Zodd wrote:
I was just thinking of the concept based on what I remember Roger Ebert stated when he claimed that Video Games could never be referenced as art. If I recall, he stated that Video Games ultimate goal never changed......the player always won in the end no matter what and never truly "died" or lost in a game.
The player can easily turn the game off and restart from a save point if a mistake was made.....or they can restart and grind to obtain experience to level up and eventually beat the impossible boss.
In arcades, a player can simply load the machine with quarters to see the end
I think it's already been well established that Ebert is an idiot, at least when it comes to his opinions on games anyway. He's on that list of well known or famous people that gamers just roll their eyes whenever they hear their names.
Since we've brought up arcade games, that was basically the same thing we're discussing in this thread. If you were a kid, and you didn't have more than fifty cents on you, when you died it was game over. No continues. No saves. So I feel like I've already had that experience in my life.
Arcade games were survival games. You either had to be really good, or have a lot of money. Otherwise, you'd never see the end of the game. Even in you had a dollar in your pocket, if it took you too long to get to that change machine, you'd have to start the game over again. Everybody remembers that experience of running out of a quarters like 7 levels into a game or having a parent forcing you to leave the arcade and being like, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!".
As the machine taunted you and mocked you...