I saw it was at like 6k yesterday and didn't think it would make it. Hotness.
I saw it was at like 6k yesterday and didn't think it would make it. Hotness.
ITT: Number shuffler gives art lesson.
it was super interesting to read through all this, even if I missed funding the game.
I like their approach since it seems to be the same that Yacht Club Games had with Shovel Knight. Don't do a blocky style and call it '8-bit' but actually know the original hardware limits that resulted in the look and adhere to it.
Such restrictions can breed creative results. If anyone's familiar, Red Letter Media does this whole commentary series on why the Star Wars prequels are so bad. The sticking point in my mind (and relevant to this) is that when Lucas was completely unrestricted in what he could have, things went to shit. Having practical or imposed limits can keep you focused, or safe from gorging on your own creative excess, and Lucas was sorely lacking in that with I-III. In IV-VI the ways in which he was limited actually yielded in some good results. Why ever have practical effects again, if CG can give you literally whatever you want on screen without limitations? Because sometimes solving the problem with limits yields results that can stand the test of time, than just be pretty in the moment, to be outdated later when CG improves even further.
To tie it back to games - something designed around the NES' limitations, with deliberate intent, may give a more long-lasting, timeless look than if they had all the budget and resources in the world without direction or limits. Think about more modern 2D games...how many could you honestly say hits the points of not just looking advanced, but will remain appealing long after its newness is outclassed?
Or to tie it to painting - regardless of style, one thing that's near-continuous in the discipline is creating a limited palette. Deliberately restricting the colors you can use...and why? It actually helps build color harmony in the piece, helps the artist better see colors as relative to one another than as absolutes, and trains them to create solutions that may be interesting, inventive, or overlooked had they been able to use any and every color instead...
Then there's the straight pragmatism of such restrictions. You know you have a small team, limited budget, but still want to create a visually appealing, well-crafted, artful look? Swing low! Use a style that's proven to give timeless results without requiring a staff of hundreds. Not every developer can be Double Fine, asking for millions over and over again to create super-beautiful games that take forever and a day to create while breaking the bank.
To me, it isn't about 'retro' being played out. It's that any style - 8-bit, 16, pixel, low poly, hi poly, flash, traditional animation, et al - can be good if it's created well and with deliberate intent. Like Yacht Club Games did. Like these guys seem to be doing. Like Ubisoft pulled with Grown Home. You can make something look good without it needing to be cutting edge. Or if it IS cutting edge, you better hope it's more than just that. Otherwise the aesthetic will be easily forgotten the second the next big visual advancement happens.
This reminds me mostly of Journey to Silius, the version with the realistic sprite not the one with the mop haired kid; but with Terminator 2 (NES) quality graphics.
None of this retro shit is going to be long lasting or timeless, because none of it is as good as what it's trying to ape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
You can argue that modern 2D games won't either, but the problem is that good developers aren't allowed or can't afford to do 2D anymore, which is the real problem. Something like SotN certainly hasn't been forgotten, despite not resulting to artificially and arbitrarily limiting itself to look like Simon's Quest.
edit: Actually, let me turn this around on you. What timeless game has instituted such arbitrary limitations?
Shovel Knight is. Fantasy Zone II DX is. Timeless games are, of course, the exception with any genre, but there are those games that nail it so perfectly they can stand alongside the great titles that inspired them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Honestly? I'm not sure yet but I don't think that means the principle doesn't exist. The notion of imposed limits for looks is still a relatively new one in game development, because most 'retro' approaches it as "make it blocky Because Nostalgia." The other reason that makes it difficult is we'd actually need time to pass to see if these deliberately-limited games stand up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Persoanlly though? I think Shovel Knight will. I think La Mulana will. I think Cave Story has so far (not sure if that one set limits on purpose, but it definitely looks like the product of restricted development). So I'm optimistic that creating a game aesthetic under certain ground rules won't prevent it from being timeless.
Guys, you aren't applying nostalgia to skew the results. We don't have nostalgia for these new games which is why they aren't as good.
Volgarr is also excellent.
I don't think Shovel Knight, La Mulana, or Cave Story are anywhere near 8-bit/16-bit classic tier, but Rockman 9, Rockman 10, and as mentioned, Fantasy Zone II DX are all worthy of their predecessors. You can argue that Volgarr shot for a 16-bit aesthetic and that game is classic-worthy. You could even look at what Cave was doing for the last half-decade as "throwback" if you really wanted (I don't really care about the intent, but they were making 240p games in 2012), and even (especially) their last games are basically the top of the genre.
I think that the visuals, like tons of other things about a given game, are a compromise in many cases, but there's more value in delivering something cohesive at a lower tech level than sloppy at a higher tech level. I think Rockman 9 will be more fondly remembered than Monster Boy.
The Locomalito stuff, too. Maldita Castilla is every bit as good as Ghouls & Ghosts, and Endless Forms Most Beautiful is in my top ten games ever made.
