 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
Looks dire. More like 1994-ish in 3D, minus anything that could be described as "art direction" or "atmosphere". Retro for the sake of bragging about being retro.
dunno. people who remember what 1996 looked like probably aren't really the target demo anyway.
I've been keeping tabs on this game since the KS launched. TBH, it doesn't seem interesting to me nor am I too keen on it's marketing and general presentation. actually, it kinda rubs me the wrong way. That said, I genuinely hope they succeed and I'm rooting for them. A couple unknowns launch a successful KS, have a gameplan and seemingly follow through AND get picked up by a decent publisher... that's pretty damn cool IMO. That's a lot of time, sacrfice and hard work. Kudos to them! Journos who act like town criers yelling STRAFE is 1996 again have never played Quake nor Duke nor any other FPS from that year.
Anyway, the vast majority of so-called "retro" games just make "whatever", but then they put chunky pixel textures on their 10,000 poly monsters and wahey! Retro!!. Also, why not throw in some 80s-era ZX Spectrum-esque chiptunes, and then do an 80s Grindhouse theme for the trailers, because that makes about as much fucking sense as the rest of it! 1996 still counts as the 80s right?
/triggered The subject of contemporary "retro" games is one that is very near and dear to my heart. Allow me to bloviate:
It seems, to some devs (and consumers), that all of retro gaming can be encapsulated by pixelated art and chiptunes. Because of this sort of shallow approach, many proclaimed modern "retro" games end up being mere caricatures or parodies of their source material. This can be pretty off-putting to fans of authentic retro games. IMO, it would be beneficial to approach developing a retro game is if you are actually developing in that era. Define your technical limitations and design in reference to those. One of the things that makes old games so charming are the creative and interesting ways developers conveyed the game world due to the technical limitations of the time. In modern times, it's easy to lose sight of that wander outside of what is appropriate for the game you are making. You end up with, as kinn said, highpoly models with gobs of animation frames bathed in dynamic lights amid a fury of particle physics usually without any sort of real direction. That simply isn't retro (aesthetically speaking), and probably won't have that retro soul (not as a consequence of visuals, but of the general approach I just outlined). I think an overlooked skill is restraint. Every aspect of the game should serve gameplay, if it doesn't there's a good chance it should be axed. Things that are blatantly light years beyond the era of game you are trying to make should probably be reexamined. This is just, like, my opinion, man. in recent times is Shovel Knight. The only thing modern was that it was in a 16:9 resolution, everything else felt pretty much perfect.
It still irks me that DD was "just" a score attack game. Everything about it was amazing except the game mode :P
Yeah I was super stoked for Devil Daggers hoping it might have had some levels in it.
The enemy design was superb. I've just been made aware of this 2D side shooter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWOx0rNTr8
Looks fun! The name alone is a marvel of poetry... https://club.ubisoft.com/en-GB/ubi30
Ubi 30th Anniversary Giveaway continues. In December they bring us Assassin's Creed III for free! |
|
|
|
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |