"People love nostalgia, and Shovel Knight did very well, so lets make a retro 8-bit indi platformer."
Hey everyone, this is what I imagine all the people that have been making retro platformers have said with the slew of "8-bit retro" indi platformers that have been coming out in the recent years, and I'm sick of it. Why am I sick of it, especially considering that I love retro games? There's many layers to it, but first I need to start with the game that started this craze (based on what I've noticed), Shovel Knight.
Now I should start off by saying that I love Shovel Knight. It is a fantastic game; great simple like story, tight controls, perfect difficulty, perfect punishment for failure and risk-reward, amazing controls, and it feels like it is strait out of 1988 in terms of style and gameplay. In fact, when you pull up the controls, it shows you a picture of a NES controller and says "these are what these buttons do" and you have to map the corresponding buttons to it. I bet that on the PC people have modded/repro with USB NES controllers that they use to play it, and it's glorious. It is what "kickstarted" kickstarter games.
However, this is kind of the problem. People saw how well Shovel Knight did, and they said "I can do that, so I'm going to make an 8-bit platformer." And that's where the trouble starts. See, the creator of Shovel Knight said "I want to make a NES game in 2014" and he stuck with it. Outside of a couple of extra colors and sound channels, and is MUCH much larger than a standard NES cartridge could hold, it could run on a NES. In fact, I bet there's some modders that are working on a physical NES flash cartridge ROM that makes slight modifications so that it actually runs on a NES. However, all these other guys just want the basic aesthetic of retro games, aka "blocky pixelated graphics and old sounding music." So many games are "yeah, these colors aren't possible on the NES, as well as the character model complexity with diagonal pixels, but it has blocky countable 'pixels' and that's what matters to make a retro 8-bit game." It's annoying because now what could have been a really nice looking game looks ugly.
What do I mean by ugly? Well there's a very good reason why games looked like they did 20 years ago, because that was the best they could do. If Nintendo had the capabilities we have today, they would make Super Mario Bros so much more detailed, probably just like the New Super Mario Bros games. Just look at Super Mario All Starts, that's Nintendo saying "these games are great, and this is what it would have looked like if they were first released on SNES." Now with these "retro platformers," game devs are instead thinking "I want to make this game, but since people want nostalgia we'll give it a blocky design and call it 'retro.' That'll sell copies." This is annoying, because we have such capabilities. We know what the Wii U, PS4, XBOX ONE, and yes PC, can do, and people instead want to make games that look like they were made for a NES. We could make games that look like Don Bluthes arcade Dragon's Lair, but devs instead choose to make games that look like Chip n Dale NES. It's wasted potential in my opinion.
I grew up with NES at my grandparents house. They had a NES and my brother, cousin, and I would play it all the time. I love NES games, but I also love SNES games, and N64 games, and GameCube games. In fact, I love platformers in general. I want to play platformers, but I also want a modern take on platformers. If I want to play retro games, I'll put a (S)NES cartridge in my (S)NES, not boot up a digital game on my Wii U. NES platformers pushed the limits of what the NES could do. SNES platformers pushed the limits of what the SNES could do. N64 platformers pushed the limits of what the 64 could do. So lets continue the tradition and get some Wii U platformers that push the limits of what the Wii U can do. But that's just me. Maybe you have different thoughts. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off and lets let the retro stay legitimately retro and get some platformers that actually push the limits of what current hardware can do.
Showing posts with label retro gaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retro gaming. Show all posts
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Thursday, October 17, 2013
A second look at "day 1" DLC
I used to hate "day 1" DLC, but now I'm looking at things slightly differently.
So I was watching "Address the Sess" from Rev3 gaming and Adam Sessler and he brought up an interesting fact about "day 1" DLC, something I haven't thought about.
Now if you don't know, I am very critical of "day 1" DLC, and so you know, "day 1" DLC doesn't necessarily have to be released on the day the game is released. I consider DLC "day 1" if it was developed along side the game specifically intended to not be released as part of the full game. I am very critical of this because from companies like Capcom, it's used to nickel and dime the consumer and try to capitalize on used games. My argument, "the game wouldn't end up on a gamestop shelf if you give the consumer more bang for their buck and deliver a game that is worth $70 and only charge them $60, instead of selling $50 worth of content for $60 and then selling the other $20 worth of content to them for $20 and calling it 'DLC.'" That right there goes against all marketing logic according to my into to marketing class, and is a primary reason why Capcom is close to dead. The other reason is "no love for the blue bomber," but that's not what this is about.
Anyways, Sessler brought up a good point about DLC and game prices. In the US, new game prices are fairly fixed at $60. In other countries and regions, game prices are a lot more varied. However, if you release a game for more than $60, "well that's crazy, I won't buy it." His example was Skyrim. I haven't played it yet so I can't speak from experience, but I plan to eventually. Anyways, Sessler said that "a game like Skyrim, it's easily worth $100, so I wouldn't mind paying more for more, but because of game prices, it needs to be $60, so they cut out $30 worth of content, sell you the $30 worth as DLC, and you still get an awesome game."
I gotta admit, I haven't really thought of it that way. Not everyone who does "day 1" DLC is being Capcom and EA about it, where "oh we need to send updates and patches and maintain the online servers, and developing the game is just so expensive, and with used games not giving us money for the sale, we need to get the money somehow." Sometimes, game developers make a game that's worth $100 or more, but because of the market price for all new games is semificially $60, they have to cut out some so they aren't undervaluing their games. Sure I'd love to get $100 worth of content for $60, who wouldn't. Well not the developers. I know if I made a game that I know was worth $100, I wouldn't want to give it to people for $60 right from the start. I'm undervaluing my game by 40%. After a year, sure, knock 40% off, let me get some of the hold outs, but not from the start. However, the US game market dictates that "New games are $60, no exceptions, unless it's under $60." And I'm not saying "I put so much work and time and effort that I deserve $100 for this game even though it's only objectively worth $50," I mean actual "this game is so objectively good, I would be practically giving it away at $60." So yes, I see where some developers are coming from.
