What draws you to retro games?

[Anonymous No.675291]

Specifically, 8 or 16-bit 2D games? Is it the style? The gameplay? Do you only like one genre, or do your favorite games just happen to be 'retro'?

I'm asking because my friend and I are working on a pseudo 8-bit game as a fun project (yeah yeah, another 'retro indie platformer') and I just want to know what other people like about those types of things.

[Anonymous No.675306]

I like how there are typically more dinosaurs in 8 and 16-bit games. You should add plenty of dinosaurs to your game

[Anonymous No.675310]

>>675306
>implying our entire game isn't already about dinosaurs

[Anonymous No.675313]

>>675306
Also birds. People forget that birds are dinosaurs and forget to include them.

[Anonymous No.675321]

I think the visual and gameplay conventions of older games give you a pretty good "language" with which to convey things to the player in a way that they'll understand.

[script writer kibe No.675324]

>>675291
I think it has to do with the fact that there's a little bit more of a challenge since we unfortunately live in a world where causal players are king and hardcore gamers get tossed to the wind.

[Anonymous No.675325]

I think the visual and game design conventions of older games give you a pretty good "language" with which to convey things to the player in a way that they'll understand.

[Anonymous No.675328]

I grew up with them, and they're just so addictive. I like that they're short and sweet and I can pretty much pic them up and play them at any time. HOWEVER, if I was looking at a new retro-style game, I would personally want something that sets it apart from the old games rather than just copying them. It stops being interesting and starts being generic when it's just a clone of an old game. That's why I've lost interest in the current Mario and Sonic games, but that's for another thread.

[Anonymous No.675332]

>>675324
This. There aren't any tutorials, hand holding, or easy gameplay mechanics (slow mo, endless gadgets, perks). The best retro are hard but fair

[Anonymous No.675336]

Please don't forget the Dinos

[Anonymous No.675342]

The history.

[Anonymous No.675359]

>>675291
Personally, a lot about it for me is the gameplay. Gameplay concepts have changed over the years, and games lately seem to be "just keep at it long enough and you'll win" at their most difficult. I enjoy a game where I have to pay attention and put serious effort in, that also isn't made purely to push my shit in as often as possible. Difficulty balance is something older games got right much more often than more recent titles, partly due to market casualization, and also because more complex systems are more difficult to balance.

Also, having a complex game with a simple control scheme appeals to me. It's fun to have something that just about anyone can pick up and figure out easily, but that takes effort to master and understand the nuances.

As far as graphics, 2-d sprite based artwork allows for a lot more fanciful designs, and more iconic characters. The less detail something has (to a point) the more easily recognizable it is. It's also neat to see how graphics designers use a relatively simple graphic to convey a more complex idea.

Also, please for the love of god, if you're planning on using low fidelity graphics ("psuedo 8 bit") put in the effort and make it actually 8-bit. At the very least enforce consistent pixel size and detail level. Nothing pisses me off more than shit where you have graphics ripped from the NES next to shit from SNES, all scaled to different sizes.

Also >>675332
>hard but fair
and >>675328
>something that sets it apart

[Anonymous No.675360]

>>675342

Yes, the history of dinosaurs and birds is always what drew me to older games

[Anonymous No.675368]

>>675306
I remember that thread on /v/.

[Anonymous No.675398]

>>675291

Many games are designed gameplay first; they give you a set of tools, and then problems to solve with those tools. That method of game design isn't as common with modern AAA titles, though it's still frequent in smaller games.

[ParkerPeters !K/SBi83mqI No.675402]

>>675291

I like how games of the era are more centered around fun and compelling gameplay, and are more of "games" than the games of today are. they are just better, more solidly built play experiences with set rules and more focused interactivity than the interactive movies we are starting to see emerge. Not that modern games are bad, they just aren't as good at being games.

[Anonymous No.675418]

>>675324

that's retarded, most retro games are not hardcore

[Anonymous No.675441]

I would be lying if I didn't include that a small part of it is nostalgia.

But, I like the graphics and the challenge some games give you. Even if it's not a hard game, you have to figure some things out on your own in older games because the game didn't tell you everything.


Also basically everything said in this thread.

[Anonymous No.675480]

>>675359
>Also, please for the love of god, if you're planning on using low fidelity graphics ("psuedo 8 bit") put in the effort and make it actually 8-bit. At the very least enforce consistent pixel size and detail level. Nothing pisses me off more than shit where you have graphics ripped from the NES next to shit from SNES, all scaled to different sizes.
OP here, mother of god, don't worry. That shit's nasty. My friend and I are going to stick to one graphical style.

When I say 'psuedo 8-bit', I mean more in terms of the color palette is going to have a wider range and that we won't have the memory limitations and whatnot.

[Anonymous No.675489]

>>675418
This. I hate when people talk about retro and all I think of is the egoraptor mmx "sequelitis"
>NO TUTORIAL FUCKING HARDCORE SECRETS AND SHIT
but in retrospect, some of those decisions were hilariously bad. They encouraged the use of tiplines and things of the sort (.99/min), and buying of strategy guides etc, game companies were well aware of potential market for difficulty. Now lets just forgo all that for a minute, regardless, for every one megaman or mario there were twenty Friday the 13th's or Super Pitfalls.

There's nothing that particularly draws me personally to 8bit or 16bit, anymore than 32 or 128, its the concept of (as cliche as it sounds) "heart", how much effort I feel was truly put forth to expanding the developers imagination and allowing me to personalize that experience. The greater the impact, the better the game. If there was challenge along the way that made hardships worthwhile, all the better. So to speak, I do find most games pre 2005 to have a bit more heart, but I don't miss the constant shovelware of the late 80s and 90s. Its a mixed bag.

[Anonymous No.675492]

>>675480
What do you have so far? What aspects of the game are going to set the tone in terms of design for the rest of it?

We could give you more advice if we had some idea of what kind of game you were planning to make (size, scope, linear or nonlinear, etc).

[Anonymous No.675528]

I enjoy the artstyles. 3D games that go for an interesting and beautiful style are rare. I also enjoy arcade games that I can fire up at any time or platformers beatable in an evening.

[Anonymous No.675540]

>>675291
I like old games because they are so simple that little could go wrong when they were made. Things were so much better when floating-point physics didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.675572]

>>675489
>egoraptor mmx "sequelitis"

no, the whole hardcore shit comes from arcades and was later imported to the NES and home consoles which featured very simple and easy games in the beginning. I mean excitebike and Duck hunt aren't exactly hard to get into and don't really punish you much.

