Online multiplayer is ruining our enjoyment of video games.

Of course, everyone will immediately think "WTF is wrong with you A-hole!", but lets take a look at this assertion. I will use the ever-controversial Halo asthe example.

The first Halo was one of the best multiplayer experiences I ever had. Almost everytime I got the chance,I would get together with other friends and we would have a great time while playing 2v2 CTF on Blood Gulch, or slayer on Hang 'em High. Then, after a couple years of much fun, Halo 2 came out. The advent of online multiplayer took away all incentives to get together with friends to play. We all sat at home on our lazy asses and played by ourselves. Sure, we played with each other, but talking through a mic is very different from chatting with someone right next to you. The "fun" of the game had been lost.

Another example could be DoTA. I was first introduced to this game by several friends, and we all met up at an internet cafe where we would just play this game over and over again. It, like Halo, would become one of the defining moments of my gaming career as we slowly moved out of the internet cafe and started hosting our own LANs. Eventually, my friends got bored with it and moved on to better things but I stuck back and played (usually by myslef) on Bnet. Needless to say, much of the fun had been drained away.

The point is, that playing multiplayer matches with your friends present in the same room provides for a much better gaming experience than any online game. Unfortunately, humans are intuitively lazy and would much rather just stay at home to play online. Multiplayer over the internet should be removed from games to ensure a more enjoyable experience for all.

Of course, there are many people who love to be competitive and "own" their fellow gamers. I am sure that this demographic would be quite dissappointed if online gaming was taken away from them. However, the removal of online gaming would simply spur many more real-life tournaments, where players can socially interact with others, have a good time doing so, take out the comptetition, and, possibly winning some sweet prizes. The amount of tournaments held around the globe would surely increase.

It is obvious that many gamers are seen as nerds or geeks in today's society. Ignorant fools simply think we are losers whostay at home all day and live a virtual life instead of a real one. If gamers started having more and more LANs and left their own house to play with friends, people will slowly start to see that gaming is, in actuality, a social experience and we could get rid of that despicable label forever.

Finally, there is another important factor to consider in online gaming: griefers. They think its their job to make our lives as miserable as possible. This results in a frustrating experience which we are all familiar with. Playing multiplayer with no A-holes, no teamkillers, no spammers, and no cheaters is fascinating.

That's actually the one advantage that Nintendo's method of online play offers. Friend codes, while often inconvenient due cut down on the a-hole factor you run across in other online games. Then again when you have friends like mine you're pretty much screwed no matter what.Robio_basic

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is ruining gameplay. Of course you have A-holes anywhere, but taht is inherent in any form of socializing.

That's your opinion. I personally love online gaming. I don't care if people think gamers are losers. I won't stop playing it just to show them wrong. Online also doesn't prevent you from playing with friends, that's a choice. How can you blame you being lazy and not getting together to play on the devs offering online play? So you think it's their fault for giving us a choice? They should've forced us to play together, right? The devs gave us another choice, it's your decision to play on the internet or play with friends. If you choose the former and ruin your game experience, well that's b/c of your decision, not the devs fault.

I honestly don't see anything in your post except the last one that makes online bad. It seems like you're just someone who's too lazy with friends that are too lazy to get together and that's why you lost alot of fun. But instead of blaming yourself for it, you're blaming it on the online mode.

Online gaming can make developers lazy as Halo 2 proves. You have a decent multiplayer system, but the isngleplayer quality is chucked up.

I do agree it's better to play with friends, however... If you are just too good at a game none of your friends have played, playing it becomes rather boring. Online allows you to meet gamers that give you challenge or are at your level.

If you really want social interaction in gaming, go play a board game or card game. Most of them are easy to play, so that each person has a fair shot at winning.

As for games being nerdy or geeky... Those terms are pointless. They simply mean someone who is interested in something. Maybe your friend is a cargeek, maybe your other friend is a foodgeek. It becomes redundant, because most everything has something they are into. So then you wouldn't use that term anyway.

Virtual worlds? Unless you live in some farm, you will have access to the PC. It's not the minority anymore. The internet is taking over everyone. So really, call me a nerd for using the computer? Then you might as well call America nerdy.

As for people who do things like D&D or whatever. Good for them. They have vivid imaginations. If you need some graphic to help you see a monster, then that just means you aren't creative.

