Top Ten Most Important Arcade games

[jbanes]

To put it another way, STUN Runner is my favorite arcade game ever.  I put more quarters into that game than any other.  Were there other games like it? No.  Did the industry start pumping out STUN Runner clones? No.  Was it a great game? Yes.

995035[/snapback]

 

You know, that game was amazingly addictive. I almost never pumped quarters into a machine when I was a kid (I'd wait until I get to Showbiz, where my parents gave me tokens), but something about Stun Runner made me sink tons of money into it. I think it was a combination of innovative gameplay and the controller. Since you can't reproduce the controller at home, it's just not as much fun to emulate.

 

It's too bad S.T.U.N. Runner fell into the dustbin of history. I always got the impression that the game didn't do all that spectacular when it was released.

[NightSprinter]

Better to do a "TOP 10" by decade IMO. 70's, 80's, 90's ect..

 

Sin-Star, Tron, Defender, Dig Dug, Pac Man games, Space Harrier. The list is just too massive, age is a major factor also.

 

Almost forgot about Smash T.V GO GO GO... LOL

993189[/snapback]

 

I'd buy that for a dollar!

993190[/snapback]

 

Wait until you get to the last boss, then you'll just go "NO WAY!!". Despite Robotron was the first to feature it, Smash T.V. was also the first game of its kind to take the "John Woo style" of controls (two-fisted, left hand for movement, right hand for firing) and made it into a multiplayer game.

 

Also, let's not forget that Defender should go on the list as being one of the first seriously "Intense" videogames out there. Eugene Jarvis had a knack of making arcade games that were very punishing to the player (yet kept them coming back for more).

[Gabriel]

4) Most importantly, players were on a timer.  They had to continue pumping quarters into the game to play.  This was balanced well enough that an experienced player could play longer than a novice, but even they couldn't "beat the game on a single quarter."  This was absolutely CRITICAL for arcades at the time.  It increased their earnings.  The Konami scrolling beat em ups (TMNT, X-Men, Simpsons) all used the same formula, but replaced the timer with unavoidable cheap hits to keep the players pumping quarters.

994096[/snapback]

That's the oldest formula in video games. Name a single game that didn't attempt to do one or the other. When long-playing strategic loopholes such as those found in Asteroids, Pac-Man and Centipede were discovered by players, the companies rushed to remove that advantage in the sequels.

 

For an average player, Gauntlet/TMNT games didn't last any longer than Defender or Zaxxon.

994157[/snapback]

 

But Gauntlet really popularized the idea of unlimited, on the fly buy in, and for multiple players. It defined how arcade videogames made their money for the decade following.

[NE146]

Wait until you get to the last boss, then you'll just go "NO WAY!!".  Despite Robotron was the first to feature it, Smash T.V. was also the first game of its kind to take the "John Woo style" of controls (two-fisted, left hand for movement, right hand for firing) and made it into a multiplayer game.

 

And for all intents and purposes.. Smash TV was essentially "Robotron Part 2" in a sense. Or at least Robotron for the 90's.

 

My only criticism of it is that it ends. Robotron if you're good you can play forever theoretically (although you'd have to be REALLY good).

[NightSprinter]

Much agreed, NE146. Plus also let's not forget how Smash T.V. also added factors such as bonuses, music, and powerup weapons to the Robotron formula.

 

In any case, here are my personal top-whatever list of arcade games (and maybe reasons as to why they're important):

 

1.) PONG (it started the arcade game revolution, made videogames money-makers)

2.) Space Invaders (arcade game made so popular Japan had a money shortage)

3.) Asteroids (first popular vector-based arcade game, first to introduce patterns to beat the system)

4.) Pac-Man (first game to have a wide audience appeal, not just guys)

5.) Galaxian (first color game?)

6.) Robotron: 2084 (first game to feature dual-joystick controls)

7.) Defender (first game that had a scrolling world and intense level of difficulty)

8.) Donkey Kong (debut appearance of Mario and DK)

9.) Berzerk (first recorded death related to games?)

10.) Gauntlet (first to feature four-player co-op play)

11.) Teenage Mutant Ninja(Hero in Europe) Turtles (first major arcade license of a cartoon?)

12.) Dragon's Lair (first to use laserdisc and cinema-quality cartoon animation)

13.) S.T.U.N. Runner (first to use filled polygons in a 3D game?)

14.) Pit Fighter (first to use digitized actors and movements)

15.) Street Fighter II: The World Warrior (first to make fighting games ver popular)

16.) Neo-Geo (just name a game): First arcade system to also have a home system based on it

17.) BeatMania: Started the entire "music game" genre that "Dance Dance Revolution" is now associated with.

18.) DDR: Arcades are visited because of it now?

[shadow460]

Just a couple of comments...sometime around 1982, Stacey Shub was credited with helping out in the Centipede section of an arcade hint book called Score! Beating the Top 16 Arcade Games.

 

Also, I recall Tempest was usually out of order when I wanted to play it. I think it would have done better that it did if the display didn't suffer from so many hardware faults.

Back then, displaying multiple colors on a vector generator was not easy on the hardware. It's been said that a Tempest graphics board in the lab heated up so much that it desoldered its own IC's and they fell off the board. It's also said that similar heat problems plagued the game's display hardware even in the final versions. Have a look at the Saturn version of Arcade's Greatest Hits: The Atari Collection to see the interview that talks about this--it's pretty cool.