Those games were the heart and soul of NES and not the shitty SMUPS and Impossiblu bad platformers shooters

[Anonymous No.675602]

Nostalgia, I guess, considering I have been playing these games since they were new.

That and the fact that I haven't been interested in pretty much anything since 2007-ish. This gen just sucks.

[Anonymous No.676005]

I like that there is no fucking around. You press start at the title screen and there is usually a maximum of a minute before you start to play the game and the game doesn't interrupt you. The games have simple control schemes so there isn't a need for a tutorial and also leaves some room for experimentation for players. You are usually doing something in a game, it isn't just a flat land, something is always happening, you have to platform, dodge or destroy enemies or their shots, and so on.

[Anonymous No.677841]

>>675492
I don't want to give away too much (plus it's alpha build so it's kind of shitty right now), but it's your basic side-scrolling action platformer. The main character has a long scarf, and you 'twirl' to whip the scarf around and hurt enemies. Twirl is a girly word, it honestly looks cooler than that. You can do other things with the scarf, too, like grab onto enemies, ledges, swing across gaps, etc.

Anyway, right now we have a hub world with several areas, and within those areas are going to be a couple of levels with multiple bosses.

Our goal with this game is to deliver a really solid experience without extraneous shit like a 'deep' story or what have you. Just pure, jump-right-in gaming. This thread seems to express the sentiment that they like challenge, and we do plan challenge.

However, with how casualized the market is nowadays, if we want to sell it or anything we'll probably end up having to put difficulty levels you can choose at the start or something.

[Anonymous No.677875]

>>677841
Also, we're debating on whether the game should be totally linear, semi-linear, or nonlinear. Linear may help with difficulty scaling and provide a very overall satisfying experience; semi-linear might be more challenging for us to get the difficulty scaling right, but it would offer up choice to players (which I hear is a big thing nowadays); and nonlinear (like Megaman or something) would allow players to complete the game in whatever they want, but may be harder to do the difficulty scaling unless we make the entire thing hard or easy depending on the setting, if that makes sense.

What do you guys think?

[Anonymous No.677901]

I don't really enjoy "retro" styled indie games as much as the games they are inspired by
Why not try to do something original?

[Anonymous No.677925]

The gameplay, mainly.
Easy to learn (usually, then again the people in that Super Metroid thread that can't figure it out are just plain fucking stupid by that point), but very difficult to master.
Sure, you could probably get through the first level, but can you beat it on your first run? Some, perhaps. Most, absolutely not.
It provides a sort of everlonging desire to play it to beat it, but it takes time to be good, unless you're a faggot that uses a guide.
The art is nice too, but I think it's nice because it is the ceiling of that platform at that time. Indie devs don't get this shit and make their games look like a potato because "HURR RETRO XD".
If you want to go for retro correctly, try to make a ROM for a retro console, or at least look like it.

[Anonymous No.677973]

>>675291

[Anonymous No.677993]

>>677901

Because that's hard and we just want to cash in on other people's success

[Anonymous No.678018]

>>677901
OP here. Because it's an easy--relatively speaking--first project.

Once we finish this we plan to do a 3D game that'll probably take us 6 or more years to complete if it's just us. And it'll have N64 Zelda-esque graphics because fuck if nobody else does, we adore that style. It's going to be a labor of love.

[Anonymous No.678037]

For me it's just about having fun, it's really fucking hard for me to get into grimdark-super realistic-iron sites on my knife games. I like childish and fun RPG's and outrageous FPS's. Chrono trigger and Doom/Duke3d for example. That isn't to say I don't like some modern games just that those are the reasons I like retro ones.

[Anonymous No.678082]

Simplicity, definitely.

Especially the games that didn't even have a menu. They were just power and play.

Not that I don't appreciate how far story-inclusion has come in games, but when you need a quick thing to keep you occupied while eating lunch, retro is unchallenged.

[Anonymous No.678084]

>>675324
>>675332
you are the people that make the rest of use look bad

[Anonymous No.678124]

>>677973

[Anonymous No.678179]

>>677875
I would think of Maga Man as semi-linear
to me non-linear is more like Metriod or something, and really I don't think the level of challenge of the game has more to do with how the game is designed than how linear it is..

[Anonymous No.678201]

>>675291
I can play them for free.

[Anonymous No.678218]

>>678179
Well, the idea of Mega Man is that it's nonlinear, but ultimately...yeah, there's a best way to go through the game.

What I mean by the challenge is that if it's nonlinear, you can't have some levels be 'easier' in order to ease the players into the control scheme, it has to be all just about one difficulty level.

[Anonymous No.678219]

>>678037
yeah, I feel the same way, everyone raves about how "great" and "mindblowing" and "artistic" things like Perfect Dark are... but really... if I want some deep artistic statement about life I can just watch a film

[Anonymous No.678232]

>>678219
>deep artistic
>film

Funny guy.

[Anonymous No.678235]

>>678219
...nobody calls Perfect Dark "artistic", that's a prime example of a game valued for its mechanics rather than its presentation

[Anonymous No.678242]

The fact that gameplay is far, far more prevalent than the cinematic storytelling camera effect bullshit that infests modern gaming.

The fact that games with a heavy focus on story do not sacrifice gameplay for said story.

The fact that games with a heavy focus on story are usually chock full of originality instead of being fratdudebroguy420erryday fighting terrorists for freedom.

The fact that they are ripe with atmosphere and immersion thanks to excellent soundtracks and combat mechanics that make you feel like an actual badass one man army instead of a guy who hugs walls and absorbs bullets.

The fact that they were made by people that cared.

[Anonymous No.678245]

>>678235
I've seen Perfect Dark stupidly hailed as a great artist expression of life and death or something similar a million times in the media recently

[Anonymous No.678246]

>>678232
not all films are hollywood blockbusters you know

[Anonymous No.678254]

>>678245
oh fuck... I had perfect dark confused for something else, I'm an idiot

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.678272]

>>675328
Pretty much this. Modern games are often inflated to absurd lengths with tutorials, cutscenes, and other filler. Maybe I just wanna PLAY a game, not put an engagement ring on it.

[Anonymous No.678280]

>>678084
Whats wrong with wanting hard but fair games?

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.678285]

>>678272
Oh yeah, and I forgot to explain the image:

I think it's really impressive what people were able to do back in the day with such limited color palettes. Pic related, fifteen colors in that image. And only ONE of them is brown.

[Anonymous No.678295]

>>678084
Are you sure that's not the autism making you look bad?

Because it looks bad from here.

