The "Code of Ethics" of Japanese arcade game developers

[Jonpachi]

I was looking at the curious case of Double Dragon 3: The Rosetta Stone, as it's perhaps the earliest example of offering paid "In-Game Power-Ups" in a videogame. In the western release of DD3, players could enter an in-game shop and spend real-world currency (quarters) to upgrade attack power, add health, or even unlock additional playable characters. However, when the game hit Japan, the real-world currency aspect was removed and the playable characters were made selectable from the start of the game.

Looking back even further, we see other examples of western devs playing more "dirty" than their eastern counterparts, with games like Gauntlet featuring HP values that decayed even if the player was not receiving any damage. Conversely, Namco's Tower of Druaga featured a decaying timer, but the levels were tuned such that with enough knowledge and forethought the player could succeed and progress without spending additional coins (even Druaga's extend play feature was hidden unless players knew the trick of holding the Attack button before pressing start).

Shmups are one of the most misunderstood genres among casual players, and often derided as "quarter munchers" by many outside the space. I've spent many a breathless argument explaining how, yes, they are sometimes nigh-impossible feats of gaming skill, but they are always, ALWAYS, crafted in such a way that they can be completed on a single coin. A lot of this can be traced back to the legality of "games of skill" vs "games of chance" that defines what an arcade game can be vs something like a slot machine, but clearly "what you got for a quarter" varied by a lot, and varied by region as well.

Has there ever been any documentation on what the Japanese arcade developers held themselves to? What would you say are the "rules" of arcade/shmup design that defined these games?

[MJR]

There was no such thing as written "code of ethics" in the 80's or 90's in the game industry. There were not written rules for anything, it was a wild west. I am fairly sure that everything was created and fine tuned to milk as much money from the audience as possible.

There was this Toaplan interview where they said that "western players play like they are drunk, they want check points because they don't like to figure out strategy for recovery". Having no check points for a shmup is probably as close to pay to win as possible.

This being said, mobile versions of Truxton / Tatsujin and many Cave games have rather shameless pay to win monetizations.

I don't think japanese ever had any common "ethics" when it came to getting money from audience. It could have been up to the taste of a developer, or whatever ideas their management had. If they didn't include gauntlet-like monetization it was simply because audience didn't like it in japan. Then again, games like Space Harrier and After Burner were also pretty shameless pay-to-win exercises, coins got you extra lives, and trying to 1cc them with single credit was almost futile exercise.

[Sengoku Strider]

There was this Toaplan interview where they said that "western players play like they are drunk, they want check points because they don't like to figure out strategy for recovery". Having check points for a shmup is probably as close to pay to win as possible.

Isn't respawning on the spot more along those lines than being sent back to a checkpoint?

[MJR]

There was this Toaplan interview where they said that "western players play like they are drunk, they want check points because they don't like to figure out strategy for recovery". Having check points for a shmup is probably as close to pay to win as possible.

Isn't respawning on the spot more along those lines than being sent back to a checkpoint?

Yes. I meant to write "having no check points", but multitasking took its toll. I'll edit my post.

[DietSoap]

If DD3 bombed pretty hard in the west because of the shop system (I imagine it did), that might be why they changed it in the JP release. Often times what appears to be an ethical decision is just better business.

[m.sniffles.esq]

This being said, mobile versions of Truxton / Tatsujin and many Cave games have rather shameless pay to win monetizations.

A 'continue' is a rather shameless pay to win monetization...

[MJR]

This being said, mobile versions of Truxton / Tatsujin and many Cave games have rather shameless pay to win monetizations.

A 'continue' is a rather shameless pay to win monetization...

I am not talking about ’continue’

[spmbx]

I do find the premise of the question quite odd tbh, they are just individual developers that are ofcourse influenced by their country, ethics and whatnot but you can't just generalize groups of people in this way and just assume they are "all the same".

[MJR]

I do find the premise of the question quite odd tbh, they are just individual developers that are ofcourse influenced by their country, ethics and whatnot but you can't just generalize groups of people in this way and just assume they are "all the same".

I believe the "sameness" premise is adapted from the general love of japanese-developed shoot em ups. Otherwise you are quite right. Assuming that japanese would somehow be more ethical with monetizations just because "japanese shootemups rule" is quite amusing.

Then again, this forum is infested all kinds of specimens who have somehow figured out a way to air what is inside their heads so I am not surprised at anything really. Oddity is the norm here.

I don't mean this as denigration. I like the weirdos of this forum, even though most of their posts make me go "what ?!?!?!"

[Randorama]

The sameness principle lies in the lack of knowledge of a subject matter and the personal need to classify things anyway, according to what minimal categories we have in our heads. I could prepare a 2-hour anthropology lecture on the topic (meaning: I know the subject matter enough to teach it at a lecture level), but a simpler example is this:

I currently live in China. My paternal grandma often asks questions such as: "does it snow in China?" or "are those people in your video your neighbours?" because she almost never left her village (10k): sometimes, she visited my hometown (70k inhabitants). For her, "the world" is two familiar places in her mind ("village", "city"), and two types of people ("neighbours/family" and "city dwellers"). Everything else must fall in these two categories and places, or she won't understand it (i.e. no "somewhere/someone else" categories). So, my attempts at explaining that China has 1.5 B people ("no, it happens that I don't know people at a museum") and it covers half a planet of latitude ("yes, it can snow somewhere") usually fall on deaf ears.