Tempest did, by the way, make it into that book I mentioned, alongside Asteroids and Pac Man.

 

Tempest may well have had influence in the video game industry. I feel like it's a great game even though it was made on weak hardware. Definitely its gameplay kept it popular, but the hardware was a push toward full color games instead of blue outlines. Also, it pushed toward high resolution with those colors. Back then, a vector generator had much higher resolution than a standard monitor did. Despite the hardware issues, the game's designer is to be commended.

I did play another game later that had a color vector generator in it, but I cannot remember the name. I do recall that the player controlled two ships that were tied together by a rod of some type, and if one blew up, a spark would travel along the rod and destroy the other ship on impact.

Wasn't S.T.U.N. Runner displayed with color vectors, too?

 

Someone mentioned that the first game of a particular type usually wasn't the game that pushed that type into the mainstream. I think this is true with Virtua Racing. If I remember right, Hard Drivin' was also in 3D. Even still, though, Daytona USA took that 3D model and polished it to make the cars and tracks look real instead of computer generated.

Edited January 14, 2006 by shadow460

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

I know it's already been touched up on, but let me elaborate:

 

Double Dragon absolutely should have made the list. It was the watershed 3/4 perspective fighting adventure game. I could be wrong, but I believe it was actually the first of it's kind. In any case, the primarily side-scrolling adventure with the ability to also move up and down in the path added so much depth to the playability and spawned millions of spin-offs, some generic, some noteworthy, like the TMNT arcade games and Final Fight. It was it's own genre if you will, and it stayed popular for a long long time, even dominated for a little while.

 

Double Dragon is a pivotal game in arcade history and deserves to be on the list.

 

Also:

 

Tekken or Ridge Racer does deserve to be on the list because it did spark the change in deseigner mentality, a change that I praised in the day, but now wish had never come. It did begin to blur the line between home and arcade, and it did wear away at the arcade's supremecy, but I would'nt say that was the signing of the death warrant. That forshadowed that death and ensured it's coming, but was not the death itself. I'd say that the arcade still had a hardware advantage over the consoles up until the Dreamcast. It was actually the dreamcast that finally signed the death warrant, not the PS1. The PS1 is what put the death warrant on the desk...or was it?

 

The PS1 was the first time that a popular mainstream home console even began to approach arcade levels, but The Neo Geo MVS was just a Neo Geo AES with a multi-port for multiple cartridges at once. The Neo Geo AES games were in every way identical to their MVS counterparts (same cartridges) I think maybe the Neo Geo may have had a bigger role in the death of the arcade then you implied. The Dreamcast may have been the first time you couldve had arcade perfect on a mainstream console, but not the first time you could have arcade at home period...that distinction goes to the Neo Geo AES. And once you had an arcade perfect port make it home, it was a only a matter of time before that kind of thinking caught on. So, to use my original analogy, perhaps the Neo Geo wrote the warrant, the PS1 brought it to the attention of the one with the power to decide, and the dreamcast was the signing.

 

Perhaps a better example of the actually death warrant of the arcade would be, say, Hydro Thunder.

[NovaXpress]

I did play another game later that had a color vector generator in it, but I cannot remember the name. I do recall that the player controlled two ships that were tied together by a rod of some type, and if one blew up, a spark would travel along the rod and destroy the other ship on impact.

Wasn't S.T.U.N. Runner displayed with color vectors, too?

That's Space Duel. It looked nothing like Stun Runner.

 

Tempest and Sega's Space Fury brought color to the arcade at about the same time.

Edited January 18, 2006 by NovaXpress

[+FujiSkunk]

I did play another game later that had a color vector generator in it, but I cannot remember the name. I do recall that the player controlled two ships that were tied together by a rod of some type, and if one blew up, a spark would travel along the rod and destroy the other ship on impact.

That's Space Duel. It looked like the same kind of monitor that Tempest or Black Widow had, nothing like Stun Runner.

1002633[/snapback]

 

STUN Runner used a standard raster monitor, in other words. I don't think there were any vector-monitor games made after 1985 or so.

[NovaXpress]

Yeah, that STUN Runner thing really threw me too.

 

Unless anyone can show otherwise, the last vector game was Atari's Empire Strikes Back in 1985.

[jbanes]

Perhaps a better example of the actually death warrant of the arcade would be, say, Hydro Thunder.

1002607[/snapback]

 

Them's fightin' words!

 

Seriously, what's wrong with Hydrothunder? I always thought it was a great game. Probably the last arcade game to ever drain quarters from my pocket. It was especially fun if you found an arcade that had four of the machines linked up. Almost (but not quite) as fun as playing against friends in San Francisco: Rush.

 

 

STUN Runner used a standard raster monitor, in other words.  I don't think there were any vector-monitor games made after 1985 or so.

1002637[/snapback]

 

Indeed. From KLOV:

 

Monitor:

   * Orientation: Horizontal
   * Type: Raster: Standard Resolution
   * CRT: Color

 

Shadow, maybe you're thinking of the 3D Vector Graphics that the game used? Like most modern 3D displays, the graphics are rasterized prior to display. I don't think a filled-poly vector display was ever produced.

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Perhaps a better example of the actually death warrant of the arcade would be, say, Hydro Thunder.

1002607[/snapback]

 

Them's fightin' words!