[Anonymous No.678308]

>>675291
I like retro games because they feel secure.
Either I have played them so many times, I have all the hints and tricks memoroized. Or I have played similar games and I am already pretty good at them.

I am practiced at them, unlike new games where I have to learn new skills.

[Anonymous No.678320]

>>678308
So you play retro games because you fear change?

[Anonymous No.678328]

>>678295
I can guarantee he doesn't have diagnosed autism

[Anonymous No.678343]

>>678295
He's right, though. Anyone who talks about retro games that feels the need to talk shit about modern games design just to make point is rather unsightly. This isn't "/vr/ - Let's complain about modern games". Let's just leave that to /v/ and drop the baggage at the door.

[Anonymous No.678352]

>>678320
I play video games to feel good about myself

I play games I will be successful at

[Anonymous No.678393]

My biggest draw to them is the music. I love it so much, it was always so catchy. I want to know what happened between having no ability to create music yet making it god-teir and now having the ability to have full-orchestral scores and it's mostly shit.
>inb4 only the good is remembered.

[Anonymous No.678416]

>>675291
Various gimmicks, and now that the technology can do it, you could try to do the scenario the most interactive possible. Skills is a good plus too, i personally love characters that can do a fuckton of skills, instead of doing the same boring jump jump walk jump crouch jump (repeat until the end of the game).
Also, music. As most platformers don't have time to develop a good story (but you should), you could try to cover it with good music. Good games are always remembered by their music.

[OP No.678431]

>>678416
>Also, music. As most platformers don't have time to develop a good story (but you should), you could try to cover it with good music. Good games are always remembered by their music.
Yeah, this is the one thing my friend and I have no skill whatsoever for, so we're going to hire someone. But he and I both have a great love of 8-bit tunes, so we'll make sure to get someone good.

[Anonymous No.678438]

Nostalgia. I also like how many games were simplier, but more difficult than what games are now. They're perfect as well for the, dare I say it, casual player as well in that many of them you can just pick up and put down after a few minutes, such as when you're short on time. Also back then there was just something different. I guess the only way to describe it is many times it felt like the game was a real work of love from the developers, as if they genuinely enjoyed what they were doing. There are other reasons but I'm afraid that if I say what it will start something.

[Anonymous No.678442]

>>678431
>Hire
Are you going to sell your game?

[Anonymous No.678448]

>>678343

[OP No.678456]

>>678442
Hopefully. Otherwise, we have backup money that we can use for commission.

[Anonymous No.678556]

By limiting available resources for graphics, a state of near perfect signal to noise ratio is achieved. Everything on the screen has to correspond to a tangible, important gameplay element, or the developer wouldn't waste VRAM on it. The more able we become to make things pretty, it seems, the more window dressing we add without a corresponding increase in game depth. An example that is dear to me: suppose the developer wants to add a feature wherein some of the walls can be broken, and wants them to appear subtly cracked; is it easier to convey to the player (subtly) that a wall is cracked when there are enough hi-res wall textures to line the state of Texas in your game, or is it easier when you have exactly 64 tiles to use for walls and 128 colors? I think the latter would be better because in the former case, there is so much meaningless detail that trying to pick out the signal in the noise is a chore.

tl; dr - exact one to one correspondence between elements important to playing the game and visible/audible media.

[Anonymous No.678558]

>>675291
Gameplay.
I like to play games. New games don't let you play them. So retro it is.

[Anonymous No.678725]

>>678431
Do you have someone in mind to compose the music already?

[Anonymous No.678789]

>>675313
Colloquial use of the word dinosaurs implies dinosaur related species from the Triassic to early Cretaceous periods. Not modern Aves.
It's why 'dinosaurs' are extinct. Not, endangered.

[Anonymous No.678816]

>>678789
Well, actually it implies reptilia related. Pterodactyls aren't dinosaurs, but people will call it one. Because it's from that period.

[Anonymous No.678837]

I can sum it up in the phrase "ten minutes to learn, a lifetime to master". That's the key for me with games.
Modern day video games are like Dominion or Settlers of Catan or more accurately those old tabletop war games. They're really fun, but they are burdened with rules and complexities and nuances.
Older games are like chess or go. You can learn how to play in less than an hour, but you can spend the rest of your life learning the intricacies.
This isn't to say you can't spend your life learning the ins and outs of modern games and having a great time doing it, but then again, you better be able to with how complex they are. I just love that ratio of simple rules/gamplay leading to seemingly unbounded possibility.

[Anonymous No.678839]

It's just a video game to me.

If a game is old, I don't really pay attention. I just play a game, and make sure I have a mindset as if I was playing it at release.

[OP No.678890]

>>678725
Not at all. I thought I could look at some various remixers and email them once we have an actual demo of the game up. Do you have any suggestions?

[Anonymous No.678915]

>>678890
I do love retro video games and have a degree in music (not in composition, but that would probably be overkill anyway). If you're interested, I think it would be a lot of fun.

[OP No.678975]

>>678915
My email's in the proper field, feel free to hit me up and we can talk more about it.

[Anonymous No.678985]

>>678975
Email sent!

[Anonymous No.679580]

>>675291
On the subject of purely the visual aspect of sprite games, think of it this way...

There are two artists - one is only allowed to use a palette of three colors for a landscape painting. It takes a lot of experimenting and effort, but in the end the picture will come out visually amazing.

Then there's the other artist. Not only is he allowed to use practically any color of paint he can think of, he's actually expected to use every single color he can. He's also allowed (and expected) to use practically anything he can find in his house. He's expected to make a painting exponentially larger than the other artist, within the same time frame. One of two things will happen: Either this artist will simply default back to a realistic, and ultimately uninteresting representation of the landscape so that he's in the safe zone, or he will start smearing spaghettios and his own feces over the canvas to try and appeal to shock value.

That's basically how I feel about retro games vs modern games.

[Gray Blob !1fuckupmdM No.679707]

The colors are a powerful factor for me.

Not that modern games are all devoid of it, or that all retro games are "colorful", but the hardware limitations didn't allow for as much blending or filtering, so vibrant contrasts and objects that stood out even if they were relegated to the background were common.

[Anonymous No.681090]

>>678018
The "secret" for a good, retro-style indie game is of course the gameplay and the levels design. Even games with gameplay that look or sound generic can make the difference with good level design and gameplay. Take for example some games made from this guy:
http://www.locomalito.com/
And instead of asking other people what they like in retro games, you should also ask youself why you like them.

[Anonymous No.681104]

>>679707
That. Also the wackiness in lots of retro video games (both japanese and western ones) is something you rarely see in modern games.

