Support NeoGAF

[DunDunDunpachi]

I have a few reasons that I can think of, but I'm not sure I'm right and I'm definitely still puzzling over some unanswered questions. I am referring to the explosion of cutscenes, voice-acting, and long stories in videogames. The tech to make bigger stories showed up, but that doesn't explain why the old carnival-entertainment style of gaming quickly fell out of favor.

By the 90s, the gaming hobby had long established itself as BOTH something to do in quick bursts AND as a bigger time-investment. Long narratives weren't new. PC games offered story-heavy games from the start. Long narratives weren't even new on consoles, since we'd gotten plenty of lengthy RPGs and adventure games on NES, Genesis, etc. Both pick-up-and-play / arcade games coexisted with slow-burn simulation / strategy / adventure gaming, because they cater to two different sort of audiences.

Yet pick-up-and-play, shorter experiences got vilified in favor of "hardcore" games with sweeping narratives and grand orchestrated soundtracks once we saw the PS1 and N64 show up. This continued with the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast, and continues to this day. Unless there's a ton of narrative content packed into a game, it often goes unnoticed. In context, it makes sense that we would have more story stuff showing up in 90s videogames once the technology made it feasible. I know that millions of gamers enjoy a good storyline, but it doesn't explain why gaming in quick bursts fell away almost entirely. It doesn't explain why bigger, better arcade games sold worse and worse as time went on, either, with a few exceptions like Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero.

The audience for satisfying pick-up-and-play arcade experiences was still there. The DS and Wii proved it. The dozens of overnight millionaire smartphone puzzle games proved it. So why did the gaming industry as a whole turn a blind eye to that market segment? And paradoxically, why did the niche of arcade developers who didn't turn a blind eye to that market segment still spiral into bankruptcy and irrelevance (in most cases)? Schrodinger's casual audience?

Help me understand, GAF. I must be missing some part of the picture.

 

[Virex]

Because of

 

[hyperbertha]

Overtime people started looking for more in games than just the bare bones game stuff. Arcade games are simplistic in nature. It just wasn't cutting it when they got a taste of more complex type games, especially with cinematic production values. Arcade still thrives in mobile because that environment is very conducive to that type of stuff. Noone is looking to get really invested when they start up a mobile game. They just want that small burst of distraction.
Also in the case of DS and Wii,, those console have really longform experiences more than arcadey stuff don't they?

 

[Kamina]

People want to be entertained.
If there is no narrative most people are hard to be convinced to do something just for the sake of doing. There needs to be a goal, or a purpose to everything.
Sure, some arcade games or console games worked without such depth back then and had their audiences, however there is a reason gaming was more of a niche experience back in the day. Nowdays its a mass entertainment product due to developing entertainment fit for a wider audience.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Same way film stopped being about trains coming and going.

 

[cireza]

You still get that quick experience nowadays, with games like Rocket League, Track Mania, Halo etc... Quick matches. You also have many indy or smaller games that offer short runs and high replayability, such as all the rogue-like games out there, or more recently Streets of Rage 4. I do feel like this is strongly linked to online games though.

So why did the game console market evolve into "story driven" games ? It is not because it is a better fit than shorter, more intense experiences. In my opinion, it is simply because it could offer this kind of experience, which is absolutely non-existent in arcade games.

Naturally the medium is exploited to the maximum of its capabilities, so all types of games it can produce will be found.

 

[oagboghi2]

Because consoles moved into our homes, and the monetization model that deeply affected gameplay design doesn't work outside of the arcade.

Deeper, longer gameplay sessions make more sense on console, especially when you are now buying games at $50 a pop compared to 50 cents a turn

 

[Vawn]

I always wanted that. They started as arcade style games, because arcade games were more popular than home games at first.

The Legend of Zelda, Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy (especially FF2/4 on SNES) made me realize games can be a lot more than the play for a bit and turn the game off style that arcade style gameplay presented.

But in 2020, everything exists. We have games like Resogun, racing games, 100 hour story-driven RPGs and basically every genre and style of game being represented.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

Arcade games do not equal the casual shovelware that is on phones/Wii.

The Dreamcast was probably the last console that was anchored by arcade games, and it didn't do so hot unfortunately.

I think arcade games disappearing was just part of the natural progression of consoles catching up to all differentiating features over time.

Arcade games used to have substantially better graphics... Then consoles caught up.
Arcade games used to be the only place you could play games with strangers... Until internet gaming became a thing.
Arcade games used to be the only place you could get unique peripheral experiences... And then stuff like Guitar Hero came out on consoles.

Also, the focus on narratives for console games makes sense because again, its how they can differentiate themselves from arcade games. If arcades are all about short bursts of gameplay, focus on something they could never provide - a strong narrative.

 

[sol740]

Arcade games were designed to pump quarters out of you, and games at home didn't need to get you to buy-in to another 60 seconds of gameplay. They needed a much higher investment, and needed to coax buyers with more in-depth, and interesting experiences.

 

[Blond]

Overtime people started looking for more in games than just the bare bones game stuff. Arcade games are simplistic in nature. It just wasn't cutting it when they got a taste of more complex type games, especially with cinematic production values. Arcade still thrives in mobile because that environment is very conducive to that type of stuff. Noone is looking to get really invested when they start up a mobile game. They just want that small burst of distraction.
Also in the case of DS and Wii,, those console have really longform experiences more than arcadey stuff don't they?

Yeah let's not act like Mobile isn't a big deal, either.

Console gaming lost it's entire casual audience to it and the industry hasn't been the same.