 

Seriously, what's wrong with Hydrothunder? I always thought it was a great game. Probably the last arcade game to ever drain quarters from my pocket. It was especially fun if you found an arcade that had four of the machines linked up. Almost (but not quite) as fun as playing against friends in San Francisco: Rush.

 

 

I'm not knocking Hydro-Thunder as a game (even though I only ever thought it was moderately cool.) What I'm doing is elaborating on the comment that Tekken killed the arcade.

 

I think that rather than Tekken killing the arcade, Tekken landed the deciding blow that left the arcade crippled, bleeding and screaming. I believe Hydro Thunder was the coupe de gras. Walking up to the incapacitated foe and deftly and effortlessly slicing it's throat and letting it quickly and quietly bleed to death. Morbid analogy, huh? Let me take it one step further. What little arcades are left are usually nickel arcades/pool halls. Usually filled with games 10-20yrs old. Well that's just finding the corpse, picking it up and dancing with it.

 

His postuation for Tekken killing the arcade is that the home version was arcade perfect and almost simultaneous in it's release. And that once arcade perfect was capable at home, the desire to go to the arcade to pump laundry money into arcade machines went away..afterall, they were no longer technically superior......they had nothing to offer that your TV at home couldn't with a PS1 plugged in.

 

Well, that's largely true, but not quite perfect. I think the problem with it is that arcade perfect ports were still the exception then, most of the arcade games either had higher polygon counts, or better anti-pixelation, or were faster, or higher colored, with better shading, or simply had larger characters and more detailed landscapes, especially with the Sega games.

 

Still the differences at this point were negligable, nothing of the iron dominance the arcade once had, not enough of a difference to matter to all but the most particular (like me.) Hence, the crippling blow to the arcade.

 

Yet there still were difference, that elusive arcade equality was still, well, elusive. And to the freaks and geeks, that was enough to bring them still...and freaks and geeks were the lifeblood that the arcade originally lived on.

 

Still, the arcade was unable to stand. All it was able to do was simply fail to die...until the dreamcast came along. The dreamcast completely and utterly eliminated any and all technical advantages of the arcades, and so the lifeblood of freaks and geeks poured out of the slit throat of the arcade and into the dreamcast store.

 

I use hydro-thunder as an example, cause it was an arcade perfect port, and if I remember correctly, hit the arcade right about the same time the DC hit the shelves....

 

With the PS1 and Saturn, the console hardware was just barely inferior so the games were just barely inferior to the arcade ports, in other words, arcade perfect was the exception. With the dreamcast, the hardware was actually superior, so the only time the DC version was inferior to the arcade was if the programmer of the DC port was stupid, lazy or both...like Rush 2049. In other words, arcade perfect was now the norm.

 

There were no longer hardware limitations. Those of us who couldn't afford the Neo Geo AES back in 1990 were finally able after all these years to truely, utterly have the arcade at home....in 1999. And what's the point in going to the arcade then?

 

Granted, the arcade hardware has grown along with the console since then, but hasn't regained it's superiority, in fact, I think it's still managed to lose a little ground since the Dreamcast where it was more or less level, and almost all of those games that are being built on the newer hardware are foreign release only (I.e. Japan)

 

At first I rejoiced at this. No longer any need to go to the arcade when I could have it from the comfy cozy of the couch. But looking back, I see now exactly what we lost in order to have arcade perfect at home, and I'm not sure whether it was worth it or not.

 

So, in answer to your complaint, no, I'm not trashing Hydro-Thunder, I'm just saying it played a role. It didn't do it singlehandedly, of course, but it was instrumental, and a good example of the demise of the arcade.

[Zonie]

I did play another game later that had a color vector generator in it, but I cannot remember the name. I do recall that the player controlled two ships that were tied together by a rod of some type, and if one blew up, a spark would travel along the rod and destroy the other ship on impact.

Wasn't S.T.U.N. Runner displayed with color vectors, too?

That's Space Duel. It looked nothing like Stun Runner.

 

Tempest and Sega's Space Fury brought color to the arcade at about the same time.

1002633[/snapback]

 

...and it's on your Flashback 2.

 

I also agree with the last post. I miss the arcade "experience" Sure, I'm 38 now, so hanging out with my friends at Video Roundup or Superfun is out of the question, but I do like to take my son to the arcade at the local golf n stuff. They have an extensive collection of games and pinballs from nearly every era since the late 70's.

 

Gameworks just doesn't cut it. MAME doesn't do it for me either. You need the noise, smell of pizza or hot dogs, and the energy that was present in the arcade.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Zonie

[jbanes]

His postuation for Tekken killing the arcade is that the home version was arcade perfect and almost simultaneous in it's release. And that once arcade perfect was capable at home, the desire to go to the arcade to pump laundry money into arcade machines went away..afterall, they were no longer technically superior......they had nothing to offer that your TV at home couldn't with a PS1 plugged in.

 

An interesting take on the market downturn. Though I'm not really sure I can agree with it. I was a big arcade go-er at the time, and despite the near flawless transition of SF:Rush and other arcade games to home systems, it just wasn't the same. The arcade experience included things like rumble chairs, steering wheels, gas pedals, stick shifts, force feedback, recoiling guns, solid joysticks, and other goodies that helped make the game what it was.