[Anonymous No.681113]

Fixed 60fps, low control latency, time limits, limited lives, sparse checkpoints.

Fixed 120fps would be even better, and you can always skip every other frame for 60Hz monitors. In general fixed framerate is better than variable framerate because it's always perfectly consistent and has minimum latency:
http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/fix-your-timestep/

[Anonymous No.681226]

>>678124

[Anonymous No.681449]

>>678556
>is it easier to convey to the player (subtly) that a wall is cracked when there are enough hi-res wall textures to line the state of Texas in your game, or is it easier when you have exactly 64 tiles to use for walls and 128 colors? I think the latter would be better because in the former case, there is so much meaningless detail that trying to pick out the signal in the noise is a chore.

Good insight.

[Anonymous No.681732]

>>678343
It isn't "just to make a point".
OP asked "What draws you to retro games?" and "do your favorite games just happen to be 'retro'?"
Those people were explaining that they think newer games are too easy and hold your hand too much, so they prefer retro games.
It's perfectly on topic.
If you disagree, then disagree, but don't be a faggot about other people expressing on topic opinions.

[Anonymous No.681816]

>>678556
No, I don't think I can agree with this at all.
How obvious something like cracks are has absolutely nothing to do with texture quality, and everything to do with what the developer is trying to do - how obvious they want the cracked wall to be.
You make it sound like all detail is meaningless noise, but that's a load of shit. A modern game can subtly guide you with lighting, or have light streaming through cracks in a wall, or use its greater detail to show greater wall instability.
Look at a game like Metroid Prime. Breakable walls are real obvious there.
Look at a game like StarTropics and StarTropics 2, or an early 3D game like Descent. Yeah... fake walls are kind of obscure...

[Anonymous No.682027]

>>681449
Thanks! Here's another.

2D is at least as good as or better than 3D for most games. There are two reasons - most games (platformers, flight sims, and arcade-style fighters are exceptions) do not use the vertical dimension in a meaningful way, i.e. if you played an FPS or racing game from a top-down perspective, the outcome of the game would be essentially the same; second, it is next to impossible to elegantly control a gameplay mechanic that actually does use all 3 dimensions because traditional game controllers (i.e. not motion controllers) have only 2 axes, thus forcing you to use two or three sets of controller elements just to control the motion and rotation of your character.

As an example of how this limitation affects mechanics, consider two 3D games that give the player the power of telekinesis: Advent Rising and Bioshock. AR's telekinesis power lifts the target a fixed distance into the air, but allows you to freely move it in either horizontal axis, enabling you to pull things in, throw them away, and move them sideways with ease, but you can never, ever throw them up or down. In contrast, BS's telekinesis immediately pulls the object near you, allows you to rotate its trajectory in any direction you wish, and either drops it or propels it away from you, so you can throw or move something toward or away from you, but you can never simply move it from its original position in any other direction, certainly not sideways. In order to provide total control of a telekinesis power in 3D, you would need as many degrees of freedom in your controller as you do for your own character, and we simply don't have enough thumbs for that. In a 2D game, full control of a telekinesis power would be trivial to implement, and no depth of the mechanic would be lost because there is a way to implement any 3D environment feature in 2D.

tl; dr - there are only necessarily consequential differences between 2 dimensions, and the 3rd overcrowds the controller.

[Anonymous No.682031]

>>675291
Are you guys actually using an 8-bit pallete or just using MS Paint as a reference to "old-school colors" like 99% of the retro indie platformer developers do?

[Anonymous No.682041]

>>682027
What about Psi-Ops?

[Anonymous No.682045]

Most of the time its the arcadey pick-up-and-play style. Modern games force you to invest quite a lot of time into them, especially in the beginning. A retro game can be played for 15 minutes and give you a feeling that you accomplished a lot.
In the case with RPGs, the genre has just been garbage for the entire past generation, so I've been raiding through old 16-bit and PS1 era stuff I missed to get my fix.

I love tons of modern games too, but they stagnate after a while and retro games give me a nice alternative to long, complex 50 hour fps adventures.

[Anonymous No.682134]

>>681816
This is fine if you want a handful of breakable walls across a whole game. In fact, modern graphics do make it very easy to create special exceptions from normally trivial detail. If breakable walls are important in every level, though, I certainly don't want to pick out the one texture of the million present in the level that can be broken. The developer doesn't want to manually add the subtle features you're talking about that often, either.

I suppose everyone does have a different noise tolerance, but I know I found it very difficult to pick out the (few) environment features I could interact with in games like Eternal Sonata because there was so many details that were not significant. There were areas I was stuck on all day because I didn't realize that a particular object wasn't just there for no reason like the million other decorations. Maybe it's an ADD thing, in which case I change my answer to "because I have ADD".

To clarify, I am not saying that all detail is noise. By definition, noise is not meaningful, so the examples you gave, I agree, are signal. I am saying that the vast, vast majority of graphical details added do not correspond to mechanisms that may affect the outcome of the game, and are therefore noise as far as gameplay is concerned. If you get your jollies out of graphical detail, that's fine, I'm just saying I'd rather have the details that are signal be in greater proportion.

[Anonymous No.682156]

>>682027
>2D is at least as good as or better than 3D for most games
I'm not sure I follow.
Are you saying a game like Counter Strike would work just as well with an overhead view or something, because you mostly just move around on the ground in two dimensions?
Did you forget that what you can see (and can't see), and where you are aiming, are very important parts of the game that could not really be replicated in 2D?

[Anonymous No.682164]

>>682041
can't say I've played it, but I'll bet you don't have full 3 axis control of your character and another object at the same time. Unless they use some wacky control scheme in which one or two degrees of freedom have less sensitivity than the others (e.g. triggers for moving something into/out of plane). To me that isn't satisfying either.

Note the "To me" as an indication that I am not interested in arguing over what my personal preference is or "should be".

[Anonymous No.682198]

>>682156
you can hide things just as well in an overhead shooter, though it isn't often done. You have to aim in an overhead shooter as well; in fact, you have to aim with two degrees of freedom just like an FPS, but in an FPS, the target's position on the vertical axis is far more predictable. How many times have you jumped over or ducked under an attack (intentionally) in an FPS? How many times have you been ambushed from above or below?

[Anonymous No.682203]

>>682198
I happens frequently in arena shooters. If you haven't mastered fully 3D movement you're going to lose.

[Anonymous No.682215]

>>682134
>I certainly don't want to pick out the one texture of the million present in the level that can be broken
Here you go again, suggesting that a breakable wall in a modern game would be nothing more than a slightly different texture that would be hard to notice.
It doesn't HAVE to be that way.
How hidden a breakable wall is has to do with how distinct it is from everything around it, which is entirely up to the developer, and has nothing to do with level of detail.