I'd argue the Cave games aren't at all retro, because consoles didn't exist prior to the 360 that could handle all of the sprites and effects, as evidenced by the PS2 ports. Fantasy Zone II DX is essentially a remake, so that's a bit of a stretch too. Rockman 9 & 10 are certainly in scope, but frankly it says a lot about Capcom that they chose to go backwards tech-wise with the same damn mainline series from 7 and 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tain
I don't disagree with your overall point here. Tech for the sake of tech isn't the point either, and I don't want hacks developing games with great tech but awful art deign and gameplay. Your Rockman 9 vs. Monster Boy bet is a pretty good one, because the art design in Monster Boy is as questionable as the tech decision in Rockman. They're both handicapped.Quote:
I think that the visuals, like tons of other things about a given game, are a compromise in many cases, but there's more value in delivering something cohesive at a lower tech level than sloppy at a higher tech level. I think Rockman 9 will be more fondly remembered than Monster Boy.
The latter is another remake, right? The former might as well be, although it raises an interesting question that I hadn't previously considered: Is there value in continuing discontinued series in the style in which they left off? Thinking "out loud," Maldita Castilla comes across less lazy to me than Rockman 9, because GnG never evolved beyond 16-bit in its mainline form. Thus, MC didn't go backwards for the sake of cost cutting, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasteel
when can I pirate it
By "it" you mean the Locomalito stuff? It's freeware. You'll never be able to pirate it. Just go download it.
It's a real shame, too.
A cracktro would really add to the retro feel.
I'm not entirely sure of the facts, but my understanding is that it's a remake of a Spectrum game that was made by a guy named Dave Hughes but within the last few years. It's not an old game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I understand where you're coming from, but it's the concept of evolution that I'm not sure has any real substance. I don't think many fans would ever prefer Megaman 7 or 8 to Megaman 2 (bear in mind I haven't played 9 or 10 so have no horse in the race). Likewise, Super Mario 3 on SNES/GBA is not as good as NES. New Super Mario Bros seems retro when compared to Super Mario 64, but I doubt an N64 could do it, or likewise (more of a stretch) Link Between Worlds seems like a throwback versus Twilight Princess, but LBTW runs at 60fps. There are 3d remakes and sequels to a lot of classic Sega joints on PS2 but I doubt many of them could be considered a step forward in any way.Quote:
The former might as well be, although it raises an interesting question that I hadn't previously considered: Is there value in continuing discontinued series in the style in which they left off? Thinking "out loud," Maldita Castilla comes across less lazy to me than Rockman 9, because GnG never evolved beyond 16-bit in its mainline form. Thus, MC didn't go backwards for the sake of cost cutting, etc.
Right, but neither of the older games is better for technical reasons. If you could get MM2 to look exactly like MM8 but play exactly like MM2, it would be better than both MM8 and the original MM2. I haven't played the SNES or GBA versions of SMB3, but I suspect it's similar in that they broke something else while updating the graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasteel
I wouldn't call NSMB or LBW retro at all, because that would basically imply that anything 2D is retro, and that's probably part of the overall problem here. Some people really do feel that way.Quote:
New Super Mario Bros seems retro when compared to Super Mario 64, but I doubt an N64 could do it, or likewise (more of a stretch) Link Between Worlds seems like a throwback versus Twilight Princess, but LBTW runs at 60fps.
Following on from above, going from 2D to 3D is a whole different animal. I simply want to see new 2D games that actually try to utilize the hardware on which they're running. Although I'm not a fan of the subseries, NSMB is what I'm talking about. Where is the equivalent for many other classic series or new IPs? For example, no one can convince me that a new 2D Castlevania would not have made more money for Konami than LoS, and I actually like LoS. I'm even fine if they fake it like GG Xrd. Lie to me with polygons. If I basically can't tell the difference, I don't care.Quote:
There are 3d remakes and sequels to a lot of classic Sega joints on PS2 but I doubt many of them could be considered a step forward in any way.
Agree with Yoshi 100% here.
The Ted Turner of TNL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Do I get to own a baseball team? If so, sold.
Yes, but you have to build around this guy:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ptonbj01.shtml
I can work with Melvin Jr.
Your mom can work with Melvin Jr.
Cliff Harris gets it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GI
Lots of them take the 8-bit look, but then you get things like Megaton Rainfall-
The developers who can use 8-bit as a valid art style will do ok, those who use it get work done cheap won't do as well. Example of one that does it right- Axiom Verge.
Gets what, exactly? I don't see how someone choosing an art style that may be limited by programmers doing the art has anything to do with the usage of Unity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Unity is frequently garbage, but that's got nothing to with pixel art vs. performance vs. engine selection. When was the last time someone even used pixel art as an excuse for performance? That whole thing sounds like an imaginary argument he came up with.