 

Or in other words, it was really about the total package. With a home system, your total package is just the game. It's a game, very much like any other. You use the same controller (no matter how unnatural it is), and play it on the same console with the same sound system and the same video. A lot of what made the game interesting in the arcade is lost. What you're left with is a "game" that's designed to draw quarters from you, except that you don't need to plunk any quarters into the machine!

 

Even games that don't have such specialized controls tend to be more fun in the arcade than at home. Killer Instinct is a perfect example. The arcade version of the game can be run from home on a PC emulator. Is it as much fun? Nope. Just not the same experience.

 

Home games tend to benefit more from more drawn out play. Sure, a quick Atari game can be fun, but for the money you spend on an average console, you tend to expect to get hours upon hours of enjoyment out of a game. Arcade ports don't provide that.

 

As a customer of the arcades when they died, I feel I may be able to shed some light on why they died.

 

The key thing I remember about Hydrothunder is that it was very much the last interesting game to hit the arcades. All the previous good games were slowly disappearing, but weren't being replaced by fresh new games. The few new machines that showed up were rehashes of concepts that had been done a billion times before. (e.g. Another F1 racer game, another Street Fighter Alpha game, another poor shoot-the-zombie game with cheap-ass-guns, etc.)

 

But why weren't the games being replaced? Where was all the innovation, the pushing of the limits?

 

The other thing that stuck out to me at the time was that the machines were getting VERY expensive to produce. So expensive that prices for a single game were growing by leaps and bounds. It started as 50 cents a game, ballooned to 75 cents a game, and hit a dollar per game in no time. Some arcades charged a $1.50 a game!

 

Basically, this hyperinflation was unsustainable. Customers were driven away from the arcades by high prices while the machines grew in expense. What was an arcade owner to do? Stop buying new games, and replace some of the older games with classic money makers like Skeeball, that's what. Some of my favorite arcades from days gone by are either nothing but ticket games or are simply out of business. The few that have any arcade games at all tend to follow the same formula:

 

1. 2 or 3 DDR or DDR clone machines

2. 1 or 2 racing games

3. A few gimicky games (e.g. Sword fighting with a wand, rotating tail gunner, etc.) that aren't actually that much fun to play

 

A perfect case in point is the Chuck E. Cheese restaurants. Remember when they had TMNT, Super Mario, Excite Bike, Simpsons, Sky Kid, and other fun games? Yeah, well they're all just rides and ticket games now. You have to really search to find an actual video game. Big Rigs and some Firefighter game tend to be "it". It saddens me too, because I remember Showbiz/Chuck E. as a great arcade when I was a kid. Now I can't share those memories with my kids.

 

So that's my opinion. The arcade games got too competitive and basically put themselves out of business. If the home consoles had anything to do with it, they simply helped force that competition by ensuring that arcade game producers would have to try harder than another Pacman to keep kids coming to the arcades.

[jbanes]

Gameworks just doesn't cut it.  MAME doesn't do it for me either. You need the noise, smell of pizza or hot dogs, and the energy that was present in the arcade.

1002795[/snapback]

 

Amen to that. Of course, how many arcades these days actually have a food counter? *sigh*

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

JBanes,

 

I agree to a point with the arcade being able to offer a few extras that the console version wouldnt. Big picture, loud sound, rumble, immersion. But with the exception of the vibrating seat (and for enough money even that too) those are all things you could get from a good home theater system. Sure, the DC version of Hydro Thunder on a 20" TV using the TV speakers is gonna lack the panache of the arcade, but with the right stuff at home, you can more or less or more replicate the experience. Unless you're so into the ambience of the place that you've just got to have the din of other arcade machines surrounding you.

 

But my point was this: that the extreme majority of arcade gamers stopped caring about the aesthetics once console technology caught up, or at least stopped caring enough to spend the money. Sure there are people who thrive on the ambience. And, on the other hand, there were people who would rather play an inferior version at home than pump Georges into a superior version in the arcade. There are people on both extremes, but the bulk of people once they could have the goods at home stopped caring about the vibrating seat....especially those of us who have big home theater systems. Afterall, a good subwoofer can rumble a seat too.

 

However you do bring up two good points: 1) which I mentioned earlier, is that a fringe group of people would still have rather had gone to the arcades for the ambience and perks of it, and 2) more of us than there were would probably have been in that first group of people had not the price of games skyrocketed.

 

But I do stand behind what I said earlier, that despite there being several lesser reasons for the arcade's demise, the major reason, the main reason, was mainstream, mass affordable console hardware technology catching up with and eclipsing arcade hardware technology.

[supercat]

An interesting take on the market downturn. Though I'm not really sure I can agree with it. I was a big arcade go-er at the time, and despite the near flawless transition of SF:Rush and other arcade games to home systems, it just wasn't the same. The arcade experience included things like rumble chairs, steering wheels, gas pedals, stick shifts, force feedback, recoiling guns, solid joysticks, and other goodies that helped make the game what it was.

 

Three more things that made the arcade experience different from the home experience: -1- The vanity board (somewhat supported via the Internet, but it's not really the same) -2- Being able to actually see other people play; -3- Putting in quarters. Although the financial drain posed by the latter is in some ways annoying, it does tend to change the way games are approached. In many home games, a player who gets killed earlier than desired will restart immediately; in an arcade setting such a player would be more likely to try to make do with the less-than-ideal situation. The desire to play for awhile before having to pull out another quarter just isn't the same on a home game.

