> > Probably not is better than not. I live in hope! I would just define it as "Arcade"
> > but there is obviously a plan behind what appears to be madness!
> The trouble is "arcade" is difficult to define.
> Think about gambling machines. Should it include gambling machines from regions where
> they're legal in "arcades" (e.g. UK)? What about gambling machines from regions where
> they're illegal in arcades and aren't found there (e.g. Australia)? What about
> gambling machines from regions where they widely illegally operated in arcades (e.g.
> Also, pinball machines designed for public use would get grouped under "arcade" but
> that probably isn't what a lot of front-end users actually want.
> Would you include note changing machines? They typically show up in arcades. But then
> the complementary machine, a coin counting machine that delivers a receipt or an
> upchanging machine that counts coins and gives notes, are usually found in banks, not
> If anything does show up in the XML, it won't be an "is arcade game" flag, because
> that's too problematic to define.
I agree with you. It will be hard to define and be "clean" at the same time from one kind of perspective.
Although, my point is its a no brainer and 5 minutes to do just "arcade". If we take our monster brains out of the question it just seems silly. You can compile as Arcade but you cant list Arcade. Its just plain as day to me. Although if I want to I can easily overcomplicate it too.
I think its something that should be considered in the future to perhaps do clearly define what the machines are. It would be incredibly useful and purposeful although that's not a 5 minute job obviously. A lot of that work has been done elsewhere but I think it would be great if it was core.
Again, I have no complaints and people were given a solution in the second post of this topic.