MovieChat Forums > Wayne's World (1992) Discussion > Vanderhoff's 'evil game trick' makes no ...

Vanderhoff's 'evil game trick' makes no sense

posted 6 months ago by avortac4 (3743)
3 replies | jump to latest

I have loved arcades and arcade video games as long as I have been aware of them. They can also be called coin-up games or even cabinets, if you must.

Corporations have always tried to 'squeeze out' the optimal amount of money out of gameplay-hungry kids and teens, ever since Pong arrived. Some corporations are more 'evil' about this than others, but even a simple game like Pong made a ridiculous amount of money, especially considering how primitive it is.

The thing is, Vanderhoff's tactic would not really work, at least in the optimal sense of the word.

First, how would kids even KNOW there 'is' a second level, if there isn't one? What would make them try to 'get to the next level', if no one has ever even seen that to happen? Kids would simply conclude there's just this one level and quickly assess the game and where it can and can't go, and then get bored with it because nothing ever changes.

Kids wouldn't just 'uselessly pump up quarters' to simply try to get to the next level - tryhards were rare back in the day, even though they did exist, and no kid back in the day played an arcade game 'to get to the next level', but to 'enjoy the gameplay'.

If the gameplay is good, kids WILL pour in quarters, regardless of 'levels' or whether you can get to the next ones.

There were all kinds of games back in the day, many that did not even HAVE levels. This means, this 'level'-kind of thinking becomes irrelevant. The only thing that matters is 'is the game fun'.

If the game isn't fun, it doesn't matter if you can get through 1000 levels easily.

If the game is fun, it doesn't matter if it only has one level (or no levels).

To add, 'a gelatinous cube'? Back then, such a thing did not exist as the enemy in games - people were thinking of 'exciting concepts', and a 'three-dimensional enemy' was not even in the cards per se, so it might as well been a 'wobbly square' as far as players were concerned - and that would have been a BORING enemy.

People were thinking of 'spaceships, stars, planets, galaxies' or 'martial arts, time travel, historical battles' or 'cute characters doing fun things in quirky environments' and so on.

'Gelatinous cube in a medieval village' (which wouldn't even make any sense) is something ONLY someone that never really played arcade or even just video games would come up with.

One of the worst offenders of this type, of course, is that they show SO MUCH of Sonic the Hedgehog, which was, at the time, Sega Genesis/Megadrive exclusive, so why include it if you want to adveretise your ARCADE?!

(I am aware of all these 'arcade motherboards' that had Amiga, C64, Atari 8-bit, Atari ST, Famicom/NES and possibly Genesis and SNes stuff in them that you COULD technically play in an arcade hall/place/etc., but they were relatively rare and not exactly 'state of the art' stuff, so it would still be pretty weird thing to include as the background of your ad)

Then there's the fact that although 'video games in general' DID 'suffer' from constant flow of new games, so part of his problem in the movie is fact-based, Arcade Cabinets do not flow as well or as fast, so the probem would NOT have existed for arcades.

For one thing, it's harder to design and manufacture a whole motherboard and cabinet around it, including controllers and such - especially if your game required 'weird' controllers to make 'copying' harder (and I don't necessarily mean filecopying, but more like 'taking your idea and making a very similar game') and so on. This means, it was slower to keep pumping out new games for arcades.

Second thing is, these cabinets were big, cumbersome and heavy. Any place that purchases them, will want to KEEP them as long as possible, to get as much out of each individual unit as possible. Then there's the nostalgia factor - even in early 1990s, people would pump up quarters for genuine Asteroids Deluxe, Pac-Man or even good ol' Pong. There's no reason to believe 'games change too fast to advertise' for arcades, so Vanderhoff is full of hooves and lips when he talks about this stuff.

They, of course, came up with a system where all you had to do is change the motherboard itself and maybe the stickers on the sides of your cabinet, while the cabinet itself and a lot of its electronics and controllers could remain the same, so the same cabinet could, throughout years, house many different games and the players wouldn't be the wiser.