 

Basically, this hyperinflation was unsustainable. Customers were driven away from the arcades by high prices while the machines grew in expense. What was an arcade owner to do? Stop buying new games, and replace some of the older games with classic money makers like Skeeball, that's what. Some of my favorite arcades from days gone by are either nothing but ticket games or are simply out of business. The few that have any arcade games at all tend to follow the same formula:

 

I've seen a few multi-game cabinets, and I think that these--when set for $0.25 play--are really the way to go. Some of the game adaptations are unfortunately lacking (due to slightly different screen or control setups, etc.) but the approach is generally a good one. I confess to being puzzled by why the Galaga/Ms. Pacman machines are never set for $0.25 since I think they'd get a lot more than twice as many plays at that price. I put a lot of quarters in the Galaxian in a nearby bar, but wouldn't even think of playing it if it were $0.50.

 

So that's my opinion. The arcade games got too competitive and basically put themselves out of business. If the home consoles had anything to do with it, they simply helped force that competition by ensuring that arcade game producers would have to try harder than another Pacman to keep kids coming to the arcades.

1002819[/snapback]

 

I'd be curious to know what studies have been done on game pricing versus demand, both with regard to price variations among games in an arcade, and with regard to a price structure for an arcade as a whole. One of the local arcades uses EEPROM-based debit "keys" to pay for games; Centipede and a few other games are $0.15/play, and on some days they're discounted as low as $0.04/play. I don't play them as much as the Galaxian at the nearby bar; I think they may be "too cheap". On the other hand, I only try the DDR machines when they're on steep discount (they're normally over $1). And I'm sure cost-sensitivity is different with quarters than with debit-based systems.

[jbanes]

Three more things that made the arcade experience different from the home experience: -1- The vanity board (somewhat supported via the Internet, but it's not really the same) -2- Being able to actually see other people play; -3- Putting in quarters.  Although the financial drain posed by the latter is in some ways annoying, it does tend to change the way games are approached.

 

Right you are. The social aspect of gaming just can't be overstated. IMHO, gaming went down the drain the moment the PS1 grabbed the market away from Nintendo. Instead of games that encouraged siblings, friends, and older family members to play together, gaming became a form of unsatisfiable escapism.

 

Surprisingly, quarter draining is also a very important element. It seems a little weird, but it places a limit on your gameplay that is difficult to overcome. On a home port of a game you can keep playing until you reach some arbitrary limit of lives or continues. In the arcade, you can keep playing as long as you want, but only if you can bleed enough quarters to keep up. In a social game like TMNT, Simpsons, or X-Men, there's a lot of pressure (but positive pressure, IMHO) to keep playing. Even games like Killer Instinct keep people plunking quarters so they can prove who has better mastery of the game, and/or take over the single player game.

 

 

I'd be curious to know what studies have been done on game pricing versus demand, both with regard to price variations among games in an arcade, and with regard to a price structure for an arcade as a whole.

1002892[/snapback]

 

This is a good question. One has to wonder if such studies were done before arcade manufacturers ran themselves bankrupt creating new machines. Anedotal evidence definitely suggests that a quarter/token at a time is ideal for "quarter sucking games". i.e. Players will be attracted by the low cost, and then kept at the game machine by the low cost of continuing their game. OTOH, most racing games would feel too "cheap" (as you say) if they were anything less than 50 cents. Why? Because you are paying for a fixed amount of gameplay. (Usually one level or track.) This is different from quarter suckers that tend to prompt you for more money at much more arbitrary intervals.

 

I'd be interested in seeing if a proper study agreed.

[shadow460]

Neither port of Hydro Thunder is arcade perfect. I don't think they even come close.

On the Dreamcast, everything is fine during single player games. Try running it in multiplayer. Whoever programmed the multiplayer missed the mark completely. It lags, and it seems very bland. I don't know what else is wrong with it, as I could not bear with it long enough to note any more differences. The multiplayer portion of DC Hydro Thunder was a big negative part of its reviews.

The N64 port was watered down quite a bit, but very playable. I'd have been happy with that if I did not own a Dreamcast at the time.

I expected the N64 version to have the voice over during the track "loading" stage, since a cart loads almost instantly. I also expected it from the DC, but more so from the N64. Neither version has that.

Also, the order and placement (easy, medium, hard) of the tracks in all three versions is different. On the N64, the bonus tracks are played in reverse order compared to DC, and both home versions have Greek Isles as a medium track instead of easy.

 

I've played Crazy Taxi in the arcade, and I've watched a very little bit of Sega Bass Fishing's intro. Crazy Taxi is nearly identical to the arcade machine. It's the game from my very small DC collection that one should play if they are looking for arcade perfect.

 

As for "cheap" racing games, how about paying $1 to start, then perhaps 25 cents each for a limited number of continues? Winning a free race for beating all the computer vehicles is good, too. I used to do that a lot with Hydro Thunder. My ex wife thought I was dropping quarters for every race whn if fact I was winning about a third of them absolutely free.

Edited January 19, 2006 by shadow460

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Neither port of Hydro Thunder is arcade perfect.  I don't think they even come close.

On the Dreamcast, everything is fine during single player games.  Try running it in multiplayer.  Whoever programmed the multiplayer missed the mark completely.  It lags, and it seems very bland.  I don't know what else is wrong with it, as I could not bear with it long enough to note any more differences.  The multiplayer portion of DC Hydro Thunder was a big negative part of its reviews.