The key is to play with people you know and not take it too seriously.trifecta_basic

I'm from the old school. I hate multiplayer online. I'd much rather play with a friend in the same room and experience the same joys of winning and sorrows of defeat as he (I'd say she, but no girl I know personally plays games) does. Some of the best times I've had playing video games revolves around playing Contra or Life Force with my cousin or River City Ransom with my best friend growing up.

But then again, I guess with online multiplayer you can meet friends you have never met in real life and play new games... although I'd recommend only playing with friends you know, as a lot of people out there are jerks and/or too serious and don't play for fun.

Dude you are completely right about not chillin with friends but you can still chill and play online

That's your opinion. I personally love online gaming. I don't care if people think gamers are losers. I won't stop playing it just to show them wrong. Online also doesn't prevent you from playing with friends, that's a choice. How can you blame you being lazy and not getting together to play on the devs offering online play? So you think it's their fault for giving us a choice? They should've forced us to play together, right? The devs gave us another choice, it's your decision to play on the internet or play with friends. If you choose the former and ruin your game experience, well that's b/c of your decision, not the devs fault.

I honestly don't see anything in your post except the last one that makes online bad. It seems like you're just someone who's too lazy with friends that are too lazy to get together and that's why you lost alot of fun. But instead of blaming yourself for it, you're blaming it on the online mode.

manningbowl135

I am not just talking about myself here, I am talking about the entire community of gamers. The removal of online games, as I mentioned, would spawn alot more large-scale LANs all over the place, where dozens of fellow gamers could get together and socialize in real life. We all love online gaming of course, but who wouldn't rather be LANning with a bunch of people who understood you? I realize that it doesn't prevent you from playing with friends, but it takes away an incentive.

Imagine, if you will, a world in which you could drive five minutes to go to a huge LAN with a bunch of gamers who knew as much as you did about games. You could have fun playing games while debating controversial industry related topics with your mouth and speech instead of your writing. This fictional world can not be made possible with online multiplayer, because no one is willing to go through this much trouble when they could be sitting on their counch playing with people they have never met and will never meet again.

Online gaming can make developers lazy as Halo 2 proves. You have a decent multiplayer system, but the isngleplayer quality is chucked up.

I do agree it's better to play with friends, however... If you are just too good at a game none of your friends have played, playing it becomes rather boring. Online allows you to meet gamers that give you challenge or are at your level.

If you really want social interaction in gaming, go play a board game or card game. Most of them are easy to play, so that each person has a fair shot at winning.

As for games being nerdy or geeky... Those terms are pointless. They simply mean someone who is interested in something. Maybe your friend is a cargeek, maybe your other friend is a foodgeek. It becomes redundant, because most everything has something they are into. So then you wouldn't use that term anyway.

Virtual worlds? Unless you live in some farm, you will have access to the PC. It's not the minority anymore. The internet is taking over everyone. So really, call me a nerd for using the computer? Then you might as well call America nerdy.

As for people who do things like D&D or whatever. Good for them. They have vivid imaginations. If you need some graphic to help you see a monster, then that just means you aren't creative.

Revelade

Unfortunately, card games and board games do not provide nearly the amount of immersion that a video game does. This begs the question, why do we play games? A common answer would be to escape reality (kind of like LSD) and enter a world of your own fancy. Face the facts: reality sucks, its just a grind of the same things over and over again and sometimes we need an escape. Board and card games do not provide us with this escape; I played MTG as a child, and it was not nearly as fun/immersive as a video game. Please do not use card/board games as an excuse to not improve our beloved concept of "gaming".

You do, however, bring up a good point regarding the challenge level, but it really isn't too difficult to make fair teams with a group of four. That is not something you need to worry about though, because the extinction of online gaming would once again give players the incentive to host massive LANs, where team balance wouldn't be a problem.

Finally, you assert that I am not creative because I don't play D&D? There is no need to respond to that logical fallacy (strawman argument, aka Ad Hominem).

Online is the place where you realize the size of the world and realize that there will always be someone better than you (as well as worse). The competitiveness of online play is a major factor that keeps people playing. There is no better way to get better at a game than online play, where the tricks and strategies are nearly unlimited with the millions of gamers out there.

