade games one moment and out grilling burgers'n'brats the next! All without a 1/2 hour car ride or disappointment of an operator having replaced a favorite or having a game have a hardware malfunction of some kind.

...

You're not playing the arcade games most times with emulation, but very good approximations. Like meeting an Elvis impersonator, that's not Elvis. And, again, the question simply asked which version of the same game you'd rather play, there was no implied extra hassle of location inconvenience or comparative cost to skew the vote. Both games are (assumed to be) equally accessible and reliable. Both could presumably be in your house or some other place within walking distance, if that helps. You have to make the same effort to get to both, which do you rather play? It's a waste of time to include the added hypothetical of getting to the distant arcade and the game you really want to play is broken, swapped out for another game or so popular that you have to wait in line for an hour to play just once. Why not just throw in arcade bullies stealing your quarters, too, while you're at it? Or mention that at home you have a couple bikini models playing against you? Just keep it to which version you'd rather play, everything else is equal.

 

If I can play the arcade version of any game and the home console version, I go arcade. They are just so so much cooler to deal with, more intense (usually) and better set up. Now if the question is which game would you get more enjoyment out of while expending the least effort to play, home consoles win all the time. They're usually easier versions, their controls are simpler, you can lay back on your fat ass and only move your hands to play instead of having to stand (the nerve!), what's not to like when it comes to the lazier experience?

[VectorGamer]

Todd Tuckey stated that Super Zaxxon when it was released "was a disaster" because it was too hard. He also said that Blaster "was a disaster" but that had something to do with how arcade operators had to acquire it.

 

It'd be nice if he signed up here on AtariAge I'm sure he would keep us entertained with all the stories he could share.

 

So going back to the original question (which I already answered) and to just elaborate, the Atari 2600 (which I had in 1980) was just a gaming fix for me until I could get back to the arcade. The mall arcade had over 100 machines and it was an exciting environment to be in compared to sitting at home playing Space Invaders on the 2600.

 

It wasn't until the ColecoVision came out that I would have no problem saying I'd rather stay at home instead of going to the mall arcade.

[ledzep]

Todd Tuckey stated that Super Zaxxon when it was released "was a disaster" because it was too hard. He also said that Blaster "was a disaster" but that had something to do with how arcade operators had to acquire it.

 

It'd be nice if he signed up here on AtariAge I'm sure he would keep us entertained with all the stories he could share.

 

So going back to the original question (which I already answered) and to just elaborate, the Atari 2600 (which I had in 1980) was just a gaming fix for me until I could get back to the arcade. The mall arcade had over 100 machines and it was an exciting environment to be in compared to sitting at home playing Space Invaders on the 2600.

 

It wasn't until the ColecoVision came out that I would have no problem saying I'd rather stay at home instead of going to the mall arcade.

 

Not to nitpick, but a lot of people seem to be misreading the original question. It only asks which hardware/gear would you rather play the game that was originally in the arcades and then ported (i.e. Pac-Man, Defender, Asteroids, Venture, Wizard Of Wor, Frogger, etc.) to a home console (and the rare home console game that was converted to arcade, like Blaster or Cosmic Chasm). It asks nothing about actually being in an arcade. While I also prefer the experience of playing those favorites in an arcade vs. my own house I wasn't considering that (or travel times or crowds or closed arcades) when answering the question about whether I'd prefer to play this or that game on the console or on the arcade (as written by the OP). I only was comparing playing the same game on the different hardware alone or against someone (multi-player options). I think that some people would have a different response if they took that into consideration, the actual arcade isn't even involved in the question. The arcade version could be in the same room as the home console and it could magically become any arcade game that was also ported, and the home console could magically transform into whatever home console had the best home port of that arcade game.

 

Still, for me, arcade version all the time, every time. Even if the arcade version was too difficult compared to the home version.

Edited April 23, 2015 by ledzep

[+FujiSkunk]

Arcade versions, for the most part. There were a few times where a home port was an improvement over the original. San Francisco Rush 2049 for example, or arguably Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3.