The N64 port was watered down quite a bit, but very playable.  I'd have been happy with that if I did not own a Dreamcast at the time.

I expected the N64 version to have the voice over during the track "loading" stage, since a cart loads almost instantly.  I also expected it from the DC, but more so from the N64.  Neither version has that.

Also, the order and placement (easy, medium, hard) of the tracks in all three versions is different.  On the N64, the bonus tracks are played in reverse order compared to DC, and both home versions have Greek Isles as a medium track instead of easy.

 

I've played Crazy Taxi in the arcade, and I've watched a very little bit of Sega Bass Fishing's intro.  Crazy Taxi is nearly identical to the arcade machine.  It's the game from my very small DC collection that one should play if they are looking for arcade perfect.

 

As for "cheap" racing games, how about paying $1 to start, then perhaps 25 cents each for a limited number of continues?  Winning a free race for beating all the computer vehicles is good, too.  I used to do that a lot with Hydro Thunder.  My ex wife thought I was dropping quarters for every race whn if fact I was winning about a third of them absolutely free.

1002926[/snapback]

 

okay, I had only briefly played H.T. on the DC, and only in single player mode. As far as graphics, sound, mechanics etc. it seemed totally authentic. But Crazy Taxi I actually do know more about. And you're right there too. I didn't see any difference from my DC copy when I later tried it out in the arcade. But that neither proves nor disproves my case. It just shows that I didn't get in deep with DC H.T., but then again, I never claimed to.

 

But the difference between DC H.T and N64 H.T is that the N64 hardware was not capable of Arcade Perfect, it would out of necessity have to be watered down. If it even came close (I don't know, I haven't played it) then that's an accomplishment. The DC however could easily handle it, so if there were problems with it's H.T, then blame the programmer.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Mr_8bit_16bit

[NightSprinter]

I'm really enjoying the surprisingly intellectual conversation about what's happened to the arcades lately (and I can even start a new topic just for that if anyone wants). I really have to agree that what's being done with arcade games in terms of getting the "every last detail fully captured on the console port" treatment.

 

Back when I used to live in southwest GA, virtually every Saturday when I was a kid 20 years ago (every other saturday I'd go to the flea market with my grandparents to see if I could scour some Atari games for cheap) I always took advantage of the "Super Saturday" deal at the local Putt-Putt Golf & Games (which changed their name a few years ago). After I was done with all my games of minigolf and got my slice of cheese pizza and cup of Pepsi for $10-$15 until noon, I'd immediately take the roll of thirty gameroom tokens (and any bonus allowance I had left from saving up) and went to play my favorites. The place had stuff like Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man, Crossbow, Punch-Out, Bubble Bobble, Senta Mini-Golf (ironically, since I'm AT a mini-golf place), Vs. Super Mario Bros., Paperboy, etc. Even later on when the CPS-2 hardware came out there were still great games like D&D: Tower of Doom and Super SF2 Turbo (blew a lot of tokens on those).

 

Also sometimes on Friday afternoons after I got out of class my older brother and I would go to the mall and play at the arcade over in the Albany Mall. Back when I was still a toddler there was an Aladdin's Castle arcade. I remember seeing machines like Discs of Tron, Rampage, Karnov, and a few others. I mean there was even a Showbiz Pizza next to the mall as well (I remember having tried to play "Bubbles" and some game that involved a rodeo scene?). Later on, Aladdin's Castle would go out of business and was replaced by "Take Ten" over in the late 80s and early 90s. The place did get some more modern games over the years (X-Men Vs. SF, SF3, Bloody Roar), but still kept a lot of the classics (Final Fight, Galaga, Robocop, SF2, etc.). But even it closed down sadly.

 

Even the Stardust Skate Center had numerous classic videogames before it moved its location: 2 Ms. Pac-Man machines, Galaxian, Pac-Mania, Puzzle Bobble, Bagman, Kung-Fu Master, etc. Sadly after they moved to a location near the mal around 1998 they had far fewer good games.

 

I mean even my main vacation spot back then: Panama City Beach, FL, was a treasure trove of great game places. Some of the condos there had game rooms that contained some really great arcade games over the year (Bionic Commando, KFM, Zaxxon, Ladybug), and there was a fantastic arcade in front of the Miracle Strip Amusement park that had what I thought then was the jackpot of great arcade games (Jr. Pac-Man, Space-Invaders Pt. 2, Asteroids, Ms. PacMan, Pac-Mania, Crossbow, Donkey Kong, DK Jr., Double Dragon, Crystal Castles, Zaxxon, Pac-Man, etc.). It was the one place I looked forward to each trip outside of going to the beach and having fun. Sadly according to a friend of mine who lives up there, the amusement park AND arcade were taken down apparently for more condominiums.

 

So yeah, there are a lot of factors as to why we've lost the good arcades of the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s. I honestly wonder if it's possible or even feasible to bring such places back into the mainstream.

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

So yeah, there are a lot of factors as to why we've lost the good arcades of the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s. I honestly wonder if it's possible or even feasible to bring such places back into the mainstream.

 

Honestly, I think the only way to bring back the arcade is to eliminate the reasons for it's demise. Chief of which being, as I said: the hardware supremecy of consoles. That along with the simultaneous availability of a home version of any given game, and as JBanes pointed out, the higher price to play. Those are the big three reasons.