>>682198
>How many times have you been ambushed from above or below?
Often enough.
Things like headshots, or any body part specific damage, or weapons with gravity like grenades that you can lob over certain things by aiming higher up, or into second story windows or whatever, would be VERY difficult to do in 2D as well.
How would you even convey the open window on the second story of a building with an overhead view?

[Anonymous No.682224]

For me, a lot of the appeal in a good sidescroller comes from the tight as fuck controls.

I've tried stuff like LBP and the NSMB series but they feel floaty and loose in comparison to Mario 3 or Gimmick.

[Anonymous No.682231]

>>682156
>>682198
Almost forgot to provide an example: Brandish for SNES and PC98. Not a shooter, but you'll be killed from behind all the time.

[Anonymous No.682240]

The elitism.

[Anonymous No.682278]

>>682215
Sorry, I did use the word "texture". It's not important to my point that it's a flat graphic, though. You can indicate the breakability of a wall any way you want, make it an audio effect or vibration even, but since you're using the same level of detail to indicate nothing at all everywhere else, I have a harder time picking it out than I would without so much trivial stimulus.

With regard to grenades, second story windows, and headshots, you have a point; you would need to make your 2D shooter side scrolling to make that work.

[Anonymous No.682389]

>>682203
Indeed, there are exceptions (I've noted several entire genres) in which the extra dimension becomes an important mechanism that determines the outcome of the game. In 2D games, though, you can't really go wrong; both dimensions are almost always important. I enjoy having that assurance from classic and retro games, and that is the extent of my point in relation to this thread.

[Anonymous No.682442]

>>682278
But dude, the contrast!
THE CONTRAST!

Does it matter how detailed the cracked walls and non cracked walls are if the cracked wall is pink and everything else is green?
No.
What matters is how much the cracked wall stands out, not the level of detail.

You can't honestly tell me this cracked wall in Skyward Sword is harder to notice than the cracked walls in ALttP.

[Anonymous No.682605]

>>682442
Zelda is a bad example because they've just been making the item indicators more obvious with each game.
The clawshot has awkward targets plastered everywhere now.

[Anonymous No.682615]

>>682605
>they've just been making the item indicators more obvious with each game
SO LIKE I'VE BEEN SAYING: HOW OBVIOUS IT IS IS UP TO WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS, NOT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL.

[Anonymous No.682631]

The specific games I choose to play (I don't tend to play RPGs)...

The title screen loads. I hit start and I begin playing the game. There is more game, less cinematic experience blah blah bullshit. I appreciate that the videogame world has changed, and that AAA games have their place too. And I still play modern games. But whenever I play retro games, I just feel more 'exposed' to the raw mechanics of the game, rather than it being abstracted away in drawn-out tutorials, interrupted by cutscenes every 5 minutes and hint markers telling me exactly where to go.

[Anonymous No.682665]

>>681113
but anon, loads of old games suffered from stuttering when too many sprites had to be drawn.

[Anonymous No.682684]

I'm going to be honest here.
I grew up with an NES in my attic, and I played that thing way more than I should have.
My only computer is this thinkpad x61 I bought off ebay for $100, and I like retro games because they make me nostalgia, but also because they're guaranteed to run on this thing.

[Anonymous No.682815]

For me it's mostly the "press start to play". There's like 5 seconds between turning the game on, and actually start playing. Classic Mega Man is the perfect example of this for me, you can even choose the stage you want to start from, so it's fun to pick up and play for 10 minutes.

Today games?
Turn the game on
>Updating steam...
>Updating game...
>Checking for DLC...
Start Game
>Loading
>Developers credits
>Loading
>5 minutes long cinematic before starting
>20 mins worth of tuterial
>Another 5 minutes long cinematic
At this point you can kind of start playing maybe?
Finish a few tutorial-like missions you otherwise could've figured out yourself without the game specifically pointing and limiting your gameplay to that
>Cinematic
>Loading
>The game has crashed

Yeah... dont' do that on your game.

[Anonymous No.682859]

Simplicity, challenge etc. I like to fill the 'empty spots' with my imagination. Also the fact that older games don't treat you like an idiot with mandatory tutorial levels etc., you pretty much have to figure it all out by yourself.
Old vidya is also more varied and the userbase is more mature I think.

[Anonymous No.682894]

Honestly, the major draw to retro games for me is nostalgia. Don't get me wrong: I adore 8- and 16-bit aesthetics and music, and I appreciate the simplicity of the systems, which required developers to be more creative with limited tools at their disposal. I just can't deny the fact that the retro games I find myself replaying most often are the ones which I poured hours of my childhood into.

Pic related

[Anonymous No.682908]

I like old RPGs. Ones with needlessly complicated character building and stats that you would never touch in a thousand years after you looked them up in a guide. Those ones.

[Anonymous No.682926]

>>682908
>games that give confusingly many choices
>that amazing feel when you don't have a clue what most of them mean

[Anonymous No.683063]

>>682908
>stats that you would never touch in a thousand years after you looked them up in a guide.
I like this kind of thing too. Any games you could recommend that are like this?

[Anonymous No.683182]

I grew up during the 8/16 bit years (85-fag here)

[Anonymous No.683194]

>>683182
And...?

[Anonymous No.683254]

>>683182
That's the coolest thing I've ever read on 4chan

Please tell us more

[Anonymous No.683310]

>>678235
Perfect Dark is one of the only games I've ever played where the violence disturbed me. It hasn't got the gung-ho action movie feel of your average FPS.
IMO, that's an artistic statement of sorts.

[Anonymous No.683339]

Pseudo-NES is so overdone. You should do pseudo-DOS, with CGA or EGA graphics.

[Anonymous No.683580]

>>683339
This is a cool idea, except CGA is way too shitty to be worth revisiting. I think pseudo-PC98 would actually look the coolest, but it'd be a bit contrived since no one in the West actually grew up with that.

[mr-ringo No.683618]

basically the only reason i play retro games is to feel the nostalgia. shits crazy man

[Anonymous No.683649]

>>683339
>>683580
Hey, what if... now hold on to your hats, cause this is some crazy shit... what if: The game used a graphical style that suited the gameplay and atmosphere and whatnot, rather than trying to look like some game for some old system.

[Anonymous No.683692]

>>683649
Sure, but the graphical restrictions of older systems make for a good way to impose a consistent graphical style on the game. And if it's really intended to be an homage to older games it should look authentic, like something that actually fits the look and feel of games from back then, and not some hipster's cargo-cult pixel art bullshit that doesn't look a damn thing like a real retro game.