 

[diffusionx]

Consoles starting with PS2 (and earlier than that, 3D-accelerated PCs) showed you can tell a story, have solid VA, facial expressions, etc. And people just flocked to these games. Games like San Andreas and God of War were sales monsters and set the course. It led to budgets exploding and the audience just didn't feel that a $50 arcade game was worth it. It as all market driven.

Look at Xbox Live Arcade, it was a big hit, got started by offering $5 Geometry Wars and whatever, but by the end of the gen, it was $25 Metroid clones with great graphics. People don't seem to place a great value in these arcade experiences.

My big genre for this is arcade racers. Huge on PS2/Xbox/Cube, but by the end of the 360/PS3 gen, almost totally gone. Now all we get is Mario Kart or Gran Turismo. But it wasn't for a lack of trying, people just didn't buy the games, and it took down a few studios.

 

[SirTerry-T]

Because it's easier for "game" designers to come up with stories than it is for them to come up with interesting and enjoyable play mechanics would be my jaded and cynical take.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

People want to be entertained.
If there is no narrative most people are hard to be convinced to do something just for the sake of doing. There needs to be a goal, or a purpose to everything.
Sure, some arcade games or console games worked without such depth back then and had their audiences, however there is a reason gaming was more of a niche experience back in the day. Nowdays its a mass entertainment product due to developing entertainment fit for a wider audience.

Gaming was mass-entertainment from the days of Pong. Not everyone partook, but it was not a niche, either. And it followed naturally from the pinball and carnival games from decades prior.

If people didn't like doing something just for the sake of doing, how on earth could arcade gaming have taken off in the first place?

 

[Kamina]

Gaming was mass-entertainment from the days of Pong. Not everyone partook, but it was not a niche, either. And it followed naturally from the pinball and carnival games from decades prior.

If people didn't like doing something just for the sake of doing, how on earth could arcade gaming have taken off in the first place?

Gaming always had its audiances, but you cant seriously compare the numbers from back then to today.
Hell, when i was a kid most people still thought videogames where for children only and adults didn't really care much.

 

[Stilton Disco]

People stopped caring about arcades, so fewer games were made for them to port over to consoles.

Without the need for short and hard gameplay bites that arcade machines made their money from, games that abandoned this format for more longform and less deliberately exploitative and unfair gameplay sold better.

The audience for games had also grown older, and young adults wanted more engaging titles that appealed to their more complicated tastes.

Technology had advanced to the point that it allowed for bigger and more complicated games at home, and save states became the norm, allowing the player to have continuous narratives that they could engage with, rather than just a short burst of fun for the short time they were at an arcade.

Sony entered the market with the Playstation 1, which had a huge amount of involvement from their music and entertainment divisions, and with their success in appealing to an older, more mainstream market, as well as treating games as an artform rather than simply a toy, others soon followed, also finding success.

Eventually those making pure arcade titles were in the minority, with just a small niche audience.

TLDR: The customer was offered a different product they liked more and the market shifted accordingly.

 

[StormCell]

Yeah let's not act like Mobile isn't a big deal, either.

Console gaming lost it's entire casual audience to it and the industry hasn't been the same.

This is probably the most underrated point in the thread. We've seen the market divide with many niche titles practically disappearing from the console landscape. Unsurprisingly, many of these niche titles are more arcade-like in play like snowboarding, jet skiing, etc. We're lucky to see Tony Hawk coming back now, and I feel like a lot of these titles vanished around the time that hardcore gaming became a talking point while the Nintendo Wii captured a more casual market.

Smart phones are to blame for losing those more casual players. They're not going to $300-$400 for a dedicated game machine and $60/game when they're happy with their phone apps.

Now the downside to all this is that I ultimately find gaming less interesting with so many games being focused on narratives and such.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Gaming always had its audiances, but you cant seriously compare the numbers from back then to today.
In comparison to today it was most definitely niche. Hell, when i was a kid most people still thought videogames where for children only and adults didn't really care much.

Many of the first arcade cabinet customers were bars and other adult venues, same with pinball. SEARS took a chance and sold the Atari in a sporting goods section. The decline seems to coincide with the rise of gaming aimed at kids, especially teenage boys.

Stilton Disco cireza I agree with your points and I'm not arguing against the disappearance of arcades, per se. I'm just wondering why the gameplay niche that they served seemed to disappear for a dozen years (from the early/mid 90s until the DS and Wii) and then reappear in an explosion of sales. Sure the arcade model was outdated, but the thrilling pick-up-and-play nature of the games didn't have to vanish.

sol740 I see what you're getting at. A lot of it was a business choice. They wanted to pad out a game to make sure it seemed like it was worth the sticker price. Narrative was one way to pad it out. I guess maybe it was easier / glitzier than padding it out with more levels, more characters, etc.

Blond I think it was the PC that lost its casual audience in the transition to smartphones. Console still owns a slice of that market. Those hundreds of millions who played The Sims and Farmville migrated off PCs and on to their iPhones.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

Good observation. Did they really though? For a time, post Metal Gear, developers wanted to make something as lofty and prestigious as a film, and I think that's why it was such a pivot in the early 2000s

BUT

Once online really became a thing developers targetted, I think the arcade experience went there. It is quick, round based, hard, you lose a lot, gameplay is king, etc.

Multiplayer is bigger now, so by extension the Arcade style won.