Of course, there is no greater gaming joy in the world than to play with friends side by side, laughing and fighting together(or against) in realtime. That's a huge limitation to online play that is virtually impossible to solve.

So either challenge the world to brush up your skills and be recognized worldwide, or challenge your friends to have an experience that online play can never match.

Not taking griefers seriously is great advice, but they are hard to ignore when, in many circumstances, they have the ability to completely drain the fun out of a match.

Online is the place where you realize the size of the world and realize that there will always be someone better than you (as well as worse). The competitiveness of online play is a major factor that keeps people playing. There is no better way to get better at a game than online play, where the tricks and strategies are nearly unlimited with the millions of gamers out there.

Of course, there is no greater gaming joy in the world than to play with friends side by side, laughing and fighting together(or against) in realtime. That's a huge limitation to online play that is virtually impossible to solve.

So either challenge the world to brush up your skills and be recognized worldwide, or challenge your friends to have an experience that online play can never match.

Link1x3

The lesson that "there is always someone better than us" was ingrained into our heads in elementary school, we do not need games to teach us this valuable lesson.

You go on to talk about pro gaming, and a large demographic of the gaming community try to be "the best player ever" in specific games. They will get that chance, by going to small, local tournaments, and eventually moving themselves up until the hopefuls may one day reach some major gaming event such as WCG. Of course, their skill level wouldn't be as high in this situation, but their opponents are in the same boat. Let me give you an example: the skill range ofWCG combatantswho play online all day and practice might range from 90-100. On the other hand, without online games, their skill range might be from 50-60. In real life, this difference would go unnoticed and someone passionate about a game could be "best in the world" with a skill level of 60 because everyone else is around 50 or something.

Without Online, I would have never purchased my 360HuntersPrey

What I am trying to debate about here transcends the fanboyism of "system wars". Here, it does not matter what system you own or love.

All i said was, without online i would never have bought a 360. rearanged, it can also say 'Without Online, I would have never bought my system'. I didnt say Xbox Live was better or anything. I just proposed that the only reason I bought 'my system', otherwise known as an Xbox 360, was because of online multiplayer. Its something I love and I dont think it degrades any part of the game.HuntersPrey

All i said was, without online i would never have bought a 360. rearanged, it can also say 'Without Online, I would have never bought my system'. I didnt say Xbox Live was better or anything. I just proposed that the only reason I bought 'my system', otherwise known as an Xbox 360, was because of online multiplayer. Its something I love and I dont think it degrades any part of the game.HuntersPrey

All i said was, without online i would never have bought a 360. rearanged, it can also say 'Without Online, I would have never bought my system'. I didnt say Xbox Live was better or anything. I just proposed that the only reason I bought 'my system', otherwise known as an Xbox 360, was because of online multiplayer. Its something I love and I dont think it degrades any part of the game.HuntersPrey

Oh, okay. I am sorry I misinterpreted your statement.

That's actually the one advantage that Nintendo's method of online play offers. Friend codes, while often inconvenient due cut down on the a-hole factor you run across in other online games. Then again when you have friends like mine you're pretty much screwed no matter what.Robio_basic

There is no advantage to friend codes, its one of the worst ideas in the history of gaming... only second to the jaguar controller.

Okay, card and board games do not have the graphics and sounds that an electronic software can provide. But what makes a game is the game itself; as in providing the player with goals to achieve. Escaping reality is some poor excuse for playing a game. Games have limitations. AI will be dumb. Games can end. You can't possibly imagine escaping reality when these facts are so unbelievable. But games are based on reality. Everything we do is based on it.

What video games are based on are the same as table top gaming. Maybe it doesn't have the fancy art or the glorious soundtrack, but it's still a game. You can't escape reality as well. When you hit a monster with a sword in some video game, the monster should be gushing blood, but no. It reduces some numbers off. You are saying that you escape reality by engaging in an activity that presents unrealistic worlds. If this is enough to escape reality, I don't see why plastic monster figures are any different.

If you think reality sucks, then too bad for you. That's something you need to work on. Maybe you shouldn't try to make games replace your reality, because they don't. They are there to give situations where you try to accomplish a goal. How much reality can you get from a plumber jumping on turtles? Find a better reason to game.

