Let's Get Serious

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

The original Team Fortress Classic. At one point I was the number one ranked player on the number one ranked server. Granted, that was well past the games glory days, but I'm still proud of that achievement. That's the only game I've really played competitively. Other games I do try to get good at or 100% if I can. I recently played the heck out of Dr Mario just to see how good I could get and I got a lot better than I expected to get at it. Fun game!

[T-Pac | 7,587]

On 9/30/2022 at 10:43 AM, Link said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160313051747/https://www.insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

To understand the essence of arcade gaming you must never continue.

...play a credit for ten or so minutes until you lose, and while the continue timer is counting down you consider your options. If you let it time out and start over, you will get another ten or so minutes of playtime, but if you continue you probably won't even last half as long, since the game has obviously got harder now and you obviously can't handle it.

And with each successive time you continue you end up getting less and less playtime, to the point where you might as well just be emptying your wallet's contents into the fucking thing.

But if you take it from the beginning enough times, the opposite starts happening -- you get increasingly moreplaytime out of each credit, instead of less...

This is how the one-credit rule began -- with kids cutting school with little money in their pockets, loving these games and wanting to spend as much time as possible with them.

Back then we had no access to freeplay modes. Back then there were no emulators with infinite credits. But though we were forced by circumstances to play these games the hard way, we soon discovered that that was the only way to play them.

 

Well - now I understand why "Gradius Syndrome" exists...

-CasualCart

[Sumez | 2,993]

The guy who posted that is one of the biggest cancers on the internet. I can say that freely because he's a straight up criminal scum who's scammed people out of a ton of money, but that's really only scratching the surface. If people want to know more you can do your own research, but I'd honestly recommend not doing that.

It's also massively misunderstanding the idea of the one credit clear, and nature of continues, but there's at least some kind of a point in there.

[mbd39 | 2,029]

Marble Madness is the only game where I've submitted a speedrun. I'm #32 out of 158 on the leaderboard. https://www.speedrun.com/marblemadness

I've been an avid NES Tetris player for years, but but I'll never be above mediocre with my pb in the high 500k range.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg | 586]

I never entered a tourney or anything, but I was legit obsessed with Tekken 3 in its days. Never met anyone who could beat me consistently. People would stop challenging me at the arcade.

[Link | 2,727]

10 hours ago, Sumez said:

It's also massively misunderstanding the idea of the one credit clear, and nature of continues,

Care to elaborate?

I did hear some implication that he's a scumbag long back. Maybe that's why his blog disappeared. Regardless, (much like some pieces from a certain other blogger "SM") I always liked that essay, even if like everything they both wrote it's about four times as long as it needs to be and narcissistic like far too obsessed with his own opinion and refusal to accept the possibility of any others.

[Sumez | 2,993]

On 10/3/2022 at 1:44 AM, Link said:

Care to elaborate?

Sure.  Like I said there's some merit to the point he's making (in general he has written lots of great essays about arcade games), it's just that it's really two separate points.

When you play a game on one credit it's not to maximize play time, but to "win" - winning the challenge put forward by the game, usually just for the sake of personal satisfaction.
In arcade games especially, pumping the machine full of credits is usually a surefire way to reach the end no matter your skills or amount of practice, meaning getting there is typically doesn't involve overcoming any kind of challenge at all.

And if it takes four credits for you to get through the game, it's still a bigger and more satisfying accomplishment than doing so in seven credits. Sure you might not get the same amount of play time out of that compared to starting over four times and dying in the same place, but you'll become more familiar with later stages in the game, and if you've improved your personal best it doesn't matter if you spent 2 credits or 10. Any gradual improvement is a shot of dopamine to your arcade gamer brain.

I'm probably one of the more habitual proponents of the "one credit clear" around here, but if you think that means "you must never continue", you couldn't be any more wrong. Continuing has plenty of proper purposes, and at the end of the day you are just playing the game to have fun. If continuing over and over is fun, no one can take that away from you. The 1CC is just a metric, it's a potential end goal, but never reaching it is completely fine.

 

When you get into "how people actually play the games in arcades", of course there are other factors. Extending your time with a game is absolutely a reason to start over, that would play a role when you are paying actual money for every credit. It's a part of arcade culture, I can't deny that. But I'm not sure how or why that should influence how we play arcade games today in a setting where every credit is free?
Another common factor could of course simply being monitoring your progress based on how far you can get in one credit. Just like beating the game in a credit is a victory condition, so is reaching a stage you never reached before. And of course most arcade games grade your abilities with a score, and nearly every single arcade game resets that score when you choose to continue.