 

[Great Hair]

2001
PC BOX, XBLive paid online fee
Broadband mentality swapped over from the PC
Installing games, DLC, Updating your console

2004
Resident Evil 4

2008
Free to Play Boom around the world, especially in underdeveloped countries
more mictrotransactions, more patching, more installing games (all thanks to the PC)

This should explain why modern gaming sucks


... the further away we go, the more PC the console turns into. With the push from Japan (leading market up to 2004?) to America, came a new "taste" for ego-shooters, more action, more competitiveness, more toxic trash-talking, more PC focused and less console typical games we get :

Spoiler

• SEGA is DEAD "king of the arcades"
• people need to have a weapon in their marios or zeldas
• people need to have open world in every game, even tetris
• people just want to shot each other in the head for karma, fake points, teabagging rights and who has the lowest ping wins
• ridge racer type of games are dead
• twisted metal type of games are dead
• platformers except mario, even though mario isnt a platformer per se anymore, are dead
• and many others are dead
• those in charge making those great masterpieces are age 60+
• all lost, pushed out by action games, save everywhere, any time, fast travel, screen gui overloaded with overlays, mini radar, HANDHOLDING you in games like a fucking toddler, fun games like virtua striker are gone, replaced by #1415th asian mmo or ego shooter

Here is a an example, where the change (might have) happened
Resident Evil 1 (Terror Game)
slow paced gameplay, low ammunition, saving only at save spots (unlike today, were you just save anywhere at anytime)
Resident Evil 4 (Action Game)
more pewpew, more action, more "filmic" and less terrifying BUT SO KWEL rite!

Games got too easy, too dumb-down for "the current generation of gamers". They simply can not fathom the idea, notion of having to micro/macromanagement in older titles like Resident Evil ...

they just wanna load dust12, pick a weapon, polish it and shoot, buy skins for it and share it on twitter.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

They have found a way of replacing great gameplay with ‘cinematics’ and convinced a large amount of morons that things are better this way.

Actual good games with great core mechanics and buttery smooth feel are few and far between.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Good observation. Did they really though? For time, post Metal Gear, developers wanted to make something as lofty and prestigious as a film, and I think that's why it was such a pivot in the early 2000s

BUT

Once online really became a thing developers targetted, I think the arcade experience went there. It is quick, round based, hard, you lose a lot, gameplay is king, etc.

Multiplayer is bigger now, so by extension the Arcade style won.

Online multiplayer certainly captured a lot of that audience among the hardcore gamers, I agree.

But I think the barrier to entry and the popular online genres (FPS, MMOs, and RTS) did not appeal to the full audience that once dropped quarters into Pac Man at a bar or bought an NES or played link cable Tetris with an office co-worker. Games of this type became less accessible, ironically, as arcades retreated.

2001
PC BOX, XBLive paid online fee
Broadband mentality swapped over from the PC
Installing games, DLC, Updating your console

2004
Resident Evil 4

2008
Free to Play Boom around the world, especially in underdeveloped countries
more mictrotransactions, more patching, more installing games (all thanks to the PC)

This should explain why modern gaming sucks


... the further away we go, the more PC the console turns into. With the push from Japan (leading market up to 2004?) to America, came a new "taste" for ego-shooters, more action, more competitiveness, more toxic trash-talking, more PC focused and less console typical games we get :

Spoiler

• SEGA is DEAD "king of the arcades"
• people need to have a weapon in their marios or zeldas
• people need to have open world in every game, even tetris
• people just want to shot each other in the head for karma, fake points, teabagging rights and who has the lowest ping wins
• ridge racer type of games are dead
• twisted metal type of games are dead
• platformers except mario, even though mario isnt a platformer per se anymore, are dead
• and many others are dead
• those in charge making those great masterpieces are age 60+
• all lost, pushed out by action games, save everywhere, any time, fast travel, screen gui overloaded with overlays, mini radar, HANDHOLDING you in games like a fucking toddler, fun games like virtua striker are gone, replaced by #1415th asian mmo or ego shooter

Here is a an example, where the change (might have) happened
Resident Evil 1 (Terror Game)
slow paced gameplay, low ammunition, saving only at save spots (unlike today, were you just save anywhere at anytime)
Resident Evil 4 (Action Game)
more pewpew, more action, more "filmic" and less terrifying BUT SO KWEL rite!

Games got too easy, too dumb-down for "the current generation of gamers". They simply can not fathom the idea, notion of having to micro/macromanagement in older titles like Resident Evil ...

they just wanna load dust12, pick a weapon, polish it and shoot, buy skins for it and share it on twitter.

Brutal video. It's hard to disagree.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

gaming used to be defined first by the arcade games. arcade games prioritized the vertical slice. what was important was the moment to moment play. there really isn't any need for a lot of content with this style of game making.

but with the death of arcades, the demand for longer experiences happened. the shift towards longer experiences was one of the driving factors that made Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda such massive successes. here were games that unlike Pac-Man or Donkey Kong (games which themselves pioneered cinematic narrative sequences) weren't just a series of single rooms that repeated infinitely.

still, arcade games had the technological dominance. even in the early 90s you could do things graphically with arcade that you couldn't match on home consoles until the late 32 bit era. so games like Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat still dominated consoles. eventually, by the time gaming shifted to 3D, technology had caught up, there was no reason to go to an arcade anymore, if a Playstation could play a near perfect version of a new arcade game. along with 3D graphics, you had the invention of CD storage, which promised many many times more content could be delivered. games like Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid took full advantage of the new tech to deliver experiences that heavily referenced cinema and narrative media. these influences were always there in games - Contra once showing us a pixelated take on Predator X Aliens - but now it became feasible to lean into them even more.

finally as games started to be more like movies, and the industry "grew up" (became profitable), it got more serious, started taking itself more seriously, and thus you had the rising class of Game Critics and the idea of Prestige Games, games as art, pretentious reviewers, etc., all that. you also had the rise of the internet, of the algorithm that promotes things that are novel or noteworthy. an arcade style game with less content and less narrative structure is probably less likely to create Thinkpieces or hashtags or viral memeable (again, profitable) moments. in general this is because entertainment culture grew up hating gamers and distrusting games as a medium and still have this bias. games kind of have to prove themselves to this class of cultural gatekeepers. thus the more traditionally media friendly, self consciously artsy games like Gone Home or whatever will inevitably be promoted by the culture hawk pseudo intellectuals it was made for.

