Eulogy for a Guitar hero

The big news of recent weeks has been Activision closing down further activity to the Guitar Hero franchise. With the series thus effectively concluded I present some thoughts on the matter.

- Give Activision credit for actually ending the series. Nowadays, series are milked for very last drop *coughFinalFantasycough*, so it takes balls for someone to end a series, let alone one of the most famous in gaming history. So at least Activision realised that the series was on the decline and nothing more could be done it so they bowed out while they could. Which is more than that can be said for many other game series….

- It is a bit sad to see the Guitar Hero series go when one considers the impact it had on both gaming and rock music. It has achieved a level of popularity both within gaming circles and mainstream culture that few other games have achieved. The Guitar Hero series has made a considerable contribution to convert people into gaming and has been a popular choice for gaming parties.

- Similarly, it has made people interested in rock music, to the point of making discover bands they may not have heard of before, educated people on the history of rock music and guitars, made superstars out of once-little known bands and revitalised struggling careers. Funny thing is that a similar revolution came earlier with both Compact Discs and MTV but it is the latter that has endured (for better or worse)



- With Guitar Hero gone, Rock Band is the sole inhabitant in the crumbling mansion that is the rhythm genre. With no competition, they have no reason to evolve or take risks: Indeed, Rock Band 3 has taken the formula as far as it can go and the frosty reception to both DJ Hero and Band Hero have proven that bold steps into the unknown don’t always pay off. Thus, it would be interesting to see what Harmonix will do next with the Rock Band franchise – not to mention how it long it will last.

- The end of Guitar Hero may be an inarguable sign that the Rhythm Game genre is finished. It makes me wonder: Will these games still be played years later? As the Rhythm Games have benefited greatly from DLC (perhaps more than any other game), there is the thought that to have a decent music library for Guitar Hero/Rock Band, one must be willing to cough up a lot of money. But where is that money ultimately going to? Something that will continue to be enjoyed years later or a big white elephant?

But then again, gaming has always had a history of playing a lot for something that won’t last a decade or so later. True some of you young ‘uns would scoff at that idea but I ask you to consider this: Twenty years ago, we would’ve paid $70/$80 for a decent SNES game – now you can get one off eBay for $10 or less.

Ride the Dragon

Recently, I finally completed Dragon Age Origins (and just in time for it’s sequel too!).

Needless to say I was quite impressed with the ending: I enjoyed the final victory scene where my efforts paid off and seeing the characters in my party planning to go onto to other things. But the real treat came with the epilogue where the effects of the player’s actions are now made clear – The world of Ferelden has been forever changed with many of decisions made having long-lasting effects. But I found particularly interesting is the repercussions that these decisions led to: Many of the ‘good’ decisions couldn’t last and eventually led into disaster whilst many of the ‘bad’ decisions actually had some good come of them (eventually). Indeed, I really liked the notion on how the world can be changed and how these changes may influence the sequels to Dragon Age. Thus whilst my character ending up messing up Ferelden completely, it is then left to Hawke to go and pick up the pieces.

Ultimately I enjoyed Dragon Age a lot. The writing was great, the action was fun and the characters entertaining in their own right. The plot, whilst leaning onto the tried and tested Bioware formula, still was compelling enough to see me follow it all the way to the end. There may be no more Baldur’s Gate but Dragon Age is the closest we’re ever going to get to a D&D-esque RPG. And to that end, it’s a success.

So what can Dragon Age 2 do? Only time will tell….

Ico Sucks!

Once upon a time, I posted the following on an Ico page on Facebook (of course said page has now disappeared so I may as well give this rant a home here):

You know what I’m so sick and tired of? People shouting praises to the game ICO. I have heard time and again how “it’s the greatest game ever!” and “it’s criminally under-rated!”
Well I’m here to tell you all something: It sucks. It is under-rated but for a very good reason. It has some glaring obvious flaws, it is undeserving of all the praise it got and it deserved to be a poor seller, forever condemned to obscurity which is where it belonged.
That being said I have taken the various arguments made for ICO and prepared a series of retorts that will show up ICO for the tripe that it is.

It was made on the motivation of being something that had never been seen before
Are you joking? This is the gaming industry we’re talking about here! The age of ideas is long gone and now we’re all thriving on recycled ideas! If you’re going to bring in something completely new in this age of five second attention spans then of course you’re going to fail.

