Your opinion on the definition of the 'Arcade' genre?

[Axe]

I am adding all my games to a game launcher (for personal normal reasons) and one genre I am struggling with is the 'Arcade' genre.

I'm aware it is one of the oldest genres in the past associated with coin-operated machines but these days this has been expanded so much due to the addition of digital games and more and more split-genres.

There are some games that do replicate coin-operated games which are obvious to me, which I can place without much thought like slots and the alien lander/space type games but so many that for me that cannot be placed.

I have read about this on google searches and compared the steam communities views on the store pages and I'm still unsure of what I can consider a definitive definition, a dividing line between what is and what is not, an Arcade game.

What are you views guys and girls?

[cinedine]

Arcade is as much a genre as indie. Which is none at all.
Forza or Need for Speed are arcade racers. CoD can be considered an arcade shooter. Mostly it just measn video game-y compared to simulation.

[Axe]

Indie means independant (developers) so is quite definable to me, ie non big company game production.
I agree with your interpretation though as that is what I feel too in a general sense. Arcade (the genre) and Simulation are certainly poles apart but Simulation is rather obvious to a degree. I believe Arcade is there somewhere inbetween and hopefully has a specific definitive evaluation.

This is why I am asking. It's a question about ultimate definition, not about the difficulties of the process of the definition :-)

Thanks for your answer, it all adds to the conclusion :-)

[cinedine]

There is no "ultimate definition". It's what you make of it.

Indie is a good example. Bastion (published by Warner Bros) and Unravel (Electronic Arts) are thrown in there. Bastion is even often considered a poster boy for indie. Divinity Original Sin is also often considered an indie, though it'S a game made by a renowned and rather big studio opposed to Dust: An Elysian Tale, which was made largel by a single person. But was published by Microsoft.

Another example is "strategy". Look up the tag on the store. People have tagged CS:GO as strategy. And many other games just because they require a modicum of tactical thinking.

Simulation is also all but clear cut. You have Euro Truck Simulator next to Flight Simulator and ... Princess Maker. Life Sims or Dating Sims exist.

[Axe]

Originally posted by cinedine:

There is no "ultimate definition". It's what you make of it.

Thankyou for your opinion :-)

I look forward to others opinions of what the 'Arcade' genre means to them :-)

[Gus the Crocodile]

Yeah I think "more videogamey" is an aspect of arcade games that shows up in all sorts of ways. Graphics with neon colours, abstract shapes and silly explosions. Objects that respond in exaggerated rather than realistic ways. An acceptance of arbitrary rules and displays like "points" or "lives". A broad lack of concern with hiding artifice, basically - indeed often an active embrace of the artifice as important.

That alone doesn't necessarily say "arcade game" to me, for example if if applied to a slow-paced puzzle game or roguelike etc. Arcade games tend to be the more action-oriented end of the spectrum.

But yeah, you won't find a "specific, definitive" line in the sand, unless you choose to make one (which you certainly don't have to). Genre just doesn't work like that, it's always fuzzy-edged.

[Start_Running]

Arcade games are basically action/reflex oriented games with a steep difficulty curve. Dark Souls wouyld have been a perfect arcade game.

[Axe]

Thanks guys there is so much to take in there and much of what you say is forming my opinion which is great.

It is because I am 'forced/asked' in my launcher software that I define my games for my own benefit that I ask this question and these replies will eventually distil into my final decision and choice(s) I will make.

I think it is easier to say what is not arcade than to suggest the divide of what is, but hence the question :-)

I know it all may sound rather meticulous and tedious but I guess that is part of what I find interesting and makes me 'tick' in these matters of database interaction, so thanks to all and look forward to any further replies if they are out there :-)

[Axe]

Any further replies out there?

[Raziel Lewach]

For me, the Arcade Genre belongs to any game that you have to succeed without losing till the end, or with big different scenarios that you have to succeed without losing till the end (for example, episodes). At defeat, you have to start right at the beggining (of the game, or of the episode) with usually no bonuses or nothing saved other than your ability to reach a further point.

I personally totally hate this genre. It adds nothing. No fun, no challenge. I will explain myself.

An example of an arcade game would be a level with tons of enemies to kill, doors to open and... if you die, you have to totally restart the level. No experience or items found, no shortcuts opened (so Dark Souls is not arcade, you open shortcuts). So letme tell you. What's the point on that?

I already killed this enemy. I already killed this group. I already won every single challenge that this level offers. Why do I have to start over and repeat every single challenge I already succeeded because I died at some point? Just to randomly die again to something I already won because of randomness?

Imagine a course. You succeed at Mathematics exam. You succeed at History exam. BUT YOU FAIL AT TECHNOLOGY EXAM. Now you have to restart all over. You already succeeded mathematics exam. You know it. But you have to examine at mathematics again BECAUSE you failed technology.

You fail technology, you need to examine again at mathematics.
You succeed technology, you continue and we asume you know mathematics.

Do you see the stupidity?