 

So if all the major companies in the video game world would develop arcade hardware that was two-three generations ahead of what consoles today could do, and if you had to wait a year or two for an appreciably inferior home version, and if they were able to keep price of admission down doing it, then giving it about 5 years to catch back on, yes, the arcade would come back, possibly to the same stride it had in it's glory days. We would have "Arcade's Revenge" (I'm such a dork)

 

Let me stress: I do not believe the arcade has even a chance of coming back unless all three, not just one or two, but all three of these things happen.

 

Now, is that likely? Not at all.

 

1) If I understand the economics of gaming correctly (which I may not) it seems that the R&D going into developing new arcade hardware that only, maybe 20 games are going to be built on and sold only to arcades willing to invest $2k-$10k on would bring in much less revenue to the company than R&D once every 5-7yrs for a new console that hundereds, maybe a thousand games will be built on and sold to the mass consumer who would be willing and able to shell out a comparably easy $200-$400 for. Even if the profit margin on an arcade cabinet is higher than that on a console and corresponding game combined, the profits made on the sheer volume of console and home version game sales would outweigh the profits made on the arcade sales. If arcades were more profitable than consoles, then I believe none of the companies would've allowed the arcade hardware to be eclipsed like that by consoles. It would've been a financially stupid move, and one that I think they would've been scrambling to repair ever since. That's not happening. No, what I think happened is someone was up late, crunching numbers once, when they discovered that they would actually make a greater profit bringing the consoles up to arcade level, making arcade perfect ports for it, and then phasing out the arcade. So I doubt that the arcade will ever get the hardware supremecy back for the sole reason that there's no financial incentive to do so. And perhaps financial incentive to not do so.

 

2) For better, or probably, worse, we've become accustomed to having what we want right away without having to wait. Too large a percentage of the gaming community would probably scream rape over having to wait that long for a game to come home. Sure some of us older guys (at 25, I'd be in the youngest cusp of "us older guys" but would still be included) spurred by nostalgia or for the ambience of the arcade or some combo thereof would pump some pop money into the new arcade games, but by and large people, especially the youngest ones who wouldn't get the whole arcade thing would not really get into it. Plus, in this age of computer piracy, the fledgling arcade2.0 would probably have it's feet kicked out from under it by hackers downloading it's offerings off the computer.

 

3) Gone are the days of the $0.25 new arcade game. With games getting more and more complex, R&D costs are going through the roof, and with the demand for more and more, game screens are getting larger and more sophisticated, speakers are getting louder and better and peripherals like rumbling seats are getting fancier too. All of this costs bookoo. That raises the price of the arcade game up significantly, a price which the arcade owner has to pay, and has to recoup if he's to stay in business. If he pays $10k for a game and only charges $0.25-$0.50 a game, he'll never turn a profit..especially with the slow flow of token tossing traffic. So he has to charge $1-$1.50 a turn which culls the herd willing to play significantly which puts him right in the same spot he started in.

 

This will make the arcade owner less willing to invest in a machine which will in turn make the developer less willing to invest in developing one which will in turn make the developer focus more on the home stuff, and so long as they deliver the goods on the home front that will pacify all but way too small a group to effect a revolution for the arcade.

 

The demise of the arcade was caused by a series of factors and a spiral of events that never should've happened, but since they did, it's created a whole new climate, one that will be very difficult to reverse. With everybody worried about their bottom lines, with the extreme risk involved, I don't think anyone, or at least not nearly enough people would be willing to put their neck on the line to financially back the events that would need to take place to begin to revive the american arcade.

 

Is it outright impossible? No. Neither is the entire population of a major metroplitan area each winning the lottery. But they are about equally unlikely.

 

As for me, I guess I'm old enough to miss the arcade and wish that it had not died off, but young enough to be spoiled by having the arcade at home on my DC, PS2, GC and XB. To me (and probably most of my peers) It'd be trading bittersweet for bittersweet.

 

I can either have arcade perfect at home on my big screen and big home theater system and not have to worry about spending money popping it into arcade machines that I won't get to take home and play at 2 in the morning if I can't sleep and in return not have an arcade to go to to immerse myself in and get away from it all for a while and my inner nostalgiac will gently weep.

 

-or-

 

I can have an arcade to go to and play games all day, and cherish, with the din, and the flashing lights, and the darkly painted walls and ceiling, and the prize counter and all the other freaks and geeks and the nostalgia and in return settle with A)being broke all the time and B) always being frustrated and never content with my home version because the characters are smaller, move slower, aren't shaded and textured as well etc...(I'm particular about these things.) And my inner perfectionist will wail in frustration.

 

To simplify: being the nostalgiac and technical perfectionist that I am, it's a choice between not being able to go to the arcade, or having to go to the arcade.

 

Which is the lesser of two evils? I'm hard pressed to say. For some that's an easy decision: bring back the arcades. For others it's also an easy decision: leave well enough alone. For me, I don't know that I can decide. As I said, it's trading bittersweet for bittersweet.

 

I guess, had we never had arcade perfect at home and I was told we could have arcade perfect at home, but it'd kill the arcade, and given the choice, I'd say lets keep the arcades and never desecrate that barrier, but now, that I've gotten used to superior home hardware, it'd be hard to go back, so if I absolutely had to choose, I'd say, with a measure of regret: "Let things stay the way they are. The Arcade a fond memory, the consoles standing victorious over the arcade and increasingly nipping at the heels of PC gaming." I've never been huge into PC gaming, so I don't think I'd mourn it nearly nearly as much if consoles killed the PC as they did the arcade.