As for whether you should start over every time the game says "Game Over"? I think the most healthy pattern would be simply switching your approach often. Typically I'll end a game if I reach a point I hadn't been able to before, but if my performance was worse, I'll continue at least a few times just to practice.

[Link | 2,727]

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with everything you said, and I am only developing the subtopic, not to argue. And also that I am Not Gud and am unlikely to ever 1cc any arcade game beyond the likes of Kung Fu Master or Donkey Kong. 

Of course the only thing that matters in this is the enjoyment of playing games. I think the presented attitude is one that he means will increase the enjoyment and appreciation. Obviously, no one single approach to anything will apply to everybody. But he is presenting this as the prevailing attitude in the competitive scene.

11 hours ago, Sumez said:

if you think that means "you must never continue", you couldn't be any more wrong.

There's a case to be made for using hyperbole. And he's clearly being a preening, demonstrative strongman of hardcore gaming to stroke his own... ego.
Naturally, if there is no line behind you waiting for a turn, and you feel like exploring the game more, it's ok. If there is a line and busy atmosphere like he describes, I could see it being considered rude as with any other amusement, like trying to keep your seat on a roller coaster for another ride. 

11 hours ago, Sumez said:

But I'm not sure how or why that should influence how we play arcade games today in a setting where every credit is free?

I brought it up specifically to JamesRobot's feeling that this makes the games have no value to him. If one changes their mode and ignores that aspect of the setting, it might restore the challenge and fun. 

[Sumez | 2,993]

Well yeah, that's exactly where the "play to 1CC" mentality comes in, even if you don't strictly only ever clear in one credit.  

Because JamesRobot is absolutely on point - having infinite credits is boring! The games were designed around every credit inserted being a small sacrifice, so losing one is something you'd actively try to avoid. When you're "playing arcade games for free", that's a mindset you definitely need to find within yourself, and that's also why I usually try to press the 1CC point. It's not about gitting gut, it's about finding what makes the games fun and engaging.

You shouldn't fault an arcade port for just letting the players use as many credits as they want, but I do also like it when they try to "educate" by including built-in challenges, or gradual unlocking of credits or such. Either way, eventually it's still up to the player to decide that the "game over" screen means "game over"  

[Estil | 1,265]

Let's get cereal?  Okay...

 

[Estil | 1,265]

On 9/1/2022 at 12:58 PM, Sumez said:

Speedruns are for games like Sonic and Metroid.  They most definitely don't belong in Zelda or JRPGs or other big epic quest sorts of games.

[Link | 2,727]

15 minutes ago, Estil said:

Speedruns are for games like Sonic and Metroid.  They most definitely don't belong in Zelda or JRPGs or other big epic quest sorts of games.

Are you saying Metroid is not an epic quest?

[Sumez | 2,993]

Lots of people don't really understand what speedrunning is

[Gloves | 11,829]

Zelda 2 world record is sub 16 minutes as of recently. Ocarina is one of the most popular to run. Any game can be speedrun and seeing all the different methods across various genres is always interesting to me. 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

18 hours ago, Sumez said:

Sure.  Like I said there's some merit to the point he's making (in general he has written lots of great essays about arcade games), it's just that it's really two separate points.

When you play a game on one credit it's not to maximize play time, but to "win" - winning the challenge put forward by the game, usually just for the sake of personal satisfaction.
In arcade games especially, pumping the machine full of credits is usually a surefire way to reach the end no matter your skills or amount of practice, meaning getting there is typically doesn't involve overcoming any kind of challenge at all.

And if it takes four credits for you to get through the game, it's still a bigger and more satisfying accomplishment than doing so in seven credits. Sure you might not get the same amount of play time out of that compared to starting over four times and dying in the same place, but you'll become more familiar with later stages in the game, and if you've improved your personal best it doesn't matter if you spent 2 credits or 10. Any gradual improvement is a shot of dopamine to your arcade gamer brain.

I'm probably one of the more habitual proponents of the "one credit clear" around here, but if you think that means "you must never continue", you couldn't be any more wrong. Continuing has plenty of proper purposes, and at the end of the day you are just playing the game to have fun. If continuing over and over is fun, no one can take that away from you. The 1CC is just a metric, it's a potential end goal, but never reaching it is completely fine.

