this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
33 points (97.1% liked)

RetroGaming

21773 readers
151 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

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

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

How fun the game was at the cost of a credit.

If the game was not fun enough to justify spending the nickel/quarter to play, then it was a bad game.

The really good games were known in my area as the "quarter guzzlers." Because they were extremely fun, but still hard, meaning you wanted to keep playing at the cost of the quarter or credit per play. And you'd end up dumping multiple dollars into the machine before you knew it.

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago (2 children)

For players, the length of play you’d likely get out of a single credit.

For owners, the amount of money a given cabinet could make, on average, per week.

[–] mox 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Also, units of fun earned while watching other people play.

One nice thing about an arcade is that you can see regular people (not streamers/professionals/actors) interacting with a game, and notice subtleties that aren't represented in a bullet list or trailer video.

[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago

That's what I was thinking might be the case for players, alongside the fun/new factors Jordan mentions. Thanks for the reply!

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 days ago

Whether it was a "quarter eater" or not was a big one. Some games were seen as having unfair levels of difficulty that were just designed to take your money. Take something like Haunted Castle as an example.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

There wasn't much thought behind it other than "is it fun" or "is it new".

There was huge word of mouth whenever a new machine dropped and kids would ride their bikes from store to store to see the new ones.

This was before arcades started collecting them. Arcade machines were just at the local bars, Pizza shops, 7-11s, and grocery stores.

Bars would set them up in non-age restricted areas so kids could play.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 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.

[–] WhiteRice@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago
[–] ace_garp@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Gameplay is top, is it challenging, varied and beatable?

Can you 1CC it, and get 40-50 minutes from that 1 credit?

Did it seem like the designers and programmers were interested and invested in producing a decent game?

Were their any hitbox fails or physics errors that cause massive annoyance? Skip.

Then graphics and sound quality can influence the choice.

--//--

1CC games========

Slap Fight

Willow

Wardner

Heavy Barrel

RoboCop

Wonder Boy in Monster Land

Black Tiger

Calibre .50

Gun Force

These all took about 30-50 minutes to complete on 1 credit.