 

[Neff]

Short, replay-friendly arcade-style games could co-exist and sell well alongside marathon session adventure titles until FFVII and '70 hours of gameplay!' came along.

After that, the journey and the grind was king. Games which would show you pretty much everything they had to show by being continue-cheesed to completion in a couple of hours became a tough sell.

 

[Bonfires Down]

They are still super popular; Fortnite, Call of Duty, League of Legends, Overwatch, R6 Siege. You’re just looking in the wrong places.

 

[RScrewed]

Because it's easier for "game" designers to come up with stories than it is for them to come up with interesting and enjoyable play mechanics

Took way too many replies to get to the right answer.

This. This right here is the right answer.

Smart man here.

 

[Moogle11]

I think it's because those of us that got into gaming with the NES and SNES were adults and many of us started wanting more story in games, longer, more complex games (which are easier to stay motivated to see through if you want to see how the story ends) and so on.

It certainly happened that way to me as we only had Atari 5200, NES, Gameboy and SNES growing up. N64 was the first console I bought for myself once I was working part time. So it was mostly all pure gameplay stuff aside from a few RPGs like Final Fantasy 1 and 3 (6) etc. But then I played Final Fantasy 7 and Resident Evil at a friends and got a PS1 shortly there after and loved those games, Metal Gear Solid etc. and have mostly played story focused games ever since.

I still play some pure gameplay stuff like Mario games or the occasional fighting game, but they don't hold my interest and make me look forward to playing them in the evenings/weekends nearly as much as game where I like the gamplay AND am interested in the story (the two aren't mutually exclusive and I love the gameplay in most story driven things I play outside of turn based RPGs), or even something that's all story like a visual novel.

But that's just me and I'm just a lover of stories and also love reading, and watching movies and shows. Consuming stories and escaping from the real world for a while is really what my main hobby is. Gaming is just one form of that and while the writing and stories are rarely on par with other mediums, the interactivity adds to the immersion and makes them a superior form of escapism for me.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I partly blame the skill degradation; arcade games (the good ones/ones with substance, of which there were/are a LOT) basically require players to master the game mechanics and strengthen their skill set in the games. You can try saying something like Dodonpachi is a quarter-muncher, but the truth is people who say that simply aren't skilled enough to master the game's levels and mechanics to 1CC it, which is the true goal of play for most genuine arcade games.

Arcade games require players to replay them multiple times to strengthen their skill sets in them, whereas a lot of console gaming pushed further the idea of just dumping away more content, even if a lot of it was meaningless or simple trinkets of appreciation. They make the player feel like they're accomplishing things with skill but in reality a lot of it is just busywork and superfluous.

That said it kind of gravitated that way over time to justify the larger physical storage of CDs (and later DVDs), plus the "general" increase in game costs relative to inflation (cartridge games were actually pretty expensive, some SNES and MegaDrive games being $80 or more (mainly the JRPGs)). The idea became that the more content a game offered, the "better" the game was and the more "AAA" it was by relation.

And so, entire generations of console gamers got trained to associate large games with game quality and game size as a means of justifying if a game was worth the asking price. They got more strict about this as inflation in the economy continued to creep up, obviously. Developers, as well, felt that they needed to justify the increases in production costs that came with each new gen by pushing more and more content on the player, that way they aren't spending $60+ on a two-hour experience.

Speaking of which, one of the misconception with a lot of arcade games (and even a lot of earlier console games) is that they're short games. Truth is, they're only genuinely short if you are SKILLED enough to play them properly. Beating games quickly back in those days was a badge of honor and meant you knew your shit. Nowadays you have games deliberately designed to be beaten in 2-4 hours on first playthrough and some of those don't even offer a ton of replay value given how shallow their game mechanics and design are.

A misconception with a lot of modern games is the illusion of choice. While a lot of arcade games don't give you hundreds of options, they made sure you could skill-up and exploit many possible game scenarios with what options you were provided. A lot of modern console games offer the player 100s of weapons for example, but they're mostly cosmetic. Superfluous. And a lot of the time only a small handful of them are even useful for that particular mission or level, it's as if the hundreds of other choices don't even matter anyway so why are they truly there xD?

They are still super popular; Fortnite, Call of Duty, League of Legends, Overwatch, R6 Siege. You’re just looking in the wrong places.

Also this.

Truth is arcade game design concepts still dominate gaming today. Fighting games are still huge and arcades gave birth to that genre. A lot of Japanese AAA games (including Nintendo's) have a lot of arcade game design philosophy in their blueprints.

Even some Western games tend to, though I'd argue it's a lesser case with them as Western AAA games these days seem more inspired by Western PC/microcomputer games which had distinctly different game design foundations from arcade gaming (and older console gaming for that matter, which took most of its inspiration from arcade games).

Good observation. Did they really though? For a time, post Metal Gear, developers wanted to make something as lofty and prestigious as a film, and I think that's why it was such a pivot in the early 2000s

BUT

Once online really became a thing developers targetted, I think the arcade experience went there. It is quick, round based, hard, you lose a lot, gameplay is king, etc.

