Yeah, we knew where we have the idea came from. Malstrom. And with the release of NSMB Wii it could make a good start OR IS IT? According to this blog casuals arent interested in hand eye coordination gaming which arcade gaming was:

http://sethhearthstone.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/casual-games-arcade-action/

In fact, except for NSMB Wii and MK Wii most of the Wii's top 10 are hardly arcade gameplay type. Wii Fit, WSR, Wii Play, Wii Sports, etc... are casual gaming NOT ARCADE. There are differences arcade type of games like Contra, Castlevania, megaman, SMB3, etc... even Galaga, space invaders and Pac man relies on content since you cant freely make a game so simple in those times because of 2-d gameplay. Casuals rent. So what content WSR, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc... have? Except for the Miis and the island I didnt see any content with it. Anyway, casual games relies more on gameplay so gameplay rules on casual games so is it? Are arcade type of gameplay eally just casual games?

Wii Play and Wii Sports actually have very distinct arcade gameplay. Wii Fit more or less does with it's balance games.

Arcade gameplay refers to the type of game you would see in an arcade. They would typically be easy to pick up and play, addictive, and competitive with high score lists and local multiplayer. In terms of progression, it was always kept short and linear, with very little in terms of new content. This was all, of course, to make sure those machines got all your coins.

Arcade gaming isn't about twitching. Arcade gaming is about pick up and play and being as addictive as crack.

Wii Sports (+Resort), Wii Fit, Wii Play, Mario Kart, Mario Brothers, Smash Brothers, even Brain Age is arcadey.

No console since the NES has felt more like 'the arcades at home' than the Wii.

yeah we knew arcades have similarities with casual games BUT... if you seen the technologies of videogame cnsoles then and today we all know why videogames at that time kept simple and sometimes repititive and addictive at the same time.


I doubt no one can do a epic singleplayer campaign of Medal of Honor and Call of Duty during the NES or even the SNES times. Arcades and core singleplayer experience are same addictive but at the same time different

Most people aren't buying Call of Duty for the epic singleplayer campaigns, though. They're buying it for the multiplayer.

The online multiplayer in Call of Duty isn't unlike an arcade experience. There's constant action, competition with other people, it's addictive, and relatively pick up and play (it's at least the easiest shooter out there). The core gameplay is simple enough - point and shoot.

Nearly all the best selling games this gen have some sort of arcade gameplay. There are exceptions, of course, but most of them are games that generally fill a very broad job. Nintendogs is a pet simulator, Brain Age "keeps your brain active," Wii Fit motivates you to excercise, etc. The gameplay for these games isn't so important, so much as the job they're fulfilling.

As for the blog you linked, he gives some terrible examples. His blaming KQ6's failure on arcade-action is unfounded, then he goes as far as to use VGC's data on Zelda (aLttP) against Layton, when we only have Japan data for Zelda. Against 2D Zelda, Layton was outsold in Japan and is absolutely killed in America, Others is the only region in question (which Nintendo hadn't gotten hold of until recently). He points to games like Phoenix Wright as proof of satisfied customers, when it sells like peanuts, then somehow concludes "puzzles and stories" being more universal than "weapons and enemies", which he has no proof of. Sales say otherwise.

Note that there are really two different kinds of "puzzle" games, one being far more popular than the other. There's the "action" type, which is based on quick thinking, as it basically gives you a task to figure out in given a time limit. See Tetris, Bejeweled, Brain Age, etc. Basically the best selling puzzle games, all of which actually do have arcade-like gameplay.

Then there's the slower, type, where you can take all day to figure out. These are not as popular, and seem to be the stuff the blogger is promoting, as they're loaded in the story games (Layton, Phoenix Wright, etc).

I've played COD WAW and MW reflex online multiplayer awhile ago and thinking if this is what the casual gamer wants in FPS and... NO. The multiplayer aspect isnt what the casual wants. Most casuals aka ordinary people arent competitive in nature especially on things that they think is not important or shouldnt excel about like playing video games, which ironically arcade games falls into. Most gamers before competes with the highest score with change in gaming it shifts to leagues and online gaming especially in FPS. The reason why some casuals like FPS games arent the multiplayer aspect and the arcade gameplay to it more than that its the co op and botst. Thats why Malstrom dont like online. He knew all along even online gaming in FPS was pure arcade gaming in  his standards he just dont like it. Because thats not what ordinary people wants in a FPS. Anyway I explain this later when someone replied because its too long to explain it fully.  BTW I make opinions on my own experience and I analyzed gamer's behavior on our area and its always the same thing. Casuals just dont like online.

"BUT... if you seen the technologies of videogame cnsoles then and today we all know why videogames at that time kept simple and sometimes repititive and addictive at the same time."

Gameplay is NOT something that turns obsolete because of the technology. Some gameplay requires newer tech to work, but when gameplay works, it works forever. This is why so many board games have stayed basically the same over centuries. The rules adapt, but the gameplay is still the same at its core.

It's this fallacy that has left the gaming press and so many developers wondering why the Wii is a success. Gameplay only stops working when it doesn't work in the first place. Arcade gameplay still works.

Since when videogames today are different than games then? FPS are still FPS, platformers are still platformers, 2d platformers are still platformers, 2d sidescroller are still 2d sidescrollers, RTS are still RTS etc... The core gameplay still intacts even with new technology. I agree with Malstrom on movie games there are some games that I hate because the game turned into a movie like the MGS series, the xenosaga series, Final Fantasy X, etc... but malstrom always implies that developers always sticks with simple arcade gameplay like we did in the 80s with the arcades and NES. Like I said before, arcade games died for a reason. Nintendo didnt abandon gamers gamers abandoned Nintendo. Its like we should stick to pitfall only make it 2.5d and make it longer and have new and added content even some 3-d platformers are quite successful. 

To me an arcade game is something that requires no tutorial level, no instruction manual, no prior knowledge, and no introductory cinematic sequence. You turn it on and already know how to play.

Wii Sports has 2 things in common with Pac-Man (or Pong for that matter): ZERO BUTTONS, and one of the most famous games ever created. You might even say the Pac-Man Fever of yesteryear has come back as Wii Sports Fever, but sadly nobody's written a song about it yet.

Its not Malstrom 's definition of a "arcade game" if so, he didnt complain about lack of games asides WSR, Wii Fit and Wii play wasnt it? And he didnt mentioned facebook games too. Games that defies the definition of a arcade game  and casuals flocking to it