RetroGaming

21805 readers

263 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

Be kind.
No spam or soliciting for money.
No racism or other bigotry allowed.
Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Xylinna@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

gts@lemmy.world

What metrics did people evaluate arcade games by when they were popular? (lemm.ee)

submitted 5 days ago by ALostInquirer@lemm.ee to c/retrogaming@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Today some people evaluate games based on their length (e.g. 30+hours), map size (e.g. 40-60 sq. km), etc., so it made me wonder what metrics people may have used for arcade games.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I remember it was not really a surprising set of metrics: gameplay, graphics, and fun.

It was about having an experience you couldn't have at home (or anywhere else) because the games were always noticeably ahead of the curve.

Graphics were what was most attention-grabbing. It's hard to communicate how impressive it was since we're in the diminishing returns era for graphics. But a jump from Pac-Man to Rush 'n Attack or Contra, and from that to Street Fighter II, and from that to Ridge Racer, and that to Daytona USA, and so on... Every step was so imagination-bending.

What would it feel like now? Maybe like if you could play an actual Pixar movie as a game? Something like that, but there's nothing that really expresses it, photorealism isn't even that impressive anymore.