Multiplayer is bigger now, so by extension the Arcade style won.

Online multiplayer will NEVER replace genuine arcade culture, honestly. I'd say online gaming has bolstered a sense of group cliques, echo chambers and toxicity that arcade gaming more or less did away with. Yeah it could get heated in arcades but at least you got face-to-face interaction, and there's ways of communicating that way which you can't replicate online.

I kinda feel the sense of community you got with arcades was stronger than what you get online, due to those factors I just mentioned. But they aren't the only ones.

 

[Rodolink]

Same way film stopped being about trains coming and going.

this is mostly one of the reasons.
at the time games went through the path of trying to replicate movies (in the wrong way, cinematics, long texts, etc) its part of the growth of a medium, starts with exploration and got ng through basic thrill experiments (early days visceral gamings mostly sports and warfare) arcades were an extension of that.
then as humans are storytellers and love storytelling by nature, we found this new medium was good for this, and we moved on although on the bad ways we mentioned above, ignoring what made this medium unique (procedurality) specially in the 90s. (consoles specially had less resources than PCs so less space for dialogue, textures, music etc made having less story heavy games compared to PC) then they got better in resources and know they can compete.
so of course the industry could've evolved taking only the design aspects of arcade games but that'd be limiting and thus matured (or rather growth) to be a different way to tell stories but at the same time open enough to embrace all kinds of game types and genres including arcade.
(i wish i could be more eloquent, but is long enough since I had my game studies course)

 

[Geki-D]

Because gaming stopped being toys are started being a legitimate form of media. I miss the days when gamers argued video games were an art form on the same level as movies & books.

 

[GamesAreFun]

Because failed movie directors became involved in making videogames, and critics responded positively as it gave their profession artistic validation. The trend started with Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear Solid.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

A lot of modern console games offer the player 100s of weapons for example, but they're mostly cosmetic. Superfluous. And a lot of the time only a small handful of them are even useful for that particular mission or level, it's as if the hundreds of other choices don't even matter anyway so why are they truly there xD?

Excellent post overall but I wanted to comment on this part because I've watched it happen to FROM Software over the past two generations:

They started off with an Ultima Underground / King's Field style RPG framework with strong simulation elements (stats, world tendency, encumbrance, etc). Many of the spells, weapons, and items in Demon's Souls are only circumstantially useful. There's a lot of sub-optimal "fluff" equipment that fleshes out the world but doesn't grant the player a meaningful choice in the grand scheme of things. This carries through the Dark Souls trilogy where there are numerous low-tier weapons. But then Bloodborne surfaces and puts less emphasis on stats, less emphasis on weapons variety, and armor/encumbrance were almost completely removed from play. Some fans complained about this. Others embraced it because the combat for each weapon got better as a result. Sekiro was the result of further reduction, further trimming: only one main weapon, barely any stats, fewer items and tools. Yet the combat has never been more engaging and rewarding for those who master it.

I agree with "skill degradation" but with the advent of internet exhibitionism, players have more incentive than ever before to master a game and show off their skills. And we've always had "hybrid" console games that take the difficulty, learning through repetition, and high skill ceiling of arcades and translate it into a more console-like adventure, like Devil May Cry or the aforementioned Soulsborne games.

Also this.

Truth is arcade game design concepts still dominate gaming today. Fighting games are still huge and arcades gave birth to that genre. A lot of Japanese AAA games (including Nintendo's) have a lot of arcade game design philosophy in their blueprints.

Even some Western games tend to, though I'd argue it's a lesser case with them as Western AAA games these days seem more inspired by Western PC/microcomputer games which had distinctly different game design foundations from arcade gaming (and older console gaming for that matter, which took most of its inspiration from arcade games).


Online multiplayer will NEVER replace genuine arcade culture, honestly. I'd say online gaming has bolstered a sense of group cliques, echo chambers and toxicity that arcade gaming more or less did away with. Yeah it could get heated in arcades but at least you got face-to-face interaction, and there's ways of communicating that way which you can't replicate online.

I kinda feel the sense of community you got with arcades was stronger than what you get online, due to those factors I just mentioned. But they aren't the only ones.

My fondest multiplayer experiences were spent playing locally. Whether that was arcades, or hooking up XBox systems to a motley crew of CRTs to play LAN Halo, or Unreal Tournament in our schools computer lab, or the couch MP revival on the Wii, I definitely prefer the local "scene" and camaraderie.

 

[Valonquar]

For starters, there aren't really arcades anymore

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Excellent post overall but I wanted to comment on this part because I've watched it happen to FROM Software over the past two generations:

They started off with an Ultima Underground / King's Field style RPG framework with strong simulation elements (stats, world tendency, encumbrance, etc). Many of the spells, weapons, and items in Demon's Souls are only circumstantially useful. There's a lot of sub-optimal "fluff" equipment that fleshes out the world but doesn't grant the player a meaningful choice in the grand scheme of things. This carries through the Dark Souls trilogy where there are numerous low-tier weapons. But then Bloodborne surfaces and puts less emphasis on stats, less emphasis on weapons variety, and armor/encumbrance were almost completely removed from play. Some fans complained about this. Others embraced it because the combat for each weapon got better as a result. Sekiro was the result of further reduction, further trimming: only one main weapon, barely any stats, fewer items and tools. Yet the combat has never been more engaging and rewarding for those who master it.