[Anonymous No.683715]

>>683692
>and not some hipster's cargo-cult pixel art bullshit that doesn't look a damn thing like a real retro game
How do you feel about the pixel art in games like Frogatto and Friends or The Iconoclasts?

[Anonymous No.683727]

>>683715
Looks cool; that sort of thing really isn't what I'm complaining about. I have no problem with people inventing their own graphical style for pixel art so long as they put some thought into it and don't just shit something out and go HURR THIS IS RETRO.

[Anonymous No.683740]

>>683727
But then it seems to me your complaint is more with lack of effort, and not really lack of adherence to some system's graphical limitations.

More screenshots because the game's beautiful, man.

[Anonymous No.683741]

>>675291
I like good games, and many good games happen to be 'retro'.

[Anonymous No.683745]

>>683727
You mean like this?

[Anonymous No.683759]

>>683740
Yeah true. My real point is that sticking to the actual graphical requirements of older systems is often a good approach for a 2D game's graphical style, not that it's the ONLY good approach. The comment I first responded to seemed to be mocking the idea of doing something like that, which I took issue with.

[Anonymous No.683756]

>>683715
That looks like it could have actually existed as a Saturn game or something.
a lot of those indy bullshit games like Shovel Knight just over compensate and make a pre-NES looking game because that's totally how 8-bit games looked.

[Anonymous No.683778]

>>683759
I didn't mean to mock the idea of having retro graphics, just the idea of using retro just to use them, rather than because it fits the game.

[Anonymous No.683782]

>>683756
It's amazing how few people have any idea what Atari games actually looked like. It's too bad because some of them actually looked really cool, like Demon Attack.

[Anonymous No.683802]

>>683745
exactly

[Anonymous No.683810]

>>683745
Yeah, I hate that shit. I realize that they probably don't ACTUALLY think that's what older games look like, they're probably just trying to be artsy or whatever, but it's really really obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.683823]

>>683745
This image needs more examples. Throw in some Batman.

[Anonymous No.683825]

>>683756
To me it looks more like a SNES game except with a bigger resolution. The palette sizes for most of the sprites and backgrounds seem to be in SNES territory.

[Anonymous No.683842]

>>683823

this background is quite nifty, i always thought

[Anonymous No.683852]

>>683842
>implying this wasn't going to be my next post

Totally agree. Beautiful background. Especially impressive since the NES didn't really do "yellow".

[Anonymous No.683864]

>>683745
Not sure if that's the best possible example given Little Samson came out so late in the NES's lifetime.

[Anonymous No.683876]

>>683745
the game in that image isn't actually trying to be "retro" in looks or gameplay though. The guy who made it is actually pretty good, though it's just a short game, maybe a 15 minute diversion.

[Anonymous No.683887]

>>683864
So indie devs should strive to provide the mediocrity of an average game for some system, rather than the best some system had to offer?

[Anonymous No.683953]

>>681732
>If you disagree, then disagree, but don't be a faggot about other people expressing on topic opinions.

If they can't find good reasons based off the game's own merit, then why bother? Put some thought into it.

"I love old school Zeldas because Skyward Sword is so shit."

See? This kind of reasoning is rather petty and is nothing but an excuse to shit on another game. Like I said, let's leave those kind of comparisons to /v/. Base your reasoning off the game's own merits rather than complaining about
game's failures.

[Anonymous No.683962]

>>683953
>"I love old school Zeldas because Skyward Sword is so shit."
But that ain't what they said.
They said newer games are too easy and hold your hand too much.
The obvious implications is that retro games are harder, and don't hold your hand, and they prefer the older games for this reason.
Seems perfectly valid to me.

[Anonymous No.683974]

>>683852
Aicom, alongside Capcom, knew how to make the NES look colorful.

And I think Nintendo deliberately left out yellow, seeing as the Japanese are apparently very photosensitive. And if the Famicom had Yellow, which is considered to be quite a strong and "intensive" color, they'd have to recall the system.

I personally like "Nintellow" though, because it isn't that harsh color.

[Anonymous No.683981]

>>683887
No, just saying most NES games don't look that good. The sprites in early NES games don't look very nice at all.

[Anonymous No.683983]

>The bitchin' FM synth music
>The stylized, abstract graphics that actually leave things to your imagination; why would you play a game for realism?
>The fact that vidya games knew their place and focused on gameplay rather than trying to be movies
>The lack of intrusive DRM
>The feeling that you're experiencing a labor of love rather than a cookie-cutter money-maker
>The way games typically had higher difficulty level back in the day and didn't treat their players like retarded children

[Anonymous No.684087]

>>683983
>abstract graphics that actually leave things to your imagination

Except the NES is more than capable of displaying detailed graphics. Very few games had to force the player to "use their imagination". In Mario 3, you can clearly see his details. In SMW, due to the shading, you had to make certain things out.

Come to think of it, I think the NES, due to it's simplicity in design, is the most straight forward in it's graphics. It doesn't have as many "his crown looks like it's his mouth" or "meatboy standing on a cat with a cape" pseudo interpretations that SNES graphics had.

[frenchpet !!ncjuNySUxCe No.684284]

think it has to do with the controls

[Anonymous No.684297]

Older games feel more fast paced to me.

[Anonymous No.684308]

>>683981
I agree. If you compare them to the Amiga, they look quite like rubbish

[Anonymous No.684416]

>>684087
Not really.
Just because you can roughly make out each feature doesn't mean it's "detailed". You can draw a face with single-pixel eyes, and it doesn't mean the eyes are square. That's where the imagination comes in.
Also, SNES had more colors=more definition in sprites. It was the same res, so there's no reason the NES would have an advantage.

[Anonymous No.684475]

>>684416
No, what I meant was that the NES' fewer colors work better. They're simpler, and are easier to decode. Now if you took the final boss of LttP, some would say he looked like Porky, some would say he looked like a fat lady with big lips.

[Anonymous No.684487]

>>684475
It all comes down to execution, but conceptually, SNES has more potential for graphical clarity.

[Anonymous No.684515]

>>684487
Exactly. The SNES -can- make clear graphics, it's just that a lot of them were super low res sprites that had to throw in a load of similar colors. See the SNES Final Fantasy sprites.

[Anonymous No.684531]

A tale of two games: Defender of the Crown on the C64...

[Anonymous No.684538]

>>684531
And on the NES. Personally I think the former looks better, if a bit blockier.