For me, that reason is just that, to game itself. I want to be in situations where I am accomplishing something. However, my favorite genre is strategy, so yea, MTG happens to be one of my favorites. You are in the face of your opponent. You can totally customize your deck, which is the equivalent to your weapons in a video game. Each game is entirely different. And yea, I think that beats better than looking at a screen. I don't use ridiculous reasons such as escaping reality. If I wanted to, I could imagine some dragons or whatever. No, I'm playing a game to... play a freaking game.

MTG not as fun as a video game? Thanks for overgeneralizing. A game isn't the medium you put it in. It's the mechanics. That's why you can play chess on a screen or on a table. So what you are really saying is that you don't like MTG. Fine.

Fair teams with a group of four? Pit the best and worst player against the remaining 2? How archaic. Team balance at LAN parties? How would this any different than playing online in terms of skill stack?

Not creative because you don't play D&D, hmm... Wonder where you came up with that. If you can play games that are summed into pieces of paper and dice, then you are using a whole lot more imagination and creativity than if you are playing a video game that provides you with the graphic, sound and gameplay elements. So yea, then you aren't creative.

So back to the point, what online gaming does is:

- developers skimp the singleplayer mode by focusing on the multiplayer

- players don't ever get to see each other face to face as they would if they sat down together

- allows players to play with people at their skill level

- allows players to play with people around the world, instead of playing with the same people or even no people

If your friends would rather play online than on a LAN, then I suspect they didn't value the LAN games as much as you did. Personally, I think online gaming has helped the console experience immensely. Especially for people with jobs/families/other obligations who aren't able to get together with friends as much as they use to.H3LLRaiseR

Actually, my friends stopped playing games in general and moved on to better things.

I applaud you for bringing up the casual market, because they are an integral part of the industry. Pretty much every game has a single player side, which people with many obligations could play during their downtime. Of course, single player gets boring very quickly; however, due to the little time these types of people spend on gaming, an average game could last them anywhere from 2 weeks to one month. Anyone with that many obligations would certainly be able to afford a new game in that time period. Also, these people can be easily entertained by older games which are much cheaper than the 60 dollar stuff we buy today. If they actually wanted toplay multiplayer, then they can definitely rearrange their schedule for a LAN and enjoy a TRUE multiplayer experience.

Great a response.

Okay, card and board games do not have the graphics and sounds that an electronic software can provide. But what makes a game is the game itself; as in providing the player with goals to achieve. Escaping reality is some poor excuse for playing a game. Games have limitations. AI will be dumb. Games can end. You can't possibly imagine escaping reality when these facts are so unbelievable. But games are based on reality. Everything we do is based on it.

What video games are based on are the same as table top gaming. Maybe it doesn't have the fancy art or the glorious soundtrack, but it's still a game. You can't escape reality as well. When you hit a monster with a sword in some video game, the monster should be gushing blood, but no. It reduces some numbers off. You are saying that you escape reality by engaging in an activity that presents unrealistic worlds. If this is enough to escape reality, I don't see why plastic monster figures are any different.

If you think reality sucks, then too bad for you. That's something you need to work on. Maybe you shouldn't try to make games replace your reality, because they don't. They are there to give situations where you try to accomplish a goal. How much reality can you get from a plumber jumping on turtles? Find a better reason to game.

For me, that reason is just that, to game itself. I want to be in situations where I am accomplishing something. However, my favorite genre is strategy, so yea, MTG happens to be one of my favorites. You are in the face of your opponent. You can totally customize your deck, which is the equivalent to your weapons in a video game. Each game is entirely different. And yea, I think that beats better than looking at a screen. I don't use ridiculous reasons such as escaping reality. If I wanted to, I could imagine some dragons or whatever. No, I'm playing a game to... play a freaking game.

MTG not as fun as a video game? Thanks for overgeneralizing. A game isn't the medium you put it in. It's the mechanics. That's why you can play chess on a screen or on a table. So what you are really saying is that you don't like MTG. Fine.

Fair teams with a group of four? Pit the best and worst player against the remaining 2? How archaic. Team balance at LAN parties? How would this any different than playing online in terms of skill stack?

Not creative because you don't play D&D, hmm... Wonder where you came up with that. If you can play games that are summed into pieces of paper and dice, then you are using a whole lot more imagination and creativity than if you are playing a video game that provides you with the graphic, sound and gameplay elements. So yea, then you aren't creative.