I agree with "skill degradation" but with the advent of internet exhibitionism, players have more incentive than ever before to master a game and show off their skills. And we've always had "hybrid" console games that take the difficulty, learning through repetition, and high skill ceiling of arcades and translate it into a more console-like adventure, like Devil May Cry or the aforementioned Soulsborne games.

Good point, and probably should've kept these games in mind when making the initial reply. I think it probably says something that "Soulsborne" basically became a genre upon itself once those games had came out, maybe ironically indicative of how few other games around were providing a level of challenge and substance to game mechanics on a level FROM's output was. Which, even as you indicate, they felt could be done differently and more in spirit to other aspects of arcade game design the Dark games didn't focus on (scaling back superfluous choice in items/weapons to streamline impact and effectiveness of a smaller range of items/weapons).

Another thing you'll notice is that Japanese games, even on the AAA level, by and large seem to channel more of these arcade design principals than Western releases (though some did bring up games like Fortnite which I would say qualifies). Honestly I think this has to do with the fact arcade culture is just much stronger in that region overall, even to this day. Most of today's Western powerhouses actually got their start on PC; Bethesda, Rockstar (GTA 1 and 2 were originally PC games that got PS1 ports later), Obsidian, CD Project Red etc. And the PC/microcomputer scene at the time those devs got started had very different, decidedly non-arcade game design priorities hence genres like 4X, WRPGs, strategy sims, flight sims etc (and FPSes as well, which were definitely the domain of PCs pretty much until Halo. Aside from some handful of solid efforts on earlier consoles like GoldenEye (N64), Powerslave (Saturn), DOOM (SNES) etc.).

You look at many of the current big Japanese devs like Capcom, SEGA, Atlus, etc., they all have roots predominantly in arcades. Some have roots in PC computer scenes like PC-88/PC-98 and X68000, but some of them aren't around anymore or are now owned by one of the larger companies (SEGA owns Technosoft's library for example, and they have some Japanese PC roots to their very early output). Also, Japanese PC games took a decidedly different route than Western PC and microcomputers, as a lot of those Japanese PC games seemed to have games rooted more firmly in genres the consoles were doing at the time, and the consoles of course getting their cues from Japanese arcade games. Computers like the X68K were even more or less literal arcade systems in terms of power (in fact Capcom used that specific computer for development of CPS1 titles).

I hope Japanese AAA games going forward can continue that trend, it's a good balance to what Western AAA games tend to bring to the table, which is great in its own aspects.

My fondest multiplayer experiences were spent playing locally. Whether that was arcades, or hooking up XBox systems to a motley crew of CRTs to play LAN Halo, or Unreal Tournament in our schools computer lab, or the couch MP revival on the Wii, I definitely prefer the local "scene" and camaraderie.

Completely forgot about couch co-op/local LAN too xD. That's just about as good as arcades in terms of fostering that type of in-person community scene; probably better in some ways tbh since you wouldn't have to worry about business hours closing and could save money on food and drinks xD.

I can't ever see online gaming fostering the sort of community couch co-op/local LAN or arcades were able to; there's just too many aspects of the human element missing (not to mention, online lag can kill certain experiences like fighting games, sucking away all the fun).

 

[ROMhack]

Because failed movie directors became involved in making videogames, and critics responded positively as it gave their profession artistic validation. The trend started with Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear Solid.

Not true. Failed movie directors became involved in making horror movies. Sometimes comicbook movies too.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

Because Sony made SEGA's output look like cheap experiences by making their games lengthy and mocked the Arcade feel of older titles.

The serious answer though, is that people started to see the capabilities of cramming as much into a game as possible, and Arcade titles, in comparison....feel shallow and something not worth full price unless you wanted to waste your time mastering those games like in the old days.

Generational changes also contributed to this when you think about it. My generation love the full cinematic experiences and lengthy hour times, but we also like to move onto the next "hotness" every few weeks. The Generation of today wish to waste their time playing the same game many many many years with their friends and strangers, replaying the same modes and same content, whilst paying for the privilege of customising their Avatars look (something you get for free in the games we play).

(Most) Gen X folk like quick burst games that are easy to learn but hard to master, and try and go for higher scores, and for the lengthy games, they prefer a narrative to keep them glued which may or may not involve gameplay. I would say this goes back to the Board Games where you played in short bursts and got accustomed to the rules to the point of mastery. However, I would say that a growing number have jumped onto the Cinematic aspect as they have no time to learn new game mechanics and would rather play a Movie with light gameplay segments, which suits their lifestyle.

Arcade Experiences are sadly a niche these days, but I still think they have a much deeper meaning to them as communities do form around these games and they are much more fondly remembered, and I would say that Fortnite and Minecraft will be seen as classics because of their longevity, in comparison to the Cinematic games, where they are becoming a dime a dozen and are mostly played like movies these days, with many of them forgotten about once the experience is over.

 

[K1Expwy]

The transition during 5th gen probably has something to do with limitations of that era, like small polygon budgets and long loading times even with raster sprites. Arcade style games didn't work very well at home during that generation (especially when fumbling with early 3d visuals and control schemes), and lost a lot of ground to advancements in slower paced couch experiences, both in design and by reaching out to the mainstream. Online multiplayer was a major shot in the arm for arcade games, but it wasn't standardized until 7th gen.
At that point onward, arcade games were relegated to digital download for less than full price (although fighting games are hanging in there so far, it's the last purely arcade genre that's still sold physical and at full price)

 

[009EspadaSageJay]

I have a few reasons that I can think of, but I'm not sure I'm right and I'm definitely still puzzling over some unanswered questions. I am referring to the explosion of cutscenes, voice-acting, and long stories in videogames. The tech to make bigger stories showed up, but that doesn't explain why the old carnival-entertainment style of gaming quickly fell out of favor.

