Adventure Gamers - Forums

Blackthorne - 22 July 2015 02:17 PM

It’s an aesthetic and artistic choice at this point, because we live in a point in time where we can choose to do things the way we like them.  Some may like it, others may not.  In the end, it’s the developer’s choice to create it and it’s the gamer’s choice if they want to buy and play it.  It’s not a hard conceit to comprehend. Bt

We now have two sides of the story represented. The first being that the designers had no choice because the engine they were using offered no alternative but to put out a product with pixilated graphics. That, I could moderately accept as a rationale even if the delivered product was less than, to me, pleasurable.

But, as pointed out by others, that may not be the case at all. The specific engine in question is capable of far more detail than is shown in the games that have used it. So apparently this is not an economic issue, but something else entirely.

Some have pointed to lack of ambition. Others have gone so far as to suggest laziness.

I prefer to look at Blackthorne’s above quote. He thinks it’s aesthetics. And I agree with him.

But if designers think that producing a 2015 game that has graphics that would have been marginally pleasing to Sierra fans in the early 1990s, they are deluding themselves.

But this also misses the point. In my initial post I not only questioned the Why of this type of game design, but also the reviewer’s apparent opinion that “retro” was a design choice that should be applauded.

Kurufinwe - 22 July 2015 06:23 AM

I was going to say something about the matter—and then I realised that I’ve already said it three years ago.

I’ll just say it for you. Here is your statement from three years ago:

If it’s done well (what I’ve seen of Resonance looks good; Gemini Rue often didn’t), and it allows small developers to make good games on a small budget – games that wouldn’t get made otherwise – then I think it’s great and I’m all for it.

But then there’s a small cult that will defend this style to the death and say it’s better than anything that came afterwards. I completely disagree with that: the whole idea of pixel art as the pinnacle of human creativity is ridiculous. Obviously, what these people really mean is “my childhood was the pinnacle of my life” – and that’s just sad.

Unfortunately, my memory of specific statements made in specific three-year-old threads is somewhat shaky. But, your statements made then were on point to today’s conversation.

But maybe it was time for the issue to be revisited.

The argument about small teams unable to use HD is a mute point. There’s been plenty of small teams that have done that very thing.

Tad - 23 July 2015 04:01 AM

The argument about small teams unable to use HD is a mute point. There’s been plenty of small teams that have done that very thing.

Well, I don’t think it ever really is about not being able to, but about choosing strategically, which usually goes the “less work” route, and by that I don’t mean the devs are lazy - they’re probably working within constraints such as funding running out, deadlines, etc.

I do agree you can’t really lump in, say, Alum with Technobabylon. It isn’t in the resolution, it’s in the artist, and Ben Chandler is a beast when it comes to pixelly stuff.

@kuru - Hah! That will teach me to throw something together quickly! Yes, you’re quite right, it is upscaled 320.

Otherwise I agree with those who have said that it depends entirely on how well done the art is. “Retro/Pixel” art is definitely not a problem for me, but neither is it a guarantee I will like it or even a preferred style. If it’s done well (in any style) then I’m all for it.

Mr Underhill - 23 July 2015 04:19 AM

Tad - 23 July 2015 04:01 AM

The argument about small teams unable to use HD is a mute point. There’s been plenty of small teams that have done that very thing.

Well, I don’t think it ever really is about not being able to, but about choosing strategically, which usually goes the “less work” route, and by that I don’t mean the devs are lazy - they’re probably working within constraints such as funding running out, deadlines, etc.

I do agree you can’t really lump in, say, Alum with Technobabylon. It isn’t in the resolution, it’s in the artist, and Ben Chandler is a beast when it comes to pixelly stuff.

The problem with that though is we’re assuming there is a budget, deadline etc. A lot of these games (as shown in an article about wedjet eye) don’t make that much money really. Not enough to really live off it anyway, resulting in these games becoming just a hobby.

rtrooney - You’re not the only one who is sick and tired of retro looking games. Do people really want to play pixelated stuff for the rest of their lives? Where is the progress? This is 2015 not 1995.

The problem with that though is we’re assuming there is a budget, deadline etc. A lot of these games (as shown in an article about wedjet eye) don’t make that much money really. Not enough to really live off it anyway, resulting in these games becoming just a hobby.

So very true, You have to sell a fairly good amount of games to do this for a good living and many indies are just hobby games.

Retro is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

Most definitely. We vote with our dollars. I love retro style games and buy them.

I don’t care that much for 1st Person puzzle games like Rhem, so I don’t buy them.

Also, when I buy small indie games done by one person in their bedroom, I can be quite forgiving in terms of graphics.

Allow me to play the devil’s advocate and say I much prefer this to most HD stuff out there ...but that’s the Purcell / Chan magic at work

Oh man. Sam& Max looked that good?
I should replay it.

I’ll go against my statement that I dislike 20th century retros in a 21st century world by saying that one of my favorite games in the last 10 years is To the Moon. Which is one of the most highly pixilated games I’ve ever seen. So I will agree that there are exceptions. But they are so few and far between that I don’t even consider them for the purposes of this conversation.