It shows what can happen when you experiment with the hardware you’re utilising
Come again? When was the age of experimentation? In the eighties when people were making games? I appreciate they’re pioneering spirit but please: They’re old so sod off. Currently, we have lot’s of ideas floating around so why make up new ones when the old ideas are working just fine as they are?
Furthermore, you call a white-washed graphical look experimentation? Hate to break this to you but a limited colour palette does not make for a great game! No, give me the spectacle over substance any day.



There is no story: All of it is left to our imagination
Tell me one thing: Who the hell plays games in this day and age when there is no story? I’ve been told that people that people play games that are actual games as opposed to interactive storybooks but I digress. I like to know where I’m going and I’ll gladly follow a strictly rigid path to get there.
As for imagination, who on God’s green Earth uses their imagination these days? I prefer to let someone else do my thinking for me and to have everything spelled out for me in large letters. I’ve been told that I should relate to Ico and feel confused as he is. And to that end I will admit I did feel confused: as to why anyone would fall head over heels in love for this nonsense.

It succeeds in having puzzles over conflict
Well dur! If you don’t have violence and blood in games today of course you’re going to fail! Instead, blood and gore is such a mainstay in gaming today that any game being slapped with G logo is a death warrant. G games are strictly for kids! Anyone knows that without needing to pick up a controller! But seriously no one thinks things through anymore. Any game in this day and age can’t succeed without violence and gore. That’s like saying people play God of War for the gameplay.

Yorda
The object of the game is for ICO to guide Yorda through many of the puzzles and obstacles that litter the castle. And no wonder she needs rescuing: She is hopeless! She can’t jump very well, she can’t defend herself and she is continually relying in on Ico for help. If Lara Croft has taught us anything, its women characters are useless if they don’t have a rack big enough to land stealth bombers on.
Also, why is Ico helping her? What the hell are we meant to feel without any dialogue or narrative? How are we meant to feel for his (and her) predicament? Correct me if I’m wrong but in this era of modern gaming, subtlety only works when it’s applied with a sledgehammer.



Emotional Weight
Hahahaha – you’re kidding right? What place does emotion have in gaming today? None whatsoever if the death of Aerith Gainsborough in Final Fantasy VII is anything to go by.

So much attention has been paid to the castle design: It is detailed, very realistic looking, atmospheric, an architectural marvel and demands interaction. The castle is even a character in itself.
You can’t expect me to pay attention to a character if it doesn’t talk. End of story

It succeeds on an ambient level.
Hate to break this to you but I expect my games to loud bombastic and wrapped in a big package of WOW to be of any use to me. Minimalism? Which requires a need to pay full attention? Give me a break.
And on that note, where the hell is the music in this game? Some crummy sounds used in sparing moments? What is this, a crappy game from the 8-bit era? Where are the loud rock/metal guitars that proliferate games these days? It’s not as if any game can succeed without them – After all, look at Guitar Hero!



It succeeds on so many levels that it’s a single entity rather than a bundle of features.
Sorry but I thought that you can succeed with crummy gameplay once you have awesome graphics and music! What type of douche puts so much thought into each and every levels of a game?! ICO is an entity? Pull the other one

It is short but had it gone on any longer, the maker’s intention would have been lost
What? The intention to bore me senseless with even more ‘subtly’? Isn’t bad enough that I’ll never be able to get those five hours of my life back?!

It have provided a subtle influence to other games namely, Legend of Zelda; Twilight Princess, Metal gear Solid 3 and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
All of which were infinitely better games and based on established franchises. Good day!

And there you have it: A complete dissection of Ico and why it’s not as great as everyone believes. Why people still think it’s a marvel despite age and lack of sales is beyond me.

This was then followed immediately by the following:

No doubt you’re all clenching your fist with rage having read that opening post but before you all start sending me death threats, I’ll let you in on a secret:

This is a JOKE

That’s right, that essay was written purely for satirical purposes.
I myself love ICO, I think it’s one of the greatest game ever made and I’m mystified as to why it was never a big hit.



So with no reasoning behind ICO’s obscurity, I decided to come up with some.

Thus, you can all breathe a sigh of relief. But still even if the above essay as written as a joke, there is always the sad thought that people like the one I’ve described above quite possibly exist in the world…

Reboot this: Loaded

Remakes and Reboots are certainly popular amongst game developers: It would seem that just as long as there is an instantly recognizable name attached to the product, it would sell enough to make a decent amount of dosh.

