Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Going Retro, Design Decisions, What is it About Them

Discussion in 'Game Design' started by p1zzaman, Feb 23, 2017.

  1. p1zzaman

    p1zzaman

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Posts:
    64
    I have seen a lot of retro style games coming out. When I say retro in my perspective I am talking about games made in the late 80s - early 90s. Double Dragon, Megaman, Ghost and Ghouls, and those slew of side scrolling fighters like Final Fight, TMNT arcade etc

    I have been pondering on what makes these types of games fun and memorable. At first I thought it was just nostalgia, going back to simpler times when the only thing I had to worry about was not being able to locate a certain piece of Lego. But booting some of those back up, they are still pretty fun. Many modern games that use retro themes are a blast too.

    I am new to game design, so this might be a really stupid question and simple one to answer for some of you. but what is it about those games that makes it enticing? What design elements do they do well and how did they translate into modern games?

    Also for those throwback retro style games made now, do you see a combination of retro game design mixed with new?

    1. What do you think retro games did well in terms of design and what were lacking
    2. New "retro" games have a mixed of design patterns?

    Thanks, hope to get a good discussion out of this.

    -Rob
     
  2. Habitablaba

    Habitablaba

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Posts:
    136
    For me, I gravitate to creating retro style games for a few reasons.

    First, my skill set lends itself more to a 2d tile based game than it does to any 3d game, and certainly anything approaching real physics. I am a one man team with no budget. All the assets I'm using are assets I've created, and I find drawing a 2d character and some tiles to be way easier than trying to model, rig, texture, and animate a 3d character.

    Second, I find that by removing the pressure put on your game by trying to be "modern," you are able to distill your game down to one or two things and really focus on those things. By going "retro," you are asking the audience to forgive the perceived shortcomings of your game in light of the one thing you are really trying to make shine.

    I can't really speak to questions 1. and 2. above, since I'm not really trying to make a "retro" game because I thought they were better. I'm doing it because the thing I'm trying to say comes across better in a more stripped down medium.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  3. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    Most retro games are short-duration, multiple-replay skill games. Those are a decent fit for modern mobile gamers, who often have just a few minutes here and there to play while on the bus or whatever.

    I have a few modern-style, epic storyline games on my phone, but they just don't work for me, because I never have time to sit down and play them for long stretches. And by the time I pick one up, I've forgotten who's who and what I was doing, and it's just a frustrating experience.

    So, yeah, I think there's a lot of potential for retro-style games. My boys and I just released one a couple weeks ago (Rocket Plume). Like all App Store games, it's having a hard time getting noticed... but reactions from players so far have been positive.
     
  4. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Maybe Retro inpspired games feel a little more distilled down to their (often violence based) core gameplay loop. Games like Assassins Creed have a world littered with collectibles, random encounters, online features and other distractions, whereas games like Party Hard are very much focused on the "killing people" part of the game. Iirc Totalbiscuit described the state of flow in such violent retro games as "murder trance", which I think is quite fitting. It's harder to find modern games that give you that, imho. Some Retro examples: Party Hard, Hotline Miami, Mother Russia Bleeds. Maybe immersion inducing world-building and core-gameplay based flow are sometimes at odds and Retro games tend to lean towards getting the later one right.
     
    CarterG81, theANMATOR2b and MV10 like this.
  5. MV10

    MV10

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Posts:
    1,889
    ...because that's all the hardware could handle! :)

    But it's a good question. Apart from the hardware limitations, there is definitely a "feel" to those games that seems to have been largely lost. A couple years ago my in-laws' kids spent most of Christmas day playing Joust on my Xbox. Simple mechanics, simple audio and graphics, repetitive game play ... yet it's fun and captivating for hours. I have trouble thinking of a modern game that would have the same type of appeal.
     
  6. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Nah, I really don't think that's it. You could handle tons of busywork fluff content with just text if you wanted.

    I think I know what you mean, but I can't find a perfectly fitting description either. Maybe it's a bit like games with the retro vibe aren't ashamed of being games first and foremost, and modern titles - both indie and AAA - often fall into the trap of wanting to be super serious narrative-heavy experiences, or as they say: "cinematic". E.g. having 2+ hours of cutscenes in a 10 hour game does things to the flow and feel of the game.

