5 ms·

All of these may have classics status but are actually very shallow experiences too. As you say they were rewarding skilled players and were not simply offering

All of these may have classics status but are actually very shallow experiences too. As you say they were rewarding skilled players and were not simply offering lottery tickets with dopamine-engineered random patterns to children, but they are still not comparable at all to the ones mentioned. Arcade games were also often notoriously hard and required a lot of invested money to reach the leaderboard. The fact that less dark and more social, but similar money making schemes existed in the 80s in the form of arcades doesn't make them better. Of course these shallow experiences are reproduced on mobile nowadays. Match-3 games were a staple of all gaming generations and even reached some depth (Puzzle Quest) before they completely moved to mobile in the form of exploitative skinnerware.

watwut 7y ago
You seem to assume that everyone shares your preference for "depth" and distaste for "shallow". That is just not how it is and that is also my point.
dragontamer 7y ago
> Arcade games were also often notoriously hard and required a lot of invested money to reach the leaderboard. I don't recall ever getting to the leaderboard on Ms. Pacman in my youth. I get it today, but that's mostly because kids these days suck at the game and the leaderboards are empty. Case in point: the most OG game was probably Whack-a-mole, in existence in some form since the early 1900s. There's no leaderboard: you play the game because its fun. Sometimes there are prizes, but more often than not, its just an arcade booth sitting by itself with a few quarters and a hammer. Arcade games of the 80s were similar: Ms. Pacman, Missile Command, etc. etc. were just short burst games to take up time while your parents shopped elsewhere in the mall. By the 90s, arcade games began to have longer, more cohesive stories. You could theoretically get to the end of "Simpsons" or "TMNT", but more often than not... people put a quarter or two for the first level, died, and moved on with their life. Its there just for fun and pure enjoyment.

watwut 7y ago

You seem to assume that everyone shares your preference for "depth" and distaste for "shallow". That is just not how it is and that is also my point.

dragontamer 7y ago

> Arcade games were also often notoriously hard and required a lot of invested money to reach the leaderboard. I don't recall ever getting to the leaderboard on Ms. Pacman in my youth. I get it today, but that's mostly because kids these days suck at the game and the leaderboards are empty. Case in point: the most OG game was probably Whack-a-mole, in existence in some form since the early 1900s. There's no leaderboard: you play the game because its fun. Sometimes there are prizes, but more often than not, its just an arcade booth sitting by itself with a few quarters and a hammer. Arcade games of the 80s were similar: Ms. Pacman, Missile Command, etc. etc. were just short burst games to take up time while your parents shopped elsewhere in the mall. By the 90s, arcade games began to have longer, more cohesive stories. You could theoretically get to the end of "Simpsons" or "TMNT", but more often than not... people put a quarter or two for the first level, died, and moved on with their life. Its there just for fun and pure enjoyment.