Some gamers may grow frustrated with such moves, wishing the developers would instead make their own IP but such a move is not without it's risks: It is indeed a very long and costly process that developers should aim to making something worthwhile. Having some flop is indeed the last thing developers want so there is always the comfort zone of working on an already established name.

A valid argument for the continued presence of the Reboots but I propose a middle ground: I would like to see a reboot built on risks. I want to see a reboot of a failed idea. I want a bad game taken and transformed into a good game that no one thought possible.
Any idea can work just as long as it's handled by people who know what they're doing. By way of example, the 80's film Xanadu was a notorious flop when first released but now it's been regenerated as a hit Broadway musical. And keeping with the movie theme, I thought Hancock had a good idea behind it, shame the execution was rather lousy.

So, in what could evolve into a series, I present a post on what games I would like to see re-energised. May I present the PS1 game, LOADED!



Loaded was a launch title for the Playstation. A top down shooter, it told the tale of six crims busting their way out of a futuristic prison as bloodily as posisble.
it didn't do much to show off the processing power for Sony's new beast but it certainly had a lot going for it: The game had a macabre sense of humour about it, the character designs where great (courtesy of Vertigo comics), the music was superb and boasted involvement with Pop Will Eat Itself and there was no shortage of action. Indeed, Loaded must be the bloodiest game ever made with no shortage of gore and blood. It seemed juvenile and lacking in substance but it had a charm to it that still works for me to this day: After all, it's a great way to vent some anger.
Loaded divided critics: some thought it dumb whilst others enjoyed the fun factor. Nevertheless it was a big seller: enough did get a sequel, Re-Loaded. But this wasn't well received as it's predecessor. A third title, Fully Loaded, was planned but didn't materialise. And thus the saga of Loaded ended there and then (although apparently both Loaded and it's sequel are on their way to the PSN).

So why remake this game? Some possible reasons:
- Fun. Many games these days are stern and serious. You don't see a game that doesn't take itself seriously. I welcome any game that walks a macabre path which other games avoid.
- Action. Gamers have been crying out for a return to when a shooter involved turning off your brain and shooting dudes. All eyes are currently looking to Duke Nukem Forever as some great white hope but will anyone challenge him?
- Characters. Loaded boasts some wonderfully kooky characters and some excellent character designs. The kind that are crying out for a well-written script and some manic voice acting.

Any takers?

Mature like old cheese

With many gamers today being adults - many of whom grew up playing games - there is talk of games getting mature. This is due to games catering for a change of tastes and doing things beyond the restrictions of a child demographic.

Decent enough intentions true but I've grown suspicious of games proclaiming to be 'mature'. It's nice you cater for different tastes just don't make a big show of it!
In addition, claims of being 'mature' seem to come across as being silly: Sex, cursing and killing so many dudes in gruesome fashion seems to me, pandering to a sense of spectacle. Sure, it may be great that we can do such things but it is indeed problematic that such things should get more attention than the game mechanics themselves. Other times, the 'mature' content comes across as trying too hard to please an audience that's growing older. I personally thought the use of cuss words in Mass Effect 2 as coming across as trying ever so hard to such pretensions of 'maturity' - so much so that it kind of distracted from what was a stunning game on all accounts.

No, for me, 'mature' games seem ill-defined. In my eyes, 'mature' gaming is really a sign that that games are growing beyond their original intention as a sense of entertainment. 'Mature' games for me those which are trying to get a point across that challenges the player until well after the console is turned off.

So what games do I think meet this criteria? Funny you should say that:

Cannon Fodder (1993)
A game that came out on the Commodore Amiga with other systems following suite. Seeing as war games are a major driving force in the gaming industry, it seems strange that one game should come along which criticizes warfare. Strange yes but it works: You control a small group of soldiers through a succession of missions involving entering enemy territory and blowing shit up. Thing is, each soldier has a name and, upon each successful mission the player is confronted with a list of who survived and a list of who got killed. This is then followed by a screen image consisting of a line of new recruits ready for action - a line that encircles a hill covered with graves of the fallen. You wouldn't see a game biting the hand that feeds it but here it works a treat.

The Dig (1995)
Sure the dialogue's questionable, sure the period in development was beset with problems and sure it's stern/serious nature seems out of place to the rest of the LucasArts adventure games, but there is still a lot going for this game. I like the ideas that are really being put forward that suggests a gaming maturity: It breaking from the humor that the adventure genre is known for to do something different. It is conveying a sense of wonder in exploring an alien planet. It is the sense of atmosphere on being on a barren world where an advanced civilization once inhabited and is doing something with a tiny cast of characters.