By the 90s, the gaming hobby had long established itself as BOTH something to do in quick bursts AND as a bigger time-investment. Long narratives weren't new. PC games offered story-heavy games from the start. Long narratives weren't even new on consoles, since we'd gotten plenty of lengthy RPGs and adventure games on NES, Genesis, etc. Both pick-up-and-play / arcade games coexisted with slow-burn simulation / strategy / adventure gaming, because they cater to two different sort of audiences.

Yet pick-up-and-play, shorter experiences got vilified in favor of "hardcore" games with sweeping narratives and grand orchestrated soundtracks once we saw the PS1 and N64 show up. This continued with the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast, and continues to this day. Unless there's a ton of narrative content packed into a game, it often goes unnoticed. In context, it makes sense that we would have more story stuff showing up in 90s videogames once the technology made it feasible. I know that millions of gamers enjoy a good storyline, but it doesn't explain why gaming in quick bursts fell away almost entirely. It doesn't explain why bigger, better arcade games sold worse and worse as time went on, either, with a few exceptions like Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero.

The audience for satisfying pick-up-and-play arcade experiences was still there. The DS and Wii proved it. The dozens of overnight millionaire smartphone puzzle games proved it. So why did the gaming industry as a whole turn a blind eye to that market segment? And paradoxically, why did the niche of arcade developers who didn't turn a blind eye to that market segment still spiral into bankruptcy and irrelevance (in most cases)? Schrodinger's casual audience?

Help me understand, GAF. I must be missing some part of the picture.

Because of two things if your specifically talking about US/EU game design 1st is because of the economic crash around that time half the reason why we got so many "Cinimatic games" Was because all of these Hollywood wanna be directors went to film school and couldn't get into hollywood because 1 hollywood is already full and 2 most of there ideas for TV/flim were mediocre so they took there little know how to gaming. These people had 0 interest in playing games as a child or if they did they would be like your average COD player that plays only cod like once a month. These people have very interest in the core aspects of gaming "Skill,learning curves,gradual improvement over time ect" They only like the graphical/cinematic approach that is possible with games not the game play aspect of it.

The second reason why pick up and play games are gone is because arcades in the US around mid 360/ps3 gen were either dead or dying. Most of those arcade machines had to be imported and the devs behind didnt have the funding to bring there games to console its why the initial D games and Wang games had like only 2 games on the ps3 when in total there about 7 versions each and a new version initial D 0 came out in japan last year along with maximum tune 6.

Japan still makes pick up and play games and arcades in japan are still a thing most of those games though are stuck in japan either on consoles or arcade machines sony could easily put some of those games on the ps4 but again most of the people who work are sony now are the failed Hollywood director types and do to the recent censorship ordeals its not hard to put two and two together. I also blame game reviewers as well there where a million and 1 articles about sekiro being to hard same with them complaining about they couldnt hear the music in a game like DMC5 because they couldnt get above a C rating in combat. If you still want to play pick up and play games japan still has you covered but you wont get anything like from a current western dev.

 

[009EspadaSageJay]

I always wanted that. They started as arcade style games, because arcade games were more popular than home games at first.

The Legend of Zelda, Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy (especially FF2/4 on SNES) made me realize games can be a lot more than the play for a bit and turn the game off style that arcade style gameplay presented.

But in 2020, everything exists. We have games like Resogun, racing games, 100 hour story-driven RPGs and basically every genre and style of game being represented.

But in 2020, everything exists. We have games like Resogun, racing games, 100 hour story-driven RPGs and basically every genre and style of game being represented.

No we dont arean shooters are dead we have at most now 4 racing franchise rip midnight club and burnout, arcade games are gone, no more rail gun game like time crisis or house of the dead, twin stick shooters are not as plenty, Rip flying games like crimson skies and tom clancy hawk, rip skateboard games rip rhythm games and many other things. The games we get now are either GAS games, Souless BR game, Cinematic walking sim, Cinematic third person walking sim or another FPS shooter all with tacked on RPG mechanics that dont work.

 

[Vawn]

No we dont arean shooters are dead we have at most now 4 racing franchise rip midnight club and burnout, arcade games are gone, no more rail gun game like time crisis or house of the dead, twin stick shooters are not as plenty, Rip flying games like crimson skies and tom clancy hawk, rip skateboard games rip rhythm games and many other things. The games we get now are either GAS games, Souless BR game, Cinematic walking sim, Cinematic third person walking sim or another FPS shooter all with tacked on RPG mechanics that dont work.

Quit video games grandpa.

 

[cormack12]

I think it would be interesting to see how many cut scenes get skipped (where they can be) by players. I'm still guessing the core market spams a or x

 

[synchronicity]

I think the expansion of tech just allowed for an expansion of possibilities in terms of the question, "What can a game be?"

I also think that to the casual eye, it's easy to favor the "games with sweeping narratives and grand orchestrated soundtracks" over more arcade experiences. They audience for gaming grew, and the mainstream appeal of mainstream things had a sort of snowball effect on the way things unfolded.

 

[anthraticus]

Modern console/mainstream gaming went to shit and started really catering to casuals once all the AAA nonsense started in the 2000s.


PC + older consoles is the combo for me now.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think it would be interesting to see how many cut scenes get skipped (where they can be) by players. I'm still guessing the core market spams a or x

I think only 1/3rd of those who played GTA4 actually completed the main storyline, or something like that. I image with popular online games eating up everyone's time, even fewer people will stick with a narrative unless it holds their attention 100% of the way through. Consider the value proposition as well: spend tens of millions on motion capture, voice acting, etc., and hopefully sell enough to pay off that investment, or spend very little on those things and make an online Battle Royale instead.

Lots of devs appear to be pondering this exact question, based on the output over the last few years.

 

[Hulk_Smash]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but I feel like the arcade-like experience of earlier video games was, of course dependent on the existence of the arcade. But, where were arcades to be found mostly? Indoor malls and strip malls. Occasionally, a bar or restaurant, but that's not where the money was made. Most indoor malls are now vacated, replaced with big box stores and outdoor malls.

So, arcades would have died eventually, with or without home consoles.

Someone mentioned that the arcade lasted awhile alongside the rise of home console because they could still out perform them graphically and could handle 3D polygons, etc a lot better. But, I BET that mentality was also why the arcade took a nose-dive since it would be very expensive to maintain those machines and .25 cents wasn't cutting it. By the late 90s arcade games typically cost a $1 to $2 a game. That's insane when you think about how quickly you blow through that. With a family of 4, I easily blew through a $100 in an afternoon at an arcade like that just recently.

 

[oagboghi2]

2001
PC BOX, XBLive paid online fee
Broadband mentality swapped over from the PC
Installing games, DLC, Updating your console

2004
Resident Evil 4

2008
Free to Play Boom around the world, especially in underdeveloped countries
more mictrotransactions, more patching, more installing games (all thanks to the PC)

This should explain why modern gaming sucks


... the further away we go, the more PC the console turns into. With the push from Japan (leading market up to 2004?) to America, came a new "taste" for ego-shooters, more action, more competitiveness, more toxic trash-talking, more PC focused and less console typical games we get :

Spoiler

• SEGA is DEAD "king of the arcades"
• people need to have a weapon in their marios or zeldas
• people need to have open world in every game, even tetris
• people just want to shot each other in the head for karma, fake points, teabagging rights and who has the lowest ping wins
• ridge racer type of games are dead
• twisted metal type of games are dead
• platformers except mario, even though mario isnt a platformer per se anymore, are dead
• and many others are dead
• those in charge making those great masterpieces are age 60+
• all lost, pushed out by action games, save everywhere, any time, fast travel, screen gui overloaded with overlays, mini radar, HANDHOLDING you in games like a fucking toddler, fun games like virtua striker are gone, replaced by #1415th asian mmo or ego shooter

Here is a an example, where the change (might have) happened
Resident Evil 1 (Terror Game)
slow paced gameplay, low ammunition, saving only at save spots (unlike today, were you just save anywhere at anytime)
Resident Evil 4 (Action Game)
more pewpew, more action, more "filmic" and less terrifying BUT SO KWEL rite!

Games got too easy, too dumb-down for "the current generation of gamers". They simply can not fathom the idea, notion of having to micro/macromanagement in older titles like Resident Evil ...

they just wanna load dust12, pick a weapon, polish it and shoot, buy skins for it and share it on twitter.

This sounds like a lot of nonsense mixed with a generous helping of childish nostalgia

 

[lachesis]

Probably Hollywood envy.

Then again, everybody loves a good story. That's the power of a good storytelling. It's so much harder to make a unique original game play that's entirely "fun" to just play - but if you have good story behind it... it can enhance or boost the game play, even if it alone may not be the strongest.... like a good sauce to a dish.

Also it helps to reach out to the masses, because it's story driven - it's easier to understand and give a try, and good interesting story attracts people, just like great graphics attracts people. Interactive fun, can't be really shown easily, until you pickup your controller and play.... but the story can be shown as synopsis or teaser trailer or whatnot.

 

[Abear21]

Lots of amazing answers!

I remember buying a SNES simply because it had a great version of Street Fighter 2. I remember buying Dreamcast day one for NFL2k. I grew up on arcade experiences but loved all gaming as my dad was obsessed with a Commodore 64.

Playing games back then and growing up in the 8 bit era I remember being blown away by games that pushed the envelope graphically especially, Arcade or Sim or RPG, I remember talking with friends playing 007 multiplayer on N64 and thinking that when games “play like an interactive movie” it would be the coolest thing ever. I think many gamers back then wanted more complex experiences and narration in their games because everything else was already represented, that was my experience anyway.

 

[009EspadaSageJay]

I think the expansion of tech just allowed for an expansion of possibilities in terms of the question, "What can a game be?"

I also think that to the casual eye, it's easy to favor the "games with sweeping narratives and grand orchestrated soundtracks" over more arcade experiences. They audience for gaming grew, and the mainstream appeal of mainstream things had a sort of snowball effect on the way things unfolded.

im not a fan of games using the grand orchestrated/generic movie soundtracks in there games. Mortal kombat is the worst offender the older MK games had great great Osts now MK has generic movie background music.

 

[009EspadaSageJay]

I think only 1/3rd of those who played GTA4 actually completed the main storyline, or something like that. I image with popular online games eating up everyone's time, even fewer people will stick with a narrative unless it holds their attention 100% of the way through. Consider the value proposition as well: spend tens of millions on motion capture, voice acting, etc., and hopefully sell enough to pay off that investment, or spend very little on those things and make an online Battle Royale instead.

Lots of devs appear to be pondering this exact question, based on the output over the last few years.

yep and a BR games doesnt even need to be well made to make money h1z1 cough cough. Most people didint finish GTA4 because the beginning for the 1st 5/7 hours is very slow most of it is driving around in generic cars and running errands.