So back to the point, what online gaming does is:

- developers skimp the singleplayer mode by focusing on the multiplayer

- players don't ever get to see each other face to face as they would if they sat down together

- allows players to play with people at their skill level

- allows players to play with people around the world, instead of playing with the same people or even no people

Revelade

Well I have read your entire post and it is pretty good. You started rather off-topic in the begining; we could discuss game theory and play theory forever and not get anywhere. There are many theories out there about why we play games, and an objective to complete is certainly one of them. The escape from reality I mentioned was definitely not a permenant one, but a quick way to have fun by being someone we aren't. Of course, if we shoot someone in a game then they will die, but lets look at this from another perspective.

How often in real life can you save earth and kill countless alien beasts?

How often in real life can you be a sweet ninja and do cool-looking moves?

How often in real life can you run around as a gangster, jack cars and, roam the streets with a rocket laucher?

How often in real life can you control an entire army and wreakhavoc on your opponents?

These events could be simulated by board and card games, but one would really need alot of imagination.However, when it isdisplayed directly in front of your eyes, its much easier to get involved and have fun. I may not be the most creative person around, but what does that have to do with ANYTHING we are disscussing? I understand you might be upset about my negative attitude towards MTG, but I do know ALOT about the game (I played it extensively) so don't think I'm a random idiot bashing random stuff just to use as an example for my assertions.

Anyways, we can argue about that forever, or we can get back on topic.

The issue of balance is very important. The 1,4 vs 2,3 setup can work depending on what game they are playing. You also forget that to some people, gaming is not just about competition. They may have fun even though they are in last; just talking sh*t and joking around with your friends is good for them. Also, when they do get that occasional kill or victory, it can set the group up for some halarious moments.

As far as skill level is concerned, there would be larger and more LANs avaliable to players so it wouldn't be too hard to find good competition (although I admit it will make the process slightly more difficult).

And for the around the world thing, I really don't see why it matters that you are playing someone in Singapore.

Arcades>Online

There I said it.

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"]If your friends would rather play online than on a LAN, then I suspect they didn't value the LAN games as much as you did. Personally, I think online gaming has helped the console experience immensely. Especially for people with jobs/families/other obligations who aren't able to get together with friends as much as they use to.Swiftie101

Actually, my friends stopped playing games in general and moved on to better things.

I applaud you for bringing up the casual market, because they are an integral part of the industry. Pretty much every game has a single player side, which people with many obligations could play during their downtime. Of course, single player gets boring very quickly; however, due to the little time these types of people spend on gaming, an average game could last them anywhere from 2 weeks to one month. Anyone with that many obligations would certainly be able to afford a new game in that time period. Also, these people can be easily entertained by older games which are much cheaper than the 60 dollar stuff we buy today. If they actually wanted toplay multiplayer, then they can definitely rearrange their schedule for a LAN and enjoy a TRUE multiplayer experience.

I'm not talking about casual gamers. I'm talking about gamers in general who simply don't have the time, resources, or desire to organize LAN gatherings anytime they want to play a multiplayer game. Beyond that, theres lots of other factors to consider. Your friends might get bored of a particular game before you. They might not like a game at all. You might want to play when they don't feel like it or can't. Its great that if you find yourself in any of the above situations, you can still get your multiplayer fix by getting online and playing with thousands of others who are in the same boat.

[QUOTE="Swiftie101"]

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"]If your friends would rather play online than on a LAN, then I suspect they didn't value the LAN games as much as you did. Personally, I think online gaming has helped the console experience immensely. Especially for people with jobs/families/other obligations who aren't able to get together with friends as much as they use to.H3LLRaiseR

Actually, my friends stopped playing games in general and moved on to better things.

I applaud you for bringing up the casual market, because they are an integral part of the industry. Pretty much every game has a single player side, which people with many obligations could play during their downtime. Of course, single player gets boring very quickly; however, due to the little time these types of people spend on gaming, an average game could last them anywhere from 2 weeks to one month. Anyone with that many obligations would certainly be able to afford a new game in that time period. Also, these people can be easily entertained by older games which are much cheaper than the 60 dollar stuff we buy today. If they actually wanted toplay multiplayer, then they can definitely rearrange their schedule for a LAN and enjoy a TRUE multiplayer experience.