Metal Gear Solid (1997)
Heavy handed in it's approach to war and nuclear warheads but at least they're having a stab at it.

Final Fantasy VII (1997)
A dying planet that would be glad to see it's human inhabitants gone? That makes heaps of sense to me. Though it is interesting to note that, considering the backlash to the game's conclusion, whether or not gamers are really ready for 'mature' gaming as they so claim....

Chrono Cross (2000)
Can't say I've played this game (call it being in a country that apparently doesn't matter) so pretty much all I know about this game comes from this slice of wisdom. Still, what is said is enough to get me interested.
As indicated by the linked piece, Chrono Cross, as a game, has as many good ideas as bad ideas. But the one that works, is the one that challenges the borderline between the player and the player character. This eventually reaches it's apex with the game's conclusion with text addressed directly to the player and a montage made up of some life action footage shot in Japan.
Won't give too much away (you could read the linked article or just look the ending up on youtube) but I commend the balls the game designers had in presenting such an idea and connecting the player at a personal level. This type of thing needs to happen more often.

So let's drop the pretensions: Let's make something with more substance than style. And while we're at it, someone get me a Ferrari!

Don't Believe the Hype

Just how much power does that thing called Hype possess in the gaming industry? Mention something coming out and anyone will ever be excited or dismiss as rubbish with astonishing venom. Indeed, it is interesting how much excitement can be generated here in this age where the nerds have officially taken over and the Internet rules over all.
It doesn't pay to get sucked into hype: If the game turns out great then so much so the better and if the game sucks then you don't lose. How many games have actually lived up to the hype? And what is the ratio comparing them to the hyped games that turn out lousy?

But the mystifying thing for me, is that we keep falling into the trap of being seduced by hype. How many more disasters must happen before we finally wake up to the truth and not get sucked in? Are we at a point where a game can't stand on it's own two feet without being hyped for all it's worth?

This evil thing known as hype, not to mention it's iron grip it has on the gaming industry, has got me thinking. so for today, I thought I'd share with you this story I heard when I was a kid:
Some 300 hundred years ago, a new flower was introduced into Holland: Tulips. These flowers are grown through underground bulbs. Being anew thing thing, many people wanted them and and a seemingly equal amount of people saw a chance to get rich through selling bulbs.
Problem was it takes three/seven years to raise bulbs from seeds. Some people didn't want to wait that long so they began selling the bulbs before they got them. As a result, money kept changing hands for bulbs that didn't exist. Prices got higher and people even sold their houses just to buy a tulip bulb to sell.
Finally, the people of Holland eventually saw reason: They grew frightened of spending so much on tulip bulbs. Prices dropped, sellers with bulbs couldn't sell them and many people were left broke and/or homeless. And thus Holland was nearly ruined - all becuase of tulips.
(for a more detailed explanation of this crisis click here)

And that was over 300 years ago. You'd think in the time since we would've learned better by now.....

Moving Forward

If history has taught us anything is that every five or so years a new console generation comes into. As gaming is pretty much a consumer-driven culture, nothing can really stay stable as long as people are willing to throw their money away.

Now that we are five years, going on six, into the seventh generation one has to wonder: Where do we go from here?
I see motion controls gathering interest. I see downloadable services like the Virtual Console and the PSN preserve games from obsolete platforms. I see sequels being made, old IP being dusted off and franchises being run into the ground. I see WOW players far easily willing to forget they have life. I see bedroom developers being given a lot of chance to come forward and show what they can do. I see a lot of invention but far less innovation. I see a lot of businesses and educational facilities taking notice about gaming where previously they showed little to no interest.

So yes, games are now more popular than ever and with such a victory, there is a lot of good and, at the same time, a lot of bad. But for me, I’m wondering where do we go from here? Gaming technology is always moving forward but is there anything left to do?
If anything, I believe that the current generation has proven that gamers have sense of preservation and will gladly keep on playing the same thing.
Examples:
- With the Virtual Console/PSN/XBLA, it is proven that people will gladly pay out for games they already have/had.
- Having Rock Band DLC compatible with future titles.
- Having XBLA profiles where people can share scores and what games they play seems more like a long-term move (kinda makes you wonder what scores will be like in ten years from now…….)

I see nothing wrong with preservation: After all if a game works then it can keep on working. Yet, with the idea of looking backwards, it kinda makes you wonder if so much has accomplished before, then is there anything left to do?