    Do you think multiplayer games have started to fill this demand for mechanics-focused gameplay experiences?
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2017
    samnarain likes this.
  7. MV10

    MV10

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Posts:
    1,889
    I think that's probably as close as we'll get from modern-day games. Deathmatch games are probably the nearest approximation to Joe's observations:

    However it still only feels very roughly equivalent to me. Even if you go back to much simpler modern-style games (I'm thinking of the Quake LAN deathmatches we used to play with friends) they still aren't as readily accessible as those older arcade games were. I suppose that's by design, too, though (Quake deathmatches were intense and fast by design), and maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place -- I'm reminded of my earlier thread about the speed and difficulty of older games (Robotron etc) -- they weren't all so casual.

    In that thread, some good points were made about how the games were designed to maximize profitability (25 cents at a time) ... and honestly that probably plays into the design aspect more than anything else. Some AAA publisher-backed title knows every player is going to cough up $59.95 so there isn't a lot of incentive to design it to be instantly playable with little or no learning curve, there's no need to balance play time with entertainment value, or any of the other factors that go into the "arcade loop"...
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  8. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    Hmm... we have a MAME machine in our house, filled with a small set of hand-picked 4-player co-op games. The idea is something kids can easily jump into and play, with nobody getting beaten up. Joust is 2-player and only sort-of co-op... but you're right, it is an amazing game. Maybe we'll throw that in too!

    (Apologies for the side-note!)
     
    MV10 likes this.
  9. p1zzaman

    p1zzaman

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Posts:
    64
    Great points made here.

    I sometimes wonder though, these 8bit style games were a special time in gaming history? Maybe it was a time when gaming was first so available to the consumer market at such a massive scale. I say this because we never have games in retro atari style, but 8bit and 16bit is popular.

    It is sort of like how you see those 60s American diners still around with that timeless look. I mean I doubt 50 years later we'd see people replicating 90s Denny's decor as a "throwback". Perhaps the same can be said in 50 years, you won't see new games emulating the "feel" of Call of Duty.

    Thoughts? do you guys think any of our modern game styles will have a timeless feel like the 8bit 16bit era? Do you think that 8/16bit era will continue, or just die out.

    -Rob
     
  10. Farelle

    Farelle

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2015
    Posts:
    504
    A few things come to mind:
    old games, due to their restriction were kind of limited in their functionalities, games were simple, which meant in most cases they were very easy to jump into(or learned), which also meant the developers had more time spending on polishing other things like soundtracks etc. or to make the whole experience more cohesive.
    Also their graphics are leaving alot of room for our imagination to fill out the rest and that means we fill it out with what we personally prefer to see :)
    The thing that every element of a game had to be so much more simplistic also forced games to decide on their core interests and functionalities, just due to restrictions.
    it meant working much more with what you actually have available.

    When I think about modern more problematic games in comparison, they often have issues ranging from too much complexity and/or too much content. In other words, hard to learn, often unintuitive, takes time and actual investment and additionally too much content can cause paralysis of choice, for players AND developers alike, the focus in game development might be too spread out to actually focus on the core of a game and for some reason people seem to be obsessed with the "real graphics" thing, which is really hard to pull off without years and years of training, ending up in some weird place called "uncanny valley". Also this obsession takes alot of the own imaginational freedom from players.

    This of course doesn't mean that today's games are all bad, but when comparing why so many games from that time still feel fun, even though they lack graphics and complexity from our current point of view, I would say these are the main differences. And if you look into games that are fun without retro graphics etc. from nowadays I'm sure you can pinpoint the core of the game quite easily.
    Just thinking about a game like dragon age as example...which main focus was the story and the complexity of sidequests and combat system etc. are more like spices added to a soup, rather than trying to fit in as much as possible in an already cramped soup pot :p
     
  11. samnarain

    samnarain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2015
    Posts:
    99
    They indeed have a sense of nostalgia, but there were plenty games that were just plain bad too. Some games are timeless because they were thought out well and added the right ingredients to the formula.