However, this still troubles me, because even though they are selling you maybe a little over $60 worth of content after the DLC cuts, I'm still bothered by the fact that part of the game was cut out and is released as DLC. I'd rather pay more in the first place and not have to buy it later primarily because of future gamers who weren't able to get the consoles when they were initially released.
I 20 years old at the time of posting. I have an Atari 2600 that I bought at a garage sale. My Atari is probably older than I am. I can still buy games for it, thanks to used games, and I can expect to get the full game when I buy the cartridges. 25 years later, what about the guy that find an XBOX 360 at a garage sale and want to collect retro XBOX 360 games? Servers for online PS2 games released 12 years ago are already gone. Servers for XBOX Live for 360 and PSN for PS3 aren't going to be up forever. In 20-30 years, I expect DLC support for XBOX 360 and PS3 to be gone. How will future generations enjoy the full game once the servers are no longer supported? Emulators? *raspberry fart* Emulators are stupid and only cheaters use emulators. Real gaming is done on the original console, with the original controller and original game cartridge/disk. HD remakes/virtual console releases? That might work for some games, but not every game gets a remake/re-release. Of all the amazing games released on the NES, SNES, N64, Master System, Genesis, Atari, etc, I'm going to guess that maybe 15-20% have had re-releases. So the only way to get those gems is by buying the used cartridges/disks. I pity the future generations of gamers who won't be able to enjoy the full games because of DLC.
Well that's enough rambling for today. Until next time, game and be happy.
So I was watching "Address the Sess" from Rev3 gaming and Adam Sessler and he brought up an interesting fact about "day 1" DLC, something I haven't thought about.
Now if you don't know, I am very critical of "day 1" DLC, and so you know, "day 1" DLC doesn't necessarily have to be released on the day the game is released. I consider DLC "day 1" if it was developed along side the game specifically intended to not be released as part of the full game. I am very critical of this because from companies like Capcom, it's used to nickel and dime the consumer and try to capitalize on used games. My argument, "the game wouldn't end up on a gamestop shelf if you give the consumer more bang for their buck and deliver a game that is worth $70 and only charge them $60, instead of selling $50 worth of content for $60 and then selling the other $20 worth of content to them for $20 and calling it 'DLC.'" That right there goes against all marketing logic according to my into to marketing class, and is a primary reason why Capcom is close to dead. The other reason is "no love for the blue bomber," but that's not what this is about.
Anyways, Sessler brought up a good point about DLC and game prices. In the US, new game prices are fairly fixed at $60. In other countries and regions, game prices are a lot more varied. However, if you release a game for more than $60, "well that's crazy, I won't buy it." His example was Skyrim. I haven't played it yet so I can't speak from experience, but I plan to eventually. Anyways, Sessler said that "a game like Skyrim, it's easily worth $100, so I wouldn't mind paying more for more, but because of game prices, it needs to be $60, so they cut out $30 worth of content, sell you the $30 worth as DLC, and you still get an awesome game."
I gotta admit, I haven't really thought of it that way. Not everyone who does "day 1" DLC is being Capcom and EA about it, where "oh we need to send updates and patches and maintain the online servers, and developing the game is just so expensive, and with used games not giving us money for the sale, we need to get the money somehow." Sometimes, game developers make a game that's worth $100 or more, but because of the market price for all new games is semificially $60, they have to cut out some so they aren't undervaluing their games. Sure I'd love to get $100 worth of content for $60, who wouldn't. Well not the developers. I know if I made a game that I know was worth $100, I wouldn't want to give it to people for $60 right from the start. I'm undervaluing my game by 40%. After a year, sure, knock 40% off, let me get some of the hold outs, but not from the start. However, the US game market dictates that "New games are $60, no exceptions, unless it's under $60." And I'm not saying "I put so much work and time and effort that I deserve $100 for this game even though it's only objectively worth $50," I mean actual "this game is so objectively good, I would be practically giving it away at $60." So yes, I see where some developers are coming from.
However, this still troubles me, because even though they are selling you maybe a little over $60 worth of content after the DLC cuts, I'm still bothered by the fact that part of the game was cut out and is released as DLC. I'd rather pay more in the first place and not have to buy it later primarily because of future gamers who weren't able to get the consoles when they were initially released.
I 20 years old at the time of posting. I have an Atari 2600 that I bought at a garage sale. My Atari is probably older than I am. I can still buy games for it, thanks to used games, and I can expect to get the full game when I buy the cartridges. 25 years later, what about the guy that find an XBOX 360 at a garage sale and want to collect retro XBOX 360 games? Servers for online PS2 games released 12 years ago are already gone. Servers for XBOX Live for 360 and PSN for PS3 aren't going to be up forever. In 20-30 years, I expect DLC support for XBOX 360 and PS3 to be gone. How will future generations enjoy the full game once the servers are no longer supported? Emulators? *raspberry fart* Emulators are stupid and only cheaters use emulators. Real gaming is done on the original console, with the original controller and original game cartridge/disk. HD remakes/virtual console releases? That might work for some games, but not every game gets a remake/re-release. Of all the amazing games released on the NES, SNES, N64, Master System, Genesis, Atari, etc, I'm going to guess that maybe 15-20% have had re-releases. So the only way to get those gems is by buying the used cartridges/disks. I pity the future generations of gamers who won't be able to enjoy the full games because of DLC.
Well that's enough rambling for today. Until next time, game and be happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)