 

When you get into "how people actually play the games in arcades", of course there are other factors. Extending your time with a game is absolutely a reason to start over, that would play a role when you are paying actual money for every credit. It's a part of arcade culture, I can't deny that. But I'm not sure how or why that should influence how we play arcade games today in a setting where every credit is free?
Another common factor could of course simply being monitoring your progress based on how far you can get in one credit. Just like beating the game in a credit is a victory condition, so is reaching a stage you never reached before. And of course most arcade games grade your abilities with a score, and nearly every single arcade game resets that score when you choose to continue.

As for whether you should start over every time the game says "Game Over"? I think the most healthy pattern would be simply switching your approach often. Typically I'll end a game if I reach a point I hadn't been able to before, but if my performance was worse, I'll continue at least a few times just to practice.

I agree with everything you said, but I just want to add that real arcade games don't have continues!  Adding credits to continue was obviously invented to get more money out of kids, but it fundamentally changed arcade games forever.  If you look back at the history of arcade games, there are basically two kinds: one credit games that go on forever where you play for high score/new personal bests based on skill level (golden age), and unlimited continue games where your goal is to "complete" the game (roughly, the JAMMA era to present).

If you're playing an arcade game that allows continues and trying to 1CC it, you're not actually playing the game as it was designed and intended: the designers meant for you to put in more money and continue.  Whereas real arcade games from before that era only gave you one credit total, so by playing for high score/personal best, you're actually playing the game exactly as it was designed and intended.  Ergo, playing for a 1CC in a game that allows continues is much like speedrunning in the sense that you're imposing your own arbitrary rules (fastest completion or 1CC) on a game in an attempt to accomplish a personal goal that has nothing to do with the original objective of the actual game - not that there's anything wrong with that

[Sumez | 2,993]

Good addition, I considered pointing this out as well, but figured it was irrelevant. Even if you could, it makes no sense to "continue" in a game like Pac-Man, Donkey Kong or even the variants of Tetris that does have an ending.

Continues were introduced quite early with Irem's Moon Patrol (1982) famously being the first, but it really only makes sense in games that rely on the player making any kind of meaningful "progress", and potentially reaching an ending.

31 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

If you're playing an arcade game that allows continues and trying to 1CC it, you're not actually playing the game as it was designed and intended: the designers meant for you to put in more money and continue.
(...)
Ergo, playing for a 1CC in a game that allows continues is much like speedrunning in the sense that you're imposing your own arbitrary rules (fastest completion or 1CC) on a game in an attempt to accomplish a personal goal that has nothing to do with the original objective of the actual game - not that there's anything wrong with that

And this is where you're IMO completely wrong. According to another recent post you've been collecting arcade games for nearly as long as I have, so I find it strange that you would try to reinforce this misinformed stereotype of arcade games.
There's a way too common deceptive mindset in video game circles about arcade games generally being "quarter munchers" designed only to eat your credits. And it's one of the most destructive narrative for true arcade gameplay, which seemingly only exists for people to reinforce to themselves that it's not their fault for not putting in the time to learn the game, it's obviously the game's fault.

Yes, arcade games are designed around making money by making the players put in additional coins. Yes, continues at least partially exist as a way to generate more profit from shorter periods per-credit. And yes, the design of most games absolutely reflect this business model!

But trying to diminish the game design of arcade games as being conceived simply with credit feeding in mind, and just continuing till you reach the end being the "intended way to play" is just a massive slap in the face of every single one of the greatest arcade classics out there.

Sure, those games do exist, but there's a reason none of those are remembered as good games worth ever mentioning.
The thing is, for an arcade game to be succesful, it also needs to be a good game, and it needs to be fair enough to allow a skilled player to improve their progress and eventually complete the game, otherwise people would just fool around with it once and never touch it again. A good arcade game relies on the arcade culture of the 80s and 90s of talented players engaging in active competition, and the best games out there manage to reward both actual "gamers" as well as credit feeding "video game tourists", with the Metal Slug series being a pretty stellar demonstration of exactly that.

If 1CC'ing wasn't the true objective, arcade games wouldn't punish continuing, or recognize and reward the clear. So many games feature additional challenges or bosses, or exclusive loops that only show up when you complete them on one credit, while others similarly straight up prevent continuing at certain points near the end.
Going back to my previous post, it's not like continuing till the end isn't a valid way to play - obviously that's one of the primary ways the game makes its income. But if you just stop there, that's not gonna take the game, or its revenue. very far. They need people to return to the game, and this replay value is where the best arcade games truly shine compared to many modern games designed specifically to be a "one and done" deal.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Sumez

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

1 minute ago, Sumez said:

Good addition, I considered pointing this out as well, but figured it was irrelevant. Even if you could, it makes no sense to "continue" in a game like Pac-Man, Donkey Kong or even the variants of Tetris that does have an ending.

Continues were introduced quite early with Irem's Moon Patrol (1982) famously being the first, but it really only makes sense in games that rely on the player making any kind of meaningful "progress", and potentially reaching an ending.

And this is where you're IMO completely wrong. According to another recent post you've been collecting arcade games for nearly as long as I have, so I find it strange that you would try to reinforce this misinformed stereotype of arcade games.
There's a way too common deceptive mindset in video game circles about arcade games generally being "quarter munchers" designed only to eat your credits. And it's one of the most destructive narrative for true arcade gameplay, which seemingly only exists for people to reinforce themselves that it's not their fault for not putting in the time to learn the game, it's obviously the game's fault.

Yes, arcade games are designed around making money by making the players put in additional coins. Yes, continues at least partially exist as a way to generate more profit from shorter periods per-credit. And yes, the design of most games absolutely reflect this business model!

But trying to diminish the game design of arcade games as being conceived simply with credit feeding in mind, and just continuing till you reach the end being the "intended way to play" is just a massive slap in the face of every single one of the greatest arcade classics out there.

Sure, those games do exist, but there's a reason none of those are remembered as good games worth ever mentioning.
The thing is, for an arcade game to be succesful, it also needs to be a good game, and it needs to be fair enough to allow a skilled player to improve their progress and eventually complete the game, otherwise people would just fool around with it once and never touch it again. A good arcade game relies on the arcade culture of the 80s and 90s of talented players engaging in active competition, and the best games out there manage to reward both actual "gamers" as well as credit feeding "video game tourists", with the Metal Slug series being a pretty stellar demonstration of exactly that.

If 1CC'ing wasn't the true objective, arcade games wouldn't punish continuing, or recognize and reward the clear. So many games feature additional challenges or bosses, or exclusive loops that only show up when you complete them on one credit, while others similarly straight up prevent continuing at certain points near the end.
Going back to my previous post, it's not like continuing till the end isn't a valid way to play - obviously that's one of the primary ways the game makes its income. But if you just stop there, that's not gonna take the game, or its revenue. very far. They need people to return to the game, and this replay value is where the best arcade games truly shine compared to many modern games designed specifically to be a "one and done" deal.

I feel like you're retroactively overlaying properties on arcade games with continues that aren't really there, and possibly due to your age, completely dismissing the original "true" era of arcade gaming.  When someone says, "what type of game is Contra?" How many people say, "arcade!"  Nobody, even though it's an arcade game.  You enjoy trying to 1CC action/adventure/shooter/whatever games that are on arcade PCB's and allow continues and have endings, but none of them are actually in the arcade genre.  In fact, you didn't even mention non-continuing arcade games in your first post, and that's what real arcade gaming actually is!!!

I guess what it comes down to is this: are you talking about arcade gaming as a genre or are you talking about any game that can be set up in an arcade cabinet and be wired to take money?  Because I feel like you're using arcade games with credits as a prop to make an argument that is actually true with just about all video games since 1985 except for arcade games.  Beating Ninja Gaiden on NES in one credit is more in line with all of your above arguments than playing any actual arcade game because the emphasis is on you overcoming a set of challenges as efficiently as possible.  Actual arcade PCB's that allow continues, on the other hand, were designed specifically to take as much money from you as possible, overcoming any said challenge be damned!

Anyway, I guess we don't see eye to eye on this, which is fine...

 

[Sumez | 2,993]

1 hour ago, Dr. Morbis said:

In fact, you didn't even mention non-continuing arcade games in your first post, and that's what real arcade gaming actually is!!!

I can't even comprehend how absurd this claim is.  99% of all arcade games apparently aren't real arcade games. 

I have a lot of things to say about what makes an arcade game "arcade", but it's obvious we won't agree on anything here anyway.  

Edited October 5, 2022 by Sumez

[PII | 1,897]

It's more fun and rewarding to thoroughly play 1 great game that you love, getting to know it inside and out, than it is to play 20 very good games that you like, all the way through, a single time a piece.