    Double Dragon uses the appeal of martial arts. Everyone loves ninja's, flying roundhouse asskicking hero's. One of the key things in a good game is 'role playing'; being Billy is like going on a Bruce Willis streak with mixed martial arts in the soup. However, one of the amazing things was the 2-player mode; most people who played Double Dragon on the arcade, probably did this with a friend. Play Double Dragon II with a friend and you'll see what I'm talking about. Final Fight is - in my opinion - the improved Double Dragon.

    Mega Man is all about timing and skill; a bad jump means your last jump and your opponents are always stronger than you. This makes Mega Man timeless in its gameplay. The game provides a non-linear approach to reach Wiley, yet still the requirement to finish everything before that can happen. The levels are quite consistent made; the first parts are like a mini-tutorial, a mini-boss happens mid-game and the grand finale is a boss - one that gives you no grace period and you can't escape. The ability to swap weapons and increase in buster modifications provide the player a diversity in strategy when taking on a boss. Especially when certain levels give out obvious hints that a specific modification might provide a shortcut or a the reward of getting that scarce powerup, raises the replayability.

    Ghost and Ghouls is a really good example how a mixture of mechanics are well blended together. The gameplay mixes the action in all directions (similar in the shooter game Contra/Probotector), it uses the horror genre for the scenery with the art and background (similar in the action game Castlevania) to make the "world" come alive, and has in-game power ups (similar like R-Type), with unique mechanics: some with even the ability to affect the environment. G&G plays like Super Mario on steroids with a lore.

    TMNT had two things going for it; the Ninja Turtles were icons. The cartoons and toys were everywhere - and if the game would be crap for the NES, everyone would've still played it. The other thing is that it is a really good game. First of all, the characters; four similar yet distinct characters that have their own trades and special moves; to this day a winning ingredient for many action adventures. The difference though is that the first game has an overworld; even though it is a side scroller beat 'm up, the overworld provides exploration and change of scenery that affects pace - an important mechanic.

    So why are these games popping up in this style?

    1) A game engine like Unity does all the heavy lifting. Creating a game in a retro style as an indie is much more feasible than doing a full blown FPS. I've yet to see a one man game that has all elements in place - including the art. If you have a decent programming background, some good art at your disposal, some experience with Unity and understand how game mechanics together increase entertainment, you could roll out a game in a relatively short time.

    2) Games like these are shorter in playthrough. Less playthrough, means less content to make. They are designed about replay more than length. Again, rolling out a game is done faster.

    3) They are incredible easy to learn. Almost every gamer has played Super Mario once. There is no need for a hero's journey, or a good story. People tend to disagree on that point, but Super Mario is the perfect example again for having the worst kind of storyline yet being awesome to play.

    4) These games were made for arcade machines and consoles that had a fraction of the power most mobile devices have today. They are pretty much a guarantee that the games will run on many lower end devices.

    I hope this helps you on your game design quest.

    EDIT: a tiny note to say about these games, is that each of them were iconic; their art was well done, the audio was incredible and added to their authenticity, their gameplay were intuitive.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
    theANMATOR2b and p1zzaman like this.
  12. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    I read a post-mortem from an Indie that makes retro RPG's. His argument was simple: "If it was fun once, it's still fun". Plus there's the nostalgia factor.

    Gigi
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  13. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    I guess one of the key things in the original retro games is that graphical capabilities were not as strong because the hardware simply didn't allow it, so instead those design constraints 'caused' people to have to become very inventive and creative in terms of getting the most out of what was possible.... leading for the most part to more of a focus on gameplay.

    Also because these were earlier games, they explored new genres and were often simpler, so they were a bit more 'pure' in terms of genre and not so complicated. Less is more. Simple is better. Also many of them tested skill and abilities a lot more than many modern games, which have seriously watered down the difficulty/challenge factor to cater to expanded more casual/social/older audiences.

    In some ways many modern games have really lost sight of the "basics".

    Sometimes I like how games (2d mainly) go for a retro look with limited palette etc... but sometimes when people just go all super-chunky pixels and very limited palette, it really just looks unappealing given how we've gotten too used to glorious huge amounts of $$ being put into graphics. When someone goes all super-low-res I find it's a turn-off and often an excuse for not spending the time and effort or having the ability to create good art.
     
    theANMATOR2b and JoeStrout like this.
  14. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    This raises a couple of issues I am wrestling with on Rocket Plume this week.