Why do I have to restart and kill again this group of enemies I already killed 30 times and I know to kill just because the final boss killed me? Why do I have to repeat things I already beated just because the final boss or a final enemy killed me?

That's just dumb. Ways to make me lose time. It had sense back before, where arcades needed coins. This way of stupid artificial difficulty made you spend more and more coins and time. But nowadays? This doesn't add challenge or difficulty. Adds tiredness and repetition.

For example, the DLC of The Surge that is cowboy style... full arcade. I hate it, man...

[Brujeira]

Dude, y u necro? It’s not like the OP can respond to you at the moment anyway...

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by DarkK Raziel:

An example of an arcade game would be a level with tons of enemies to kill, doors to open and... if you die, you have to totally restart the level. No experience or items found, no shortcuts opened (so Dark Souls is not arcade, you open shortcuts). So letme tell you. What's the point on that?

I already killed this enemy. I already killed this group. I already won every single challenge that this level offers. Why do I have to start over and repeat every single challenge I already succeeded because I died at some point? Just to randomly die again to something I already won because of randomness?

Randomness is a game-by-game choice, not an inherent part of arcade games.

The "point" of having to start a level over is that the game wants you to demonstrate that you can perform consistently for that whole period - that you can succeed at that challenge. That's it.

I mean if you enter a marathon and run out of breath and quit at 30km, you don't get to restart at 29km, you just have to try again next time. You can't win a motor race by showing judges, on separate occasions, that you can a) start a motor vehicle, b) take a particular corner at a particular speed, c) complete a pit stop in under X seconds, d) overtake on a particular part of the track, etc etc. You have to be able to do them all when tested, because that's what the event is. You don't have to like entering marathons or motor races, of course, but challenges like these come in lots of different scales in various forms throughout the world. The point of them is, ultimately, that people find demonstrating that they can complete challenges satisfying, and/or enjoy being challenged in the first place.

Originally posted by DarkK Raziel:

Imagine a course. You succeed at Mathematics exam. You succeed at History exam. BUT YOU FAIL AT TECHNOLOGY EXAM. Now you have to restart all over. You already succeeded mathematics exam. You know it. But you have to examine at mathematics again BECAUSE you failed technology.

But the scale, the way you split up these challenges is entirely arbitrary. I mean, you could apply this same logic to, for instance, the maths exam itself. You already succeeded at question 1 and 2, why should you fail the whole exam just because you didn't succeed at questions 3, 4 and 5?

The point, as ever, is that the exam is specifically there to be taken as a whole - to demonstrate a satisfactory general capacity. To show "I can do what's needed", not "I can do some of it now, and maybe, hopefully, other parts later but I'm not sure yet".

[Raziel Lewach]

I accept the point of "be taken as a whole". Of course, you have to win a full race, and being able to do a good corner doesn't make you can do the whole race. If you fail at 30km, then you can't demonstrate you can take it all, because the 40km are AS A WHOLE. The problem is, arcade games usually are not as a whole. They put you a fight against some enemies, then you go to the next level and some other enemies. The second stage is completely independent from the first one. They are isoleted stages, not a whole. Specially if I demonstrate I can win the first stage ending at full health and energy and everything perfect, and I can enter the second stage at full stats, why do I need to demonstrate it everytime? Just time consuming. Of course you can't apply "if I can kill every enemy alone, I don't need to demonstrate that I can beat 3 at the same time". it's a different scenario. But arcade games, usually, put separated isolated scenarios and repeated them all doesnt count as a whole.

@Brujeira I was just upset with this issue some time ago and I never found some forum to express myself xD

[Washell]

Originally posted by DarkK Raziel:

why do I need to demonstrate it everytime?

So you throw in another nickle to save yourself the hassle and continue. The fun part of all this: people think microtransactions, pay to win, and such are new things...God I'm getting old.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by DarkK Raziel:

I accept the point of "be taken as a whole". Of course, you have to win a full race, and being able to do a good corner doesn't make you can do the whole race. If you fail at 30km, then you can't demonstrate you can take it all, because the 40km are AS A WHOLE. The problem is, arcade games usually are not as a whole. They put you a fight against some enemies, then you go to the next level and some other enemies. The second stage is completely independent from the first one. They are isoleted stages, not a whole.

They are as isolated as Question 1 and Question 2 on your maths exam. Which is to say they're not isolated, they're just adjacent. They're still part of the same overall object - the test, the game. That's what unites them, and those objects happen to be designed to be completed as a whole.

This isn't a rule for arcade games anyway, as far as I'm concerned. I mean I understand you did say "usually", but you also seem to be treating this as a defining aspect of the genre, and it can't really be both. I'd happily call Ikaruga an arcade game; the fact that there's a stage select available changes nothing about that.

[sfnhltb]

I don't use arcade (or indie) as a category due to the inherent broadness of the category, instead I use things like beat em up, top down shooter, platformer, etc. as the categories - because it is easier to sort games into them, and also so you know what you are going to get when looking in that category (of course there are always going to be some games that blur the lines no matter what categorization scheme you choose).