However, a good game is a good game, and in the arcade game business, they could not afford as blatant cash-grabs because it was a bigger investment, so they had to craft the games more carefully, which means that most of the arcade games actually were (and are) really good, which would mean players would still keep playing them even when they got 'old'.

I would pay 20 euros just to play the original Out Run or Tatsujin (Truxton) cabinet right now!

So his plan makes no sense, players would just move on to another game.

[–] avortac4 (3743) 6 months ago

Just to mention a bit about the 'optimal' way of getting players to cough up the biggest amount of quarters..

There are many ways of doing this, I suppose, and these corporations were trying all kinds of ways until, I am sure, they found the optimal ones.

That 'there is no next level' thing would not work very long, because rumours would have spread pretty fast, soon everyone would know you can't get to any 'next level' (though WHAT in the game would even INDICATE there even is a next level? Not explained..).

This would simply mean players would know there's only 'this level' and 'this is all you can do with this game', and get bored and move on to another game. Bad tactic, would not give them optimal profit.

The better tactic that was actually used, is: Make a gosh-darned GOOD game with excellent gameplay, good musics and visually as dazzling and beautiful graphics as you can. Then make sure gameplay is ADDICTIVE (I know people hate using this word this way, but game magazines have been doing it probably since seventies, so get over it) and REWARDING.

Why does Vanderhoff think there even ARE 'multiple levels'?

It's to REWARD the player.

If the player never gets reward, the gameplay becomes dull and unfun, and players will simply go to another game.You can't just try to 'trick' players in some evil way - WHAT would you benefit from that? Is Vanderhoff thinking it is less costly to simply omit levels? Is he thinking the game artists have to be paid less now that they don't have to draw backgrounds, sprites and animations for more than one level? What is the thinking here of not letting players get to the next level, WHAT is he saving here?

I am just saying, what does he think he is profiting from here compared to making a good game where you CAN get to the next levels? Is he saving something by doing this, or does he just want to trick kids? Is he lazy and wants to just pump out simple games as fast as possible so there's no time to make other levels?

[–] avortac4 (3743) 6 months ago

So a profitable game would actually HAVE levels and LET the player go through them. The more levels, the better, because motivations for players to put in more quarters can be numerous, not just 'wanting to get to next level even if it does not exist'.

One motivation is 'wanting to see what happens next', and if the game actually lets that happen, THAT keeps the motivation alive. If the player can't see what happens next, motivation dies and quarters will go to other games.

So being able to go through levels actually makes kids pump up MORE quarters than not being able to do so.

Levels exist to reward a player that pumps in more quarters so they can keep playing and learning the game. When you have this reward system, it acts as an addiction-building mechanic that keeps players entranced to your game.

If you just kill your reward system by thinking you are somehow 'clever' by not letting players advance to the next level, addiction dies as well. Not good for business.

We might think his plan is 'evil', but in the end, it's just EXTREMELY ineffective and stupid. Players might not be 'smart', but they are 'knowledgeable', everyone knows EXACTLY what happens in each game soon enough, so they won't pump quarters to a game that doesn't reward them with the next level.

If that plan worked, corporations would have used it in real life. Very rarely they did, because it absolutely does not work.

Getting to another level excites the player, and it's profitable to keep players excited. When the game is (relatively) fair, makes it possible to advance but keeps killing you at certain points, that creates a reward system that keeps addiction alive.

Someone, in real life, played Berzerk for, I think, days (!) until they collapsed and died (if I remember correctly).

Now, that is addiction.

If Berzerk did not let him advance, he would probably not have died playing the game.

Vanderhoff is not only a real moron, but pretty much everything he says about games is wrong

[–] cv1cv (470) 6 months ago

BEWARE! Avortac4 is a troll trying to waste everyone's time with such idiotic comments. Look at his posts. He doesn't think anything in any film makes sense. His post may seem like it makes sense in the first sentence or two. But he always quickly wanders off into a completely idiotic idea, and then writes a wall of text that makes no sense. And his sole purpose is to waste your time, thinking he's cute for doing so. Don't feed the troll. If you write a comment, you're giving this troll EXACTLY what he wants. Don't comment after my comment.