 

But, since PCs are so utilitarian, they will never cease to occupy people's desktops and time, and if the PC is right there and readily accessible, I doubt that PC gaming would ever truely die like the US arcade has, but if Console hardware truely gains supremecy over PC hardware, and is able to keep it for more than a few months (which while becoming increasingly less unlikely is still unlikely) the console games could eclipse the PC games to the point of PC gaming losing it's mainstream status, if the console version is as good or better, easier to hook to a big screen home theater system and more comfy to play on the couch and without having possible hardware conflicts and without having to muddle through windows to get to it, an all around console dominance is possible, and becoming increasingly plausable for some future point.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Mr_8bit_16bit

[jbanes]

You'll have to excuse the slight shift in perspective here, but if I may wax poetically for a moment....

 

"Say not, Why were the days which have gone by better than these? Such a question comes not from wisdom." -Ecclesiastes 7:10

 

The arcades that we knew in our younger days are long gone, never to be brought back to life. Concerning ourselves with the difficulties of creating new machines is a probably a pointless exercise, in part because of the points Mr_8bit_16bit brought up.

 

That being said, I still enjoy playing Galaga, Cruisin' USA, Killer Instinct, After Burner, BattleZone, TMNT, Tempest, and the hundreds of other games. I also enjoy taking my family to the little hotdog places around Chicago so we can get some tasty fast food grub (Vienna Beef, Mmmmm...) and play a few of the multi-arcade machines they have setup. (My older son seems to like DigDug, while the younger one just likes to hit the ball in Pinball.) I see no reason why bringing these experieneces back in an arcade setting wouldn't work.

 

Look at it this way. There's currently a booming market in PNP TV Games, primarily because they deliver to people's homes all the original games they used to (and still do) enjoy. In my experience, these TV Games also help bring back some of the social aspect that's been missing from gaming for so long.

 

What I'm getting at is, I don't see why someone can't run a classic arcade that runs existing machines in a traditional arcade setting with food, tokens, loud noises, and other aspects that we used to enjoy. So what if Sky Kid is sitting next to Hydrothunder? The point is to create a common area where people can have fun! No, it won't be exactly like the arcades were back in the day. In fact, such arcades would probably be idealized versions. But they'll still be fun, and that's all that counts.

 

It's been mentioned around here before that a few of these types of arcades have popped up in heavily trafficed areas. If I ever take a vacation in Geneva, WI, I'll have to look up the one that was mentioned there. Bound to be lots more fun than the gutted arcades in the Wisconsin Dells.

 

Edit:

 

Good News: I found the post I referenced here.

Bad News: Most of the reviews are not positive.

Edited January 19, 2006 by jbanes

[supercat]

3) Gone are the days of the $0.25 new arcade game. With games getting more and more complex, R&D costs are going through the roof, and with the demand for more and more, game screens are getting larger and more sophisticated, speakers are getting louder and better and peripherals like rumbling seats are getting fancier too. All of this costs bookoo.

1003121[/snapback]

 

Many places have bartop games that charge $0.25 and seem to be very popular. The games aren't really any better than what can be found on the web, but nonetheless draw a lot of quarters. And I suspect the $0.25 price has a lot to do with it.

 

I suspect that a lot of arcades have games that would receive more than double the number of plays if the price were cut in half. The difficult thing to assess would be whether the extra revenue was coming at the expense of other, higher-priced games.

 

Personally, I don't think that an amusement arcade is going to be viable as an entertainment destination outside of a few specialty locations (e.g. Dave & Buster's). On the other hand, I think that mini-arcades in airports and other places that people have to kill some time would do very well to focus on things similar to the $0.25 bartop games. Such places aren't really going to be in competition with home systems since the people waiting in airports aren't going to have ready access to those. And on such systems, approachable gameplay will be far more important than super-duper graphics, sound effects, motion feedback, etc.

 

I see no reason $0.25/play shouldn't do quite well at such places.

[jbanes]

On the other hand, I think that mini-arcades in airports and other places that people have to kill some time would do very well to focus on things similar to the $0.25 bartop games.  Such places aren't really going to be in competition with home systems since the people waiting in airports aren't going to have ready access to those.  And on such systems, approachable gameplay will be far more important than super-duper graphics, sound effects, motion feedback, etc.

 

I see no reason $0.25/play shouldn't do quite well at such places.

1003415[/snapback]

 

The first video game I ever saw as a kid was a Pacman Cocktail Table at my local Pizza Hut. It was pushed up against the wall near the counter as there was very little space in the restaurant.

 

I've always wondered why someone didn't open a restaurant that featured ruggedized versions of these as every table? Get people to plunk money in as they wait for their food. Of course, the food has to be good, but otherwise the idea seems sound enough. (I hear that Nolan Bushnell is planning something similar with modern games?) The biggest problem I see is that the initial startup cost would be high, and you'd have a lot of potential maintenece issues. But still, it could be a very attractive restaurant. Especially in high traffic areas (like airports) where a little gimmicking goes a long way. Not to mention all the people who would sit down and play just because they're waiting for their plane.