[Anonymous No.684572]

>>684531
>>684538
The NES is a more graphically advanced system than the C64, yet it looks like shit. That's what happens when you let 'Murricans make games on the NES. They have no fucking idea what to do. Had they hired a Japanese team (or Rare) to do it, they would've done a better job.

[Anonymous No.684624]

Modern games, with a few exceptions, just aren't fun for me.

For the most part, modern games reduced the difficulty while increasing the length. The end result is that you have 40 hours of tediously easy button hitting. There's zero challenge. Just hit the button, kill a monster, watch a cut scene, rinse, and repeat. You don't even need to look at the screen for some modern games.

That's the other thing I don't like about modern games: they try to hard to be movies. There's all this focus on making games with really "interesting" plots (and by that, I mean something a high school student would think was really "deep") and zero focus on making the gameplay compelling. The problem is that game designers aren't movie writers, and the end result is something that doesn't play well and isn't interesting to watch.

Retro games, in contrast, were 100% about the gameplay. Some have cool stories behind them, but that's bonus rather than the focus. They're technically short but present a genuine challenge in terms of difficulty.

I guess what it comes down to is that modern games don't give me what I want from video games, while retro games do. And what I want is to be challenged and be actually playing a video game rather than watching some movie in a video game.

[Anonymous No.684632]

>>684624
Oh, and modern games are full of bullshit like DLC that I really don't want to bother with.

[Anonymous No.684653]

I just like how it feels passionate. Like the developers actually enjoyed working on it despite how difficult it was.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy plenty of new games. But I can't really name that many games where it feels like it was made to be a good, fun game, instead opting for a cash-in or 2deep4u gotyay.

[Anonymous No.684656]

I think the thing that draws me to games of that era is that I felt compelled to beat them and I usually had fun doing so.

I was born in 81, so I got the right peak with NES and SNES and I transitioned well into PS1 era.

Modern games just kind of bore me. I rarely get a mix of good gameplay/storyline/controls like then. I have a lot of complaints about games of the old days, but my good experiences outweigh the bad.

[Anonymous No.684662]

>>684572
>murrika in charge of optimization

[Anonymous No.684661]

>>684572
In some ways. In others, it's more limiting in how you can use colors and attributes. For one thing, the PPU has no bitmap mode like C64, only redefinable characters.

[Anonymous No.684665]

>>684656
>I was born in 81
>inb4 wizard

[Anonymous No.684670]

>>684665
There's only a few guys on here that old and they live in their mom's basement and all that jazz.

[Anonymous No.684676]

>>684670
0/10

[Anonymous No.684690]

>>684665
I assume you children that I an a completely normal, non-deviant, non-pony loving person with a job.

[Anonymous No.684710]

>>675291
its the simplicity of gameplay and story, but also big time imagination.

so if your making a "retro" game, dont make a complicated plot. just make cool and wild designs. remember, these games are made for kids, and even the adult kids on this message board still want fun. dont make "depression:the game" or something like hotline miami. do sometihng fun that has universal appeal. gameplay should be intuitive so there should be no need for a tutorial. it should be easy to figure out how to play/what to do, but hard to accomplish.

the thing is, these retro games are only being called "hardcore" or "retro" now because modern games suck so badly. the best NES games were commercial successes, licensed games that were the epitiome of casual.

no one wants to admit it, but casual games are the most fun. casual doesnt mean easy, it just means accessible. make it your own obviously, but only tards on 4chan will be willing to invest hours playing a game to get to the good part or whatever.

oh, and brevity. the best games are pretty short.

[Anonymous No.684721]

>>684690
Eh, let the kids have their fun, they can call us fat pedorape wizards all they want.

Until I rape them.

[Anonymous No.684743]

>>684624
>>684632
It's called making games for the highest number of people (target audience being 10-18yo which ask their parents to buy them stuff) so they can get rich fast.
The learning curve doesn't exist, gameplay is shorter (max 6 hours to finish a game) and the character development is usually non-existing.
There was a time when you had to press a combo of buttons to be able to do something complex. Now you press a button in an action sequence and think you're chuck norris.

Also patches used to improve the performance or add new features, not fix the poorly tested release.

Being limited by technology made people creative, "i want to do this but i can't due to limitations, so i have to find a workaround". Think of the fog in the first SH games.

[Anonymous No.684794]

I really can't pick. Normally I'm pretty decisive about shit like this, but it just really depends on the game. I'd rather play a good 8-bit than a shitty 16-bit, and I'd rather play a good 16-bit than a shitty 8-bit.

TL;DR
Just don't make shitty games.

[Anonymous No.684824]

>>684794
>Just don't make shitty games.
>facebook games & CoD are the new trends for this generation
I'll go back in the basement and play on the P166Mhz.

[Anonymous No.684859]

>>684824
Here we go now!

[Anonymous No.684857]

>>684721
>calling people "kids"
>the number one sign you're a kid yourself
Pick both

[Anonymous No.684862]

>>684859

[Anonymous No.684879]

>>684862
>50-cent games were unheard off
has more than one meaning nowadays, and i would preferred if it stayed unheard

[Anonymous No.684884]

>>684879
Holy fuck I laughed.

[Anonymous No.684886]

>>684859
"when gameplay meant a lot more than flashy graphics and sound"

Because 500 levels of shooting spaceships on a black screen is amazing gameplay

[Anonymous No.684890]

I still play text-based adventures and enjoy them. Sure they had no graphics but the story made me imagine the greatest stuff.

[Anonymous No.684891]

>>684886
It is when you don your nostalgia goggles

[Anonymous No.684893]

>>684890
I play dwarf fortress, sure it's not retro but it's making you use logic and imagination like in the old times.

[Anonymous No.684892]

>>684879
Can't handle the Fiddy Zone?

[Anonymous No.684902]

>>675291
The fact they put more money in development rather than marketing.

[Anonymous No.684896]

>>684886
Actually the number would be 256.

[Anonymous No.684908]

>>684896
Depends on the game. Ms. Pac-Man crashes when you reach level 135.

[Anonymous No.684917]

>>675291
Better games which are not dumbed down. Look at SimCity 3000 vs Simcity 5 Online

[Anonymous No.685070]

>>684859
>>684862
Laugh all you want, but these guys have legit points.

[Anonymous No.685091]

because every single game released after January 1st, 2000 is objectively shit.

No exceptions.

[Anonymous No.685640]

>>682665
Happened very rarely if at all in the good ones, and you could often overclock the CPU to prevent slowdown.

[Anonymous No.685881]

>>675480
>color palette is going to have a wider range

No! No, no, no. No! Dithering is so sexy, the stippling effect to get the appearance of four or five shades out of just two, it's fucking magic.