    We just got reviewed in the TouchArcade podcast. They really liked the gameplay, but were a bit put off by the retro look — echoing what you're saying above, @imaginaryhuman. At once point they said it would've been the "killer app of 2009". :oops: They also suggested that it could be "jazzed up" by adding powerups or similar, to give it more depth and delay somebody else coming along and just cloning it.

    But this raises two questions.

    1. How exactly would you go about improving the graphics in this game, where the only graphical elements are the environment (which needs to be pixels to support the central mechanic), the rocket plume (ditto), and the rocket itself?



    I'm just not seeing what could be done in this case.

    2. I also subscribe to the "less is more" school in a game like this... it's meant to be a quick, multi-play game, where each playthrough lasts maybe a minute or two. Think Flappy Bird, Doodle Jump, etc.; or think of pretty much any arcade game from the days of yore. Do powerups really add to a game of this sort?
     
  15. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    Sometimes a lack of a deeper experience can make a game seem amateur or too basic. There is a difference between polished simplicity and just a rough-around-the-edge basic design.

    In the above game, to 'modernize' it I would maybe add better texturing to the land parts, and not have them all look the same color/texture. Then you could create at least some more variety - some dirty, grass, rocks, etc. Maybe you can then get a little bit more into 'materials' like you can't destroy rocks - which starts to then add more gameplay nuances.

    The rocket looks a bit... basic? Maybe consider replacing it with a character of some kind?

    Also the backdrop, all-black is okay for contrast/usability, but you could add at least a dark-yet-textured background of some kind... or just something simple, that can scroll by with some parallax.

    Are there things to pick up and collect? Bonuses and such?

    Are there some different weapons perhaps that simultaneously help in some ways and hinder in others?

    Most of this would be cosmetic but maybe you can add some gameplay elements with the varied materials and ways of interacting with the environment. Add a bit more challenge and variety. Not sure what that'd do to what you're referring to as retro. I don't see this as looking retro right now.

    The on-screen GUI elements need some polish too.
     
    JoeStrout likes this.
  16. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Just because the underlying model is pixels, doesn't mean that the player needs to see them. If one can see the actual pixels, it's retro.
     
  17. Xelnath

    Xelnath

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Posts:
    402
    The answer is really simple:

    People who are of the age to create their own thing are generally creating more of the thing they enjoy at the critical age of 8-12.

    So right now, most game developers fall into that range and are wistfully remembering the early 90s. In time, this will shift again. As a bonus, software of that era can also be produced with small teams.
     
    theANMATOR2b, Kiwasi and Martin_H like this.
  18. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    So, in just a few years we'll see mostly Call of Duty and Minecraft clones instead of retro inspired 2D games? :D
     
  19. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    9,859
    Hmm. There may be something to this. Perhaps I really should polish up that voxel asset I've got rusting in the back of my hard drive!
     
    Xelnath and Martin_H like this.
  20. p1zzaman

    p1zzaman

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Posts:
    64
    God I hope not.
     
    theANMATOR2b, Xelnath and MV10 like this.
  21. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    That's totally where I'd expect the market to be.
     
    Farelle likes this.
  22. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    We already see Minecraft clones now and Call of Duty has been around (and huge) for waaaaaay longer than just the last couple years.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  23. Not_Sure

    Not_Sure

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,546
    That, and unimaginable amount of over saturation.

    Tin-Foil hat on, the world is going to change in very dramatic ways over the next 20 years as 80% of all labor is made obsolete. Factories, restaurants, warehouses, construction, and farms will be mostly automated.

    No one will be paid to drive anymore.

    Software will be sophisticated enough to handle "talking" with customers for call centers and the like.

    Augmented reality will make repairs easy enough that anyone can do it on any piece of equipment.

    Higher education will become freely available through the internet.

    Everyone will need extensive education to get the simplest of jobs, which will have over 1000 people applying for each one.

    There will be massive civil strife and lots of debate over wealth gap and socialism.

    Droves of people will be unemployed with lots of development tools and free time at their disposal.

    More books, movies, music, and games will be made in 10 short years than over the course of all of human history.

    No one will make any money from any of it.

    And rather or not the masses overcome the elite, existentialism will overtake the entire world.

    Empathy will decrease.

    Violence will increase.

    Riots everywhere.

    Policing is set into overdrive.

    Mass murder on both sides.
     
  24. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    That's going to be a wonderful world to live in. I'm looking forward to it.

    The big problem with your scenario is the idea that humans are required to work. Which is generally false. Humanity generally works as a means to provide ourselves with the necessities and luxuries of life. However given a choice, most people would prefer lesuire and idleness over hard labour. That's why the average work week has been dropping dramatically since the Middle Ages.

    Manufactured goods will eventually become cheap enough that noone has to work at all. When goods become worthless, there is no need for trade. Without trade money itself will eventually disappear entirely.

    Our grand kids will be amazed when we tell them stories of having to go do menial labour for strangers in order to eat. Their time will be filled with art, science, sport or whatever takes their fancy.

    Mental health practice will advance to the point that no one suffers. Without poverty and mental illness, there will be no crime. Life expectancy will rise to 150.

    An abundance of goods will even eliminate the need for war entirely.

    Anyway enough dreaming, let's get back on thread.
     
  25. Farelle

    Farelle

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2015
    Posts:
    504
    if the world manages to change into the state of not needing to work to survive, people will not want to make things "properly" for the sake of their own fullfillment and satisfaction.
    Currently the only reason we think that everyone on the world would go for the simplest or artistic related jobs is, because we are limited in our minds to see beyond our own values. We define artistry and such, still more as a hobby than a job, therefore we assume that what people do as their hobbies now, must be their most fullfilling "job" ? when in reality I would assume, there are actually people who would enjoy to be even trashtruckdriver, just for the sake of feeling like helping other people.
    I definitely can't see how there would be more violence, if everyone would be allowed to do whatever they want and gain satisfaction from it, when most of our current violence is due to poverty, unfair treatment in society and a general state of depression and unsatisfaction in our whole society.
     
  26. MV10

    MV10

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Posts:
    1,889
    Thread-lock in 3... 2... 1... so let's do this.

    If BoredMormon's utopian vision is even possible, during the intervening centuries before we get there, things will still get worse before they get better. It's a long, long road to self-replicating, self-sustaining, general-purpose manufacturing capability. Rising population pressures aren't slowing or going away. Irrationality will still produce Bad Things in ways and for reasons we can't predict. Tribe A will still crave Tribe B's stuff. You get the picture.

    Everything can be abstracted as scarcity of resources. Money abstracts the value of labor for the purposes of facilitating trade. Trade is necessary because everyone wants and needs different things. A utopia of perfect service automation still can't "fix" scarcity.

    Even with unlimited access to superintelligent nano-builder-swarms and vats of Acme Generic Construction Material (shipped directly from the robot miners diligently pulverizing the asteroid belt), chances are if you want a pony, you still have to acquire one the old fashioned way. And you'll likely still need quite a bit of land and food to keep the thing alive.

    Scarcity of resources isn't going away. People will likely always need to produce value in order to trade for the things they want. Some people will try to take those things by force. Some people will decide the risk/reward tradeoff is sufficiently attractive to trade in whatever becomes contraband. Some will dedicate themselves to fighting those people.

    None of this is new, none of it is going away. Wishing harder won't make life fair.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  27. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Sure my view was fairly rose tinted. But humans have managed similar transitions before. There will be short term pain for some. But I don't buy the 'it's going to get worse before it gets better' argument.

    Not too long ago we went through a transition from an agrarian economy to one based on manufactured goods. It was primarily driven by private property and improvements and automation of the farming system. There was mass movement off of the land and into the cities. But very few people today would willingly give up our life style and go back to living directly off the land. And nowadays there are very few people who don't have more then enough food to eat.

    We are currently going through (recently have been through) a transition away from an economy based on manufactured goods and towards a service based one. The transition is being driven by globalisation and automation. Sure there is a bit of pain for those in manufacturing that refuse to upskill. But for the most part it's a good thing, manufacturing jobs are often menial, dangerous and unfulfilling. And of course we currently have a vast excess of manufactured goods. Despite current political rