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.
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.
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 so on was so imagination-bending.
Maybe like if you could play an actual Pixar movie as a game? Something like that. As a kid, the arcades in the 90s-00s were really amazing places.
ace_garp@lemmy.world 11 months 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.