Ten years ago, Sega and the Dreamcast were on the way out, the Xbox was but a distant speck on the horizon, and the Playstation 2 had gotten off on a rocky start drawing more attention as a DVD player than a games console. Mass media attention was given to the development of a game called Metal Gear Solid 2, Everquest was ruling the MMPRG roost and the hundredth million Gameboy was sold.

So a lot can happen in ten years – I wonder what’s in store for the next ten…..?

Go West

When I was a kid, one of my favourite shows on TV was Monkey. Like so many other children of the eighties I’ve known, I would watch this show religiously after school. Whilst I watched many cartoons during my school years, I do recall Monkey, along with the original Dr Who, as being one of few live-action series I really enjoyed. I recall Monkey fondly with its sense of adventure, the action sequences involving gardening implements and the Buddhist philosophies that served as a framing device for the entire episode. It was only years later that I found out this series was an adaptation on the classic Chinese story Journey to the West – and was not the only one at that.



This now brings me to Enslaved: Odyssey to the West: a game made by people who boldly claim to have taken more than a few inspirations from Journey to the West. Well why not? There have been many adaptations of the text so why not a game? The only problem I can see is that a classic seventies TV show did the job so well that anything else is left in the dust. Indeed, I recall being ten years old and reading a comic adaptation where the story was missing one of the pilgrims (Sha Wujing/Sandy) and immediately thinking it wasn’t the same story I’d come to know.

Being an anime geek, I can name quite a few adaptations of Journey to the West. Aside from the obvious, Saiyuki and the original Dragonball, other noteworthy entrants are Alakazam the Great and Spaceketeers. All of which follow the source material quite closely – In fact the only JotW-based anime that deviates the most from the source is Goku Midnight Eye – a futuristic anime featuring a private eye protagonist who shares Sun Goku’s name and shape-shifting staff. Indeed, such is the deviation that it owes little to the source material but the makers didn’t claim it was such an adaptation anyway.



Unlike Enslaved: Odyssey to the West: What annoys me is that the claims made by the developers haven’t really delivered on their promise. Firstly: the player characters are numbered two: Pigsy isn’t a player character and both Sandy and the Water-Dragon/horse are conspicuously absent. Secondly, there’s not much of a connection to the original text. So why even bother? The afore-mentioned Goku Midnight Eye proved you can take inspiration from another source but to claim a full-blown adaptation of said source is another matter entirely.

Why didn’t they just take elements from the source and come up with something new? Were the makers too scared to? Or is it really that difficult to get something new made in a profit driven industry?
Indeed, Portal proved that something new can work but why did it succeed when many others have failed? Was it because it was included in a box with four other familiar games? Was it because it was made by the distinguished company Valve? Was it because it had black humour and a catchphrase destined to be repeated a million times afterward?
Of course, there is the possibility that was actually a really good game but who’d believe that?

Reality Bites

Sitting on a shelf in my bookcase is a novel called Virtual Realities. Written by one Claire Carmichael, it forms the first part of a trilogy followed by Cybersaur and Worldwarp (both of which are also sitting on a shelf in my bookcase). I got these books when I was a kid and I recall a lot of interest in them (well the first one at least) when I was in primary school.
What makes them interesting, from a retrospective position, is that these novels represented an early nineties paranoia of video games rising in popularity and the (believed) subsequent breakdown of the distinction of fantasy and reality. The novels deal with a young boy called Andy who, through usage of the then new technology virtual reality, somehow triggers some kind of psychic power and is able to give his obsession with dinosaurs flesh.

There is only one thing wrong with writing a futuristic work and that’s having to contend with the future itself. So where does this leave the Virtual Realities? Well, much like other man-being-conquered-by-machine works of the nineties it seems somewhat prophetic. Okay so virtual reality itself now comes across as horrendously antiquated (and makes the rest of us wonder what the hell the big deal was in the first place) but, even as a young lad, I do recall the ideas put forth in the story quite compelling: the breakdown of the distinction of fantasy and reality, an over-reliance on technology and the use of computers to ultimately create some sort of collapse of the social order. Sure the idea had been revisited before (in the form of the limp movie The Lawnmower Man) and since (in the form of the ace anime Serial Experiments Lain) but it was with this trilogy of novels that these ideas were first presented and has been interesting me ever since.