At the very least, have an old-school limited palette mode for the weird people like me who get off on it. Having to make a 16 colour version will help you keep your sprites crisp and clear, even if the default uses a modern palette.

[Anonymous No.685896]

>>685881
DEAR GOD moar

[Anonymous No.685901]

>>685881
Hello anon, I am known as the unditherer. Please enjoy my superior color scheme.

[Anonymous No.685907]

>>685901
*pukes*
back the ufck off???

[Anonymous No.685939]

>>678556

What game is this?

[Anonymous No.685956]

>>683715
>>683740
>>685881

Why do people like spritework so much? Sprites were just a mean to emulate detailed images on a very low definition.

I ask this because I absolutely love spritework but simply cannot say why.

[Anonymous No.685957]

Simplicity. They are great in drawing out a story while not bloating it like games today do. Of course, this had to do with the limits of the system back in those days, but they were able to do it because of their creativity. Now-a-days, they have too extra shit to work with and they bloat everything just because they can. It's like how many modern programs are not optimized and could run a lot faster but their programmers don't bother since they have all that space in memory and storage to work with.

[Anonymous No.685962]

>>685956
they are very effective at their role

[Anonymous No.685974]

>>685956

[Anonymous No.685993]

>What draws you to retro games?

To me it's just more fun. Not only do you get that sentimental feel but back then games didn't try and be more than they were. Non of this "social shooter with RPG elements 2.3, now with new achievements".

If it was a platformer it was a platformer, if it was a rpg it was a rpg. Nobody made a rpg "wanting the shooter crowd" or shit like that. Everything was simpler and less unclear. Not saying everything these days are shit but sometimes i just wanna jump into bricks or shoot silly robots.

[Anonymous No.686012]

>>685881
Dithering needs resolution. Not to mention the PC-98 had a larger palette to pick colors from.

[Anonymous No.686042]

>>685956

The abstract techniques used to do that emulation are definitely part of(the cross-hatched pattern in stippling gets me stiff) but the main thing is that it makes everything crisp and clear, with strong contrast due to the limited palette. Makes me think of those baby books of black-and-white geometric patterns, do they still make those? It appeals directly to a very basic and primitive part of our brains.

It also changes simplicity from a virtue to a necessity, which makes at least 90% of things better. Every scrap of detail has to be examined and evaluated for whether it's necessary and functional, so you end up with a highly purified image that's all signal, no noise, like a guy upthread was saying about how walls with shit hidden behind them could be just a few pixels off in sprites, but in modern 3D games they pretty much have to make the whole thing cracked and crumbly for you to notice over all the fluffy detail in the level.

[Anonymous No.686075]

myfacewhen that price
Do people really thing they can sell older games for anything?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MechWarrior-4-Vengeance-GOLD-Special-Release-PC-CD-giant-mech-robots-game-RARE-/350705292145

[Anonymous No.686312]

because of this

[Anonymous No.686356]

>>685956
Art is most impressive when using veeerry limited tools.
A statue made of marble is impressive but an identical statue made out of safety pins is mindblowing.

[Anonymous No.686374]

The art and the superior gameplay.

[Anonymous No.686419]

>>686356
Limitation enhances creation & innovation. Now all we have is mostly copy/paste.

[Anonymous No.686449]

uh..idk.. just the fact that I played them as a child.

[Anonymous No.686504]

>>685901
I like this one better. This is closer to what it'd look like on a CRT anyway. A little bit of horizontal blur filtering always makes dither look good.

[Anonymous No.686949]

I think it's the design. A lot of games back in the 80s and 90s were just more well-designed. Also, the charm. Since the graphics were limited, they had to be creative with the artwork in order to stick out. That's why we have so many iconic characters from the 8-bit era.

[Anonymous No.686959]

sprite > polygon
2D > 3D

[Anonymous No.686980]

I just kind of prefer 2D. I have a really long backlog of new-ish games, but I always find myself downloading some old rom and playing it instead. I think it's the fact that graphics are so limited that I have to rev up my imagination to fill the gaps, as opposed to being shown every little detail in new games.

[Anonymous No.687003]

Most of the games "back then" were actually games, not interactive movies or "press A" to win.

>not saying good games aren't still being made, but they seem mostly to fucking easy.

[Anonymous No.688061]

>>686980
Gonna need source on that.

[Anonymous No.688073]

>>688061
Same.

[Anonymous No.688104]

>>686980
Shit nigga, that's hot

[Anonymous No.688098]

>>688061
>>688073
>2013
>not knowing how to do reverse image search
Kurovadis. Lrn2/reverse image search next time.

[Anonymous No.688108]

>>688098
Hmm, I always just assume it won't work on gifs for some reason.

[Anonymous No.688112]

>>688098
Reverse image search doesn't work on small gifs like that, faggot, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all

[Anonymous No.688129]

>>688061
>>688073
Kurovadis.
Pretty awesome platformer that's completely ruined by the creator injecting hentai into it.
What the fuck was he thinking, no one wants to play a hardcore metroidvania just to choke their chickens.

[Anonymous No.688138]

>>688112
>>688108
See the place where you put in the image URL? Place it in there. There. Google reverse image searches it.

[Anonymous No.688152]

>>688138

[Anonymous No.688184]

>>684087
Even the most advanced retro games still had to resort to abstraction and would look pretty surreal in real life. Compare Doom on DOS to pic related. The visualization aspect was the thing I was getting at.

[Anonymous No.688293]

>>688152
>Putting thumbnail in.
No wonder you fail big time.

[Anonymous No.689682]

>>688184
fps games usually require more details in order to attract the player

[Anonymous No.689689]

so comfy

[Anonymous No.689701]

>>688184
same patterns copy/pasted everywhere, how is this any different except the texture size and the weird lighting blur

[Anonymous No.689708]

It's not the retro itself. It's just the fact that there are HELLA lotta good games made in the time period that might be considered "retro." I suppose my game library spans from 1980 to 2012 at this point, but I still get called a hipster just because my favorite platform is SNES. Plebeians.

The point is, I generally disregard all notions of time. If it's good, that's how it is.

[Anonymous No.689718]

>>689682
>>689689
god fucking damn how I wish some modern indie games would adopt styles like this instead of shitty programmer art that they say is "retro" as an excuse.

[Anonymous No.689728]

[Anonymous No.689735]

[Anonymous No.689748]

>>689718
b-but they need pixel art professionals instead of hipster jews

[Anonymous No.689751]

[Anonymous No.689851]