3 ms·
I think the analogy isn't quite the same. Imagine if instead of a quarter granting you an extra life, it gave you a power-up that let you clear the first 10 le
by darkwizard42 5y ago
I think the analogy isn't quite the same.
Imagine if instead of a quarter granting you an extra life, it gave you a power-up that let you clear the first 10 levels in 2x the speed. That is the design we have reached.
More quarters never made an arcade game easier or different, it just got you more time to play the game. The game design principle of arcade games was to make progression difficult but still possible by playing MORE. Pacman has some RNG, but the rules are there and aren't circumvented at the whim of the developer when a player starts to excel.
New games seem to have espoused the principle of pay more to play LESS which is almost an opposite goal and in the parent comment I think "fun" refers to playing the game, which they might feel is warped when people pay to avoid the playing aspect.
- ryandrake 5y agoA little off-topic, but I liked the "fighting game" model that rewards skill, for example, the Mortal Kombat series on arcade. Only the new human challenger would have to pay the quarter, and if you beat him, you continue to play the next person and the next person without having to pay again. I recall in the '90s playing MK3 literally all night (hours of play) on a single quarter, with a line of people paying $0.25 over and over to lose to me in 15 seconds. Ahh, the good ol days of gaming.