I'm not talking about casual gamers. I'm talking about gamers in general who simply don't have the time, resources, or desire to organize LAN gatherings anytime they want to play a multiplayer game. Beyond that, theres lots of other factors to consider. Your friends might get bored of a particular game before you. They might not like a game at all. You might want to play when they don't feel like it or can't. Its great that if you find yourself in any of the above situations, you can still get your multiplayer fix by getting online and playing with thousands of others who are in the same boat.

I see you have found a flaw in my argument. I may have been too idealistic when I described a world without online gaming, but I still have my main point, that LAN multiplayer is leaps and bounds better than online and that online gaming is only destroying our motivation for LANs.

[QUOTE="Dencore"]

Arcades>Online

There I said it.Swiftie101

One of my game design teachers once said:

"I remember the arcades, they were the places people would sell drugs, gangs would meet up, kids would be drinking and smoking cigarettes.....best f*cking place I've ever been to."

Nice. :D That's something a lot of people forget about the Street Fighter II heyday of the early 90s (or were never aware of to begin with), and it's one of the best descriptions I've ever read.

[QUOTE="Swiftie101"][QUOTE="Dencore"]

Arcades>Online

There I said it.DarkCatalyst

One of my game design teachers once said:

"I remember the arcades, they were the places people would sell drugs, gangs would meet up, kids would be drinking and smoking cigarettes.....best f*cking place I've ever been to."

Nice. :D That's something a lot of people forget about the Street Fighter II heyday of the early 90s (or were never aware of to begin with), and it's one of the best descriptions I've ever read.

Seriously?

That is definately like no arcade I've been to, well one of the following were present but not all three.

I was too harsh in my posts. I usually take the unpopular side, which makes me aggressive.

To me, a table top game is to videogaming like a book is to a movie. Sure, you have graphic and audio indicators to help you absorb the story, but if you can manage without it, then that's fine.

Ok, MTG isn't electronic. But what is it about the game that you don't like? I like the game's endless replay value, it's ease of play and it's portability.

You are face to face with your opponent which makes it similar to a LAN.

As for LAN versus internet gaming. I bet shared screen gaming can also be included on the LAN side. My philosophy is that internet gaming is great when you simply have nobody to play with in your area or when you want to play with a friend far away. We take this for granted when people wrote letters thousands of miles away in the old days.

But when you are with a friend face to face, LAN, tabletop or shared gaming should be the focus. You get to see your opponent, talk with them and interact with them more than talking to some forum avatar. So yea, I do agree that proximity gaming is important. Internet gaming should only be used when there are no other options.

I was too harsh in my posts. I usually take the unpopular side, which makes me aggressive.

To me, a table top game is to videogaming like a book is to a movie. Sure, you have graphic and audio indicators to help you absorb the story, but if you can manage without it, then that's fine.

Ok, MTG isn't electronic. But what is it about the game that you don't like? I like the game's endless replay value, it's ease of play and it's portability.

You are face to face with your opponent which makes it similar to a LAN.

As for LAN versus internet gaming. I bet shared screen gaming can also be included on the LAN side. My philosophy is that internet gaming is great when you simply have nobody to play with in your area or when you want to play with a friend far away. We take this for granted when people wrote letters thousands of miles away in the old days.

But when you are with a friend face to face, LAN, tabletop or shared gaming should be the focus. You get to see your opponent, talk with them and interact with them more than talking to some forum avatar. So yea, I do agree that proximity gaming is important. Internet gaming should only be used when there are no other options.

Revelade

I stopped playing Magic after the Apocalypse set was over. There is no exact reason why I stopped, it just got kind of boring (to me anyways).

If there was no one around you who played games, it would be more challeging to play multiplayer. You would have to go out and seek people who are similar to you. However, you do bring up a good point when you say that online gaming is a good tool for communication between two distant friends. I really can't think of a way around this one, because talking to someone on the phone is indeed primitive compared to playing a game with him or her.

The main point I was trying to make is that there are many groups of friends who simply play each other online instead of at a LAN simply because its easier. I think we can all agree that LANs are more fun than online.

By the way, whenever I say LAN, it also includes split screen.

[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"][QUOTE="Swiftie101"][QUOTE="Dencore"]

Arcades>Online

There I said it.Dencore

One of my game design teachers once said:

"I remember the arcades, they were the places people would sell drugs, gangs would meet up, kids would be drinking and smoking cigarettes.....best f*cking place I've ever been to."

Nice. :D That's something a lot of people forget about the Street Fighter II heyday of the early 90s (or were never aware of to begin with), and it's one of the best descriptions I've ever read.

Seriously?

That is definately like no arcade I've been to, well one of the following were present but not all three.

Yeah, we had a place just a few blocks from my house that had five CE/HF cabinets and a noteworthy regular population of gang members. Law enforcement was no stranger to that arcade/pizzeria. Ironically, said gang members were the ones who typically scrubbed it up, so there were some moments where Street Fighter led to actual street fighting. In fact, they were the ones who pretty much justified the presence of the MK/MKII machines across the building in the end.

The players who were good, though...they were amazing. I wish I could go back in time and hang out there with the skills I have now. I held it down even back then, but now I'm national-level and it'd be nice to see how I'd do against that arcade's top players now, because I maintain that the competition level there was just as good as anywhere else in the country.

I miss it. :(

Yeah, we had a place just a few blocks from my house that had five CE/HF cabinets and a noteworthy regular population of gang members. Law enforcement was no stranger to that arcade/pizzeria. Ironically, said gang members were the ones who typically scrubbed it up, so there were some moments where Street Fighter led to actual street fighting. In fact, they were the ones who pretty much justified the presence of the MK/MKII machines across the building in the end.

The players who were good, though...they were amazing. I wish I could go back in time and hang out there with the skills I have now. I held it down even back then, but now I'm national-level and it'd be nice to see how I'd do against that arcade's top players now, because I maintain that the competition level there was just as good as anywhere else in the country.

I miss it. :(

DarkCatalyst

WTF they fought over Street Fighter :lol: OMG I so wish that was still around. Screw the tournaments I want to see the REAL deal. ;)

I'm just cuious were their alot of gangs there because the area you lived in wasn't too good *no offense* or was it because it was a popular hang out spot in the city?

I'm just saying this because the arcade I go to, use to have kind of a problem with gangs. Actually it was mostly the mall itself, though it was in a good area it was a very popular hang out area in the county so you saw everything from them to the richy rich preps. :P Anyway eventually the arcade owner found some ways to make them leave *don't remember what though*, but the bad part is that the arcade was near deady. The only people on the fighter boards now are 40 year olds and those dedicated from before, and of course me. :P So was that the majority of arcades like that or just a few?

But I gotta admit the gangs sure know their fighters. :P

Also just out of curiousity since you know so much more about this then I do.

Do you think the arcades should be resurrected?

I mean they were the main reason why the fighting genre was popular in the first place and stated popular.
I personally see them as what online does for FPS's. With it you get mods and an online community.

With arcade you got to meet people and learn new skills.

If you want you can PM me since I don't think the TC would want this thread to go off topic. :|

Also I don't understand this line.

"Ironically, said gang members were the ones who typically scrubbed it up,"

Mostly the "ironically"

[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"]Yeah, we had a place just a few blocks from my house that had five CE/HF cabinets and a noteworthy regular population of gang members. Law enforcement was no stranger to that arcade/pizzeria. Ironically, said gang members were the ones who typically scrubbed it up, so there were some moments where Street Fighter led to actual street fighting. In fact, they were the ones who pretty much justified the presence of the MK/MKII machines across the building in the end.

The players who were good, though...they were amazing. I wish I could go back in time and hang out there with the skills I have now. I held it down even back then, but now I'm national-level and it'd be nice to see how I'd do against that arcade's top players now, because I maintain that the competition level there was just as good as anywhere else in the country.

I miss it. :(Dencore

WTF they fought over Street Fighter :lol: OMG I so wish that was still around. Screw the tournaments I want to see the REAL deal. ;)

I'm just cuious were their alot of gangs there because the area you lived in wasn't too good *no offense* or was it because it was a popular hang out spot in the city?

I'm just saying this because the arcade I go to, use to have kind of a problem with gangs. Actually it was mostly the mall itself, though it was in a good area it was a very popular hang out area in the county so you saw everything from them to the richy rich preps. :P Anyway eventually the arcade owner found some ways to make them leave *don't remember what though*, but the bad part is that the arcade was near deady. The only people on the fighter boards now are 40 year olds and those dedicated from before, and of course me. :P So was that the majority of arcades like that or just a few?

