The difference between the mash-fire and programmed auto rates isn't so vast as to be obviously game-breaking, so that seems like a far-fetched extrapolation when there's already a four-way difficulty selector for operators to control game-internal balance.Bassa-Bassa wrote:The problem with this theory is that it's calling the devs incompetent - they design their game after this feature (extra AF button), but then they realize that it makes of it a way too easy challenge for the operators' demands so, instead of balancing the game's difficulty properly, they choose to just hide the feature which even involves variations in the control panel? In the hope that only PCB collectors find out their actual intent?
My logic begins and ends at game-external balance - tiring players' fingers with manual fire so the probability of a credit-shortening mistake goes up. If operators make the rules, then hell yeah it's getting turned off, but they don't speak for the designer who decided it should be an option.
I find it plausible as a device to avoid wear, tempt players back after the cab declines in profit, or to save on custom circuitry, but those are all business concerns separate from gameplay design intent, and don't imply the bolded.Bassa-Bassa wrote:Isn't this a more logical hypothesis?
"there you have the feature in the case you don't want your buttons to wear out prematurely or if you get too many complaints from dedicated customers so that you don't need to invest in an external circuit, but know that the game's not about that"
I don't think projecting a for / against position onto the developer holds water if all the reasons to do so are speculative or subjective; if it were a given one way or the other, there would be no contention to begin with.
Documentation still falls under lowest-common-denominator, since the third button is optional. And arcade engrish being what it was, "2 buttons-only" could easily be interpreted as "only 2 required" vs "only 2 used".Bassa-Bassa wrote:Sure thing. We do also have the instruction cards (and even the operator manual, for even more absoluteness) which says "2 buttons-only", though.
Either way, the BUTTON C [NO FUNCTION / FULL-AUTO] entry built into the service menu makes it pretty explicit that a third button can be fitted. That's as absolute as you can get, since - on top of directly feeding into the game logic - it'll still be there after the paraphenalia is lost or discarded.
What I'm getting at is that we don't have a first-class source of what the official rules are - only reasoned speculation, which is by definition unofficial. Ergo, using it to predicate what constitutes a serious player is just a variant on the moot-by-default No True Shmupper argument.Bassa-Bassa wrote:Notice that the discussion about DDP is a digression - it's an odd case which doesn't illustrate the original argument about calling the usage of external AF "cheating", which is what BareKnuckleRoo was actually discussing there. I think it's quite clear at this point what would be my own definition of "serious player", but it wasn't me the one who used the term here.
Though I do agree the AF-optional shmups are an interesting case, lying in a grey zone between clear cut old-school manual fire games and new-school auto-as-standard ones. Personally - prior argumentation aside - I think Cave crossed the Dakka line on day one, since all their shot types are screen-fillers that bear little resemblance to the pinpoint-and-shoot of something like Slap Fight.