Today some people evaluate games based on their length (e.g. 30+hours), map size (e.g. 40-60 sq. km), etc., so it made me wonder what metrics people may have used for arcade games.
How fun the game was at the cost of a credit.
If the game was not fun enough to justify spending the nickel/quarter to play, then it was a bad game.
The really good games were known in my area as the “quarter guzzlers.” Because they were extremely fun, but still hard, meaning you wanted to keep playing at the cost of the quarter or credit per play. And you’d end up dumping multiple dollars into the machine before you knew it.
For players, the length of play you’d likely get out of a single credit.
For owners, the amount of money a given cabinet could make, on average, per week.
Whether it was a “quarter eater” or not was a big one. Some games were seen as having unfair levels of difficulty that were just designed to take your money. Take something like Haunted Castle as an example.
There wasn’t much thought behind it other than “is it fun” or “is it new”.
There was huge word of mouth whenever a new machine dropped and kids would ride their bikes from store to store to see the new ones.
This was before arcades started collecting them. Arcade machines were just at the local bars, Pizza shops, 7-11s, and grocery stores.
Bars would set them up in non-age restricted areas so kids could play.
Quarters?