But I gotta admit the gangs sure know their fighters. :P

Also just out of curiousity since you know so much more about this then I do.

Do you think the arcades should be resurrected?

I mean they were the main reason why the fighting genre was popular in the first place and stated popular.
I personally see them as what online does for FPS's. With it you get mods and an online community.

With arcade you got to meet people and learn new skills.

If you want you can PM me since I don't think the TC would want this thread to go off topic. :|

Also I don't understand this line.

"Ironically, said gang members were the ones who typically scrubbed it up,"

Mostly the "ironically"

I think it'd be great if arcades came back, but the playerbase over here is too lazy to sustain them.

Never mind the "ironically" - I use the wrong words sometimes when I post immediately after getting home from work (though there is some irony in the fact that they scrubbed out in-game when they spent so much of their time getting into actual fights).

^^^^I agree. I think they should take the arcades to places people go. I mean could you imagine how much money someone would make if they put something like Wii Soccer or Wii Fighter at your local Starbucks? I personally think the reason arcades died in the West are 2 reasons.

#1 Gaming just wasn't big enough. The arcades got popular again in the early-mid 90's, but the reality of it that gaming was not even close to being as popular as it was in Japan. So by the time the Playstation came out to make it somewhat mainstream most casuals didn't really care for the small difference between the "real" version and the "port". I personally think if Nintendo really does suceed in expanding the market to make gaming truly mainstream, there's definately a market for this. Especially since the fighitng genre is such a basic concept and fun. I mean if people who own a 52" Plasma HDTV, Surround Sound Stereo, Blu-Ray Player, and knows about Torrents still go out to the movie theaters, why can't people go out to play games?

#2 Didn't really evolve. The arcades pretty much didn't innovate or evolve. Let me explain. Wouldn't it be better if instead of containing one game for a cabinant, Capcom, SNK, SEGA, or who ever it was made by, could of just put in a 300 GB hard-drive to put in all or the majority of they've released. So instead of trying to find a "Third Strike" board you could just find any board made by Capcom and browser through its hard-drive *simply of course* and select the game. You could also direct connect to a server to stream gameplay videos of tournaments, see videos of upcoming games, read news, etc. You could also be able to post "bullentins" in your local arcade *think of how your Wii does this with it's "bullentins"* to announce local tournaments for your arcade *with approval of the owner of course*. Anyway those are just some of my ideas because I do have more. :)

Well those are just IMHO the main reasons of why the arcades probably died.

I would have to agree. I would rather play video games with someone in the same room, even if it means having to play in splitscreen (with the exception of fighting games and possibly others).SuperbGamer

A splitscreen fighting game? :P

^^^^I agree. I think they should take the arcades to places people go. I mean could you imagine how much money someone would make if they put something like Wii Soccer or Wii Fighter at your local Starbucks?Dencore

Of course. I was the one who told you about that likelihood in the first place.

[QUOTE="Dencore"]^^^^I agree. I think they should take the arcades to places people go. I mean could you imagine how much money someone would make if they put something like Wii Soccer or Wii Fighter at your local Starbucks?DarkCatalyst

Of course. I was the one who told you about that likelihood in the first place.

Yes I know, but I thought of it before you told me. :P Anyway what do you think of the ideas I listed in #2. Actually I'd like anyone to feel free, since this is sorta on topic since the TC is talking about "local play".

[QUOTE="DarkCatalyst"][QUOTE="Dencore"]^^^^I agree. I think they should take the arcades to places people go. I mean could you imagine how much money someone would make if they put something like Wii Soccer or Wii Fighter at your local Starbucks?Dencore

Of course. I was the one who told you about that likelihood in the first place.

Yes I know, but I thought of it before you told me. :P Anyway what do you think of the ideas I listed in #2. Actually I'd like anyone to feel free, since this is sorta on topic since the TC is talking about "local play".

I'm against it, for the same reason the NeoGeo MVS cabinets sucked. Remember how bad it was waiting for a bunch of kids to finish playing Art of Fighting so we could finally get around to playing Fatal Fury Special or Samurai Shodown II? No one wants to wait for idiots with what feels like an endless supply of money to get done with their games of Eco Fighters or Magic Sword just so we can finally play 3rd Strike.