Which brings me the present day: Nowadays we are hearing all kinds of stories of people investing far too much in gaming at the expense of the modern world. Indeed, this is a particular problem in Korea where people are deliberately shutting themselves off from the modern world and, more famously, dropping dead from lack of sustenance brought about by 24hr World of Warcraft marathons. True such activities give gamers a bad name that potential condemners are all too happy to pick up on but for me, it is interesting to see how this fear of man being dominated by technology, from nearly two decades ago, comes across now in an age filled with miniaturised devices that can do practically everything and how people are more than willing to sign up to a MMORPG as an method of disregarding real-life problems that won’t go away.
I’ve been terrified of the notion of artificial realities becoming more important than that of the real world: It’s the idea of abandoning everything you knew before for the sake of something that is ultimately superficial. It is the notion of scrapping that which makes yourself you in the favour of some rules someone else decided. With every technological advancement being made in this world, I wonder how soon it will be before we actually have a USB port or something inserted into our bodies – or even to the point where flesh is abandoned…..

Who would’ve guessed that such a challenging science fiction idea would eventually point us down the road we all seem to be heading?

The God of War Delusion

My distrust for the God of War sequels have been incensed thanks to Wikipedia:

In 2007, God of War director David Jaffe stated that it would be "hell on earth" as the gods and the titans battle each other for domination and that "God of War explains, or ultimately will explain, why there are no more Greek myths". Jaffe also envisaged a very different end for the series, with other mythological pantheons becoming involved once Kratos killed Zeus and the other Greek gods. The end result would have apparently been mankind no longer believing in the gods, which according to Jaffe is the only true way a deity can die

Oh this is just sad: Kratos does some extraordinary, in defeating a god, in the first game so now he has to keep on doing it? Are you serious? What is this trying to prove? Militant atheism?!?!?

Sons of Bastardry

Those who recall my original Hall of Shame post will note that one game mentioned was Metal Gear Solid 2. To me this is one of a handful of games listed in the Hall of Shame as a complete non-starter. Considering I have previously on this blog my admiration for Metal Gear Solid, this would be shameful to me.

Or is it?

Before I picked up MGS2, I was aware of the polarizing opinions of it: Some critics rated it highly whilst many players were both confused by the plot and aggravated by the presence of Raiden. That is a decent enough true but me, the warning enough was the original game getting a sequel.
For me, the ending to MGS1 bore a personal resonance: I completed the game at a low point in my life and seeing Snake achieve so much and then deciding to make the rest of his days count, struck a chord. Thus, I find it quite puzzling that Snake would agree to head back into the battlefield when his time on earth is determined with the FoxDie in his blood. Why would he do that? It seems a very regressive move after spending the entirety of MGS1 finding something worth living for.
And seeing an aged Snake head back to the battlefield in MGS4 is even more redundant. I can imagine Hideo Kojima would be delighted with the notion that a video game managed to establish such a personal connection with the player but such is the connection that seeing Snake going back to the action is more sad than inspiring.

That being said, the notion of having the lead for MGS2 being someone different has some degree of credibility but what is a Metal Gear game without it's iconic protagonist? A good excuse to kickstart a new franchise I'd think!

Eternal Arcadia

In this modern age, it's fair to say that the arcade machines are pretty much antiqued: It's hard to compete with home consoles which boast DLC and online gaming.
Still, whenever I have the chance, I like to spare the chnage to play the odd game of Virtua Cop 2. Sure I have memorized a lot of areas where/when the baddies show up but it's still loads of fun. I don't mind looking at graphics from the mid-nineties - in fact I actually find a lot of mid-nineties arcade graphics look a lot better than some fifth-generation console games.

Of course arcades may be dead but they are still around in the form of arcade parlors (Galactic Circus in Melbourne's Crown Casino comes to mind) and, in Japan, public places where they generate a decent revenue (train stations being one such example). It does present something that not many games have:

Staying power.

As I mentioned above, I'm still keen to have a shot at Virtua Cop 2. And Daytona USA is still heaps of fun to play with a group of people (8-way game FTW!). Thus, it becomes clear why arcade games persist: If it's a good game, people will continue to play it. This is what Nintendo realized with the virtual console and may also explain why old games are being revamped in HD.
Many of the games I see in my local arcade are pushing fifteen years which is an absurdly long amount of time in an industry where major developments happen in third of that time. Granted, I have seen some innovative things being done to arcade games elsewhere - like Namco & Nintendo joining forces to present Mario Kart as an arcade game - but as said, if a game works well then people will keep playing it until the end of time.

Now there's a thought to ponder: Would we still be playing Starcraft if Blizzard didn't keep pumping out updates for it on a regular basis?