Post

to weigh in on the arcade game discourse earnestly: i’ve been slowly getting into them more and more lately, playing both shmups and beat em ups, having a great time with both and i think they’re extremely inviting and fun and rewarding even and arguably especially at lower skill levels

A lot of what attracts people to continues can easily be solved by robust practice modes now that we all own the games we buy. Its more benefitial to push the practice culture arcade players already engage with (through save states), then the alternative

i just dunno if that’s true? i think continues have specific design benefits beyond practice modes. being able to play a run out after a death for practice while you’re doing attempts or slowly reducing the credits you need to clear are two, to me, valid and healthy approaches that you’d lose

0 reposts4 likes

i guess ultimately i think the ambiguity is a trade off; enforcing modes of play will reduce ambiguity and thus bad posts from people disingenuous to the genre like the one that started all this discourse but will it actually make those people engage more deeply or just turn them away?

linking my thread on this here, but basically: if we actually wanted to resolve this argument we would inevitably have to embrace a data-driven approach, and i'm not sure that's a road i would want to go down in what is supposed to be an artistic medium bsky.app/profile/ziad...

ziad 🇱🇧@ziaddd.bsky.social

i’m torn on how protective game design should be of certain experiences. i personally don’t care when a modern release allows credit-feeding cuz i know how to engage with it meaningfully. the implicit question here is which way of presenting the game will maximize the number of players who “get it”

Couldnt you apply this to fail states themselves? If you signal when you are supposed to die, the right players will buy into it and restart themselves, making death upon reaching 0 hp a data driven approach forcing a similar experience upon everyone

For a lot, turning away, but turning away is temporary for some, some people later in life develop a taste for the style,etc. Dark souls turned a lot of people away at first too But if you dont see the game as a real choice, you will never second guess yourself, thats what continues did

There is also the aspect of, maybe its good to turn a lot away as long as some can be caught falling between the track. Its just not healthy that to get into Arcade games, you need to go through a cultural reprogramming by MarkMSX/Boghog/Me/DevInterviews/Friends/DerekYu

i think the apathy arcade games have towards the player can be a strength as much as it is a weakness. the game simply exists, the player must find their own challenges as they explore it and improve. this does absolutely push people away but it also means they can be approached in so many more ways

i think there's rlly two types of challenges on two ends of the spectrum and stuff like arcade/puzzlers are on one end and say, movement shooters are on the other i am a person that doesnt find figuring out the right inputs to press in the right order each time to be interesting, and that isnt a

problem with these genres (its not just arcade ofc, rhythm games too for instance) are just never really gonna appeal to me every game can be broken down and simplified but i prefer a game where it feels less flowcharty even if it still kinda is a flowchart through larger complexity, where a lot of

older arcade games/rhythm/Hard soulslike fights are basically get the inputs right in this correct order or die i think these are just very different types of engagement and things devs can optimize for and for a lot of people one will appeal versus another, ofc on a spectrum, not just linearly