The even simpler proverb to explain the phenomenon is: "If you only have a hammer as a tool, everything will look like a nail". Humans like their hammers!

Please don't worry, everybody does it a some point or another: proof are all those politicians who have built impressive careers out of demonising immigrants/foreigners/rich/poor/the right/the left/cows/Inter FC supporters (=spawns of Satan them all!)/Etc. Humans are like that, so humans posting on this forum do not see the exception.

Truth to be told, the recurring "Cheating etc." threads are far more surreal than this one. "Shmups trial of the century", anyone?

[m.sniffles.esq]

I am not talking about ’continue’

I understand that. I was merely pointing out that said companies were participating in "rather shameless pay to win monetizations" LONG before mobile. It was just a shameless pay to win monetization you personally accepted.

[MJR]

I am not talking about ’continue’

I understand that. I was merely pointing out that said companies were participating in "rather shameless pay to win monetizations" LONG before mobile. It was just a shameless pay to win monetization you personally accepted.

I think most normal people have long agreed that continues are not pay to win, especially if you have tough recovery point for which you have to figure out a strategy. You literally are not quaranteed any kind of win by paying. Then again, shmups forum is not a forum for normal people, which can be observed from the opinions and insights shared here.

[m.sniffles.esq]

I think most normal people have long agreed that continues are not pay to win, especially if you have tough recovery point for which you have to figure out a strategy. You literally are not quaranteed any kind of win by paying.

You can keep pumping in money until you win the game.
It is quite literally 'pay to win'.

It not like the game ever goes "y'know, the strategy for this portion really isn't that difficult. I'm not accepting your quarter for three more lives. You should be able to surmount it without"

Granted, I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate. But saying that shameless pay to win tactics were invented for mobile games just ain't true. There's isn't a whole lot of difference between:

You want this super awesome weapon? You can grind for 100+ hours, or you can just pay $5 at the shop

and

You want to see the super awesome final boss? You can be really, really good, or you can just keep throwing in quarters for infinite lives.

[MJR]

I think most normal people have long agreed that continues are not pay to win, especially if you have tough recovery point for which you have to figure out a strategy. You literally are not quaranteed any kind of win by paying.

You can keep pumping in money until you win the game.
It is quite literally 'pay to win'.

It not like the game ever goes "y'know, the strategy for this portion really isn't that difficult. I'm not accepting your quarter for three more lives. You should be able to surmount it without"

Granted, I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate. But saying that shameless pay to win tactics were invented for mobile games just ain't true. There's isn't a whole lot of difference between:

You want this super awesome weapon? You can grind for 100+ hours, or you can just pay $5 at the shop

and

You want to see the super awesome final boss? You can be really, really good, or you can just keep throwing in quarters for infinite lives.

Shameless pay to win tactics were invented for mobile games. People can keep claiming otherwise until they are blue in the face. Mobile games were the ones that had things like timeout lock, player retention, infinite sinks. Coin ops had differences, but they never reached the same heights.

Since you are clearly knowledgeable, I am sure you know inform us peons how which coin ops used clear monetization. Just claiming "continues" is the same is not quite convincing argument in itself. Different coin ops had different ways to rip off money. Can you list which did which and which were the worst, or are you just throwing blanket statements to see if you can rile people up ?

[m.sniffles.esq]

You seem upset. Perhaps this wiki entry will make you feel better:

Due to the difficultly of their games, CAVE Interactive Co., Ltd. pledged to use all extra money their games collected by players using continues to help unwed mothers and various others in need. In fact, the 'continue charity' from DoDonPachi alone built a hospital for carpal tunnel suffers. Paul Newman couldn't even achieve this, as DoDonPachi was far more difficult than his salad dressing was tasty. Unfortunately, once they entered the mobile market, they started using this extra revenue to buy cars and boats and shit. Grim realities of capitalism always squishing youthful idealism.

So I guess I was wrong...

(PS If your uncle or something invented continues--I was unaware--and was just speaking objectively rather than personally. If it makes you feel any better, my uncle invented 99 cents...)

[MJR]

You seem upset. Perhaps this wiki entry will make you feel better:

Due to the difficultly of their games, CAVE Interactive Co., Ltd. pledged to use all extra money their games collected by players using continues to help unwed mothers and various others in need. In fact, the 'continue charity' from DoDonPachi alone built a hospital for carpal tunnel suffers. Paul Newman couldn't even achieve this, as DoDonPachi was far more difficult than his salad dressing was tasty. Unfortunately, once they entered the mobile market, they started using this extra revenue to buy cars and boats and shit. Grim realities of capitalism always squishing youthful idealism.

So I guess I was wrong...

(PS If your uncle or something invented continues--I was unaware--and was just speaking objectively rather than personally. If it makes you feel any better, my uncle invented 99 cents...)

Well, I was kinda wanting to give you a chance to show your knowledge about arcade games and their monetization; you could have listed Space Harrier and Gauntlet and Salamander with their buy-in lives as a good example of monetization in coin-ops, and removal of checkpoints on Toaplan games which turned them little bit closer to monetization.

But seeing what you wrote instead, it seems like I have been again entertaining just another troll. This is fine. You do you

[Jonpachi]

I do find the premise of the question quite odd tbh, they are just individual developers that are ofcourse influenced by their country, ethics and whatnot but you can't just generalize groups of people in this way and just assume they are "all the same".

This is a fair criticism, and I see now I poorly worded my question. My question should have been, "Are there any truly impossible shmups?"

I find it really interesting that we don't have clear examples of a dev simply making literally impossible sections of their games, as it seems to me, if properly done, very few players would have actually noticed or even complained. The popular opinion among my age group growing up was that ALL arcade games are evil, and absolutely become impossible at some point. The infamous, "Give us your quarter," moments if you will.

And yet, NO, game devs did have an unspoken code of ethics, possibly only out of fear of legal retribution for betraying the law of skill-based gaming vs gambling. I was curious if any interviews had ever surfaced in which any devs talked about this tension, and how they navigated the scene. There are weekly blogs (Deconstructor of Fun, etc) that spend pages and pages breaking down monetization tactics in FTP games, but I've never seen anything from back in the day about the choices that arcade game devs made.

[m.sniffles.esq]

Well, I was kinda wanting to give you a chance to show your knowledge about arcade games and their monetization; you could have listed Space Harrier and Gauntlet and Salamander with their buy-in lives as a good example of monetization in coin-ops, and removal of checkpoints on Toaplan games which turned them little bit closer to monetization.

Hows about I expound upon peep shows/loop booths*?

-Drop in a quarter
-You have 30 seconds to get your rocks off until the shudder drops
-Don't succeed? Drop in another quarter. This time you'll do it!
-Don't succeed? Drop in another quarter

Sound familiar?

Strategy... Love it

(♪don't give up♪)

(*sorry, for all the kids out there, a loop booth was a booth that would show an 8mm porno is a loop, which a customer could pay a quarter and watch 30 seconds per for purposes of jerking off. Quite common in NY during my childhood. Otherwise known as the original pac-man, as arcades replaced these palaces of sin moving into the '80s. NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER)

[Randorama]

I do find the premise of the question quite odd tbh, they are just individual developers that are ofcourse influenced by their country, ethics and whatnot but you can't just generalize groups of people in this way and just assume they are "all the same".

This is a fair criticism, and I see now I poorly worded my question. My question should have been, "Are there any truly impossible shmups?"

I find it really interesting that we don't have clear examples of a dev simply making literally impossible sections of their games, as it seems to me, if properly done, very few players would have actually noticed or even complained. The popular opinion among my age group growing up was that ALL arcade games are evil, and absolutely become impossible at some point. The infamous, "Give us your quarter," moments if you will.

And yet, NO, game devs did have an unspoken code of ethics, possibly only out of fear of legal retribution for betraying the law of skill-based gaming vs gambling. I was curious if any interviews had ever surfaced in which any devs talked about this tension, and how they navigated the scene. There are weekly blogs (Deconstructor of Fun, etc) that spend pages and pages breaking down monetization tactics in FTP games, but I've never seen anything from back in the day about the choices that arcade game devs made.

Well, if you have a lot of patience and time:

Blackoak's translations, and shmuplations. Many interviews discuss how shmup programmers approached game design and difficulty setting, but I don't think you will obtain one clear-cut picture without reading a substantial amount of them and drawing your own conclusions with a bit of time to put together the pieces of the puzzle.

Please however avoid claiming that Japanese developers had "unspoken codes of ethics" unless you can give us substantial proof in one form or another. In Japan, even Pachinko is not really considered gambling, and most gambling other forms. If you wish to argue something regarding laws and definitions about gambling and videogames, please use references to Japanese laws (because, you know, shmups, Cave, Japan, etc. Do I need to make cranky, mean-spirited jokes about US-centrism?).

On the question:

"Are there any truly impossible shmups?"

You can answer yourself by checking if there are games that no human being has 1-CC'ed without cheating and/or other TAS techniques. The problem I see with this question, anyway, is that it is orthogonal to the title of the thread unless you can prove that it is "unethical" to prevent players from 1-CC'ing a game via dedicated stage design (e.g. you reach the final boss and it's automatic game over!).

There's a few who are truly borderline cases (i.e. there are like 5 people who can 1-CC them/have 1-CC'ed them), but that's it. The shmups difficulty wiki does discuss some cases, if you have the patience to read a lot of fluff.

...and then the overbearing coda: the popular opinion of your age group growing up was probably completely based on absolute lack of knowledge of the subject matter, stereotypes and random unjustified beliefs (a bit like programs of political parties, yes). I agree with Harlan Ellison: "Everybody is entitled to their informed opinion". You can now read a lot of relevant material on the topic and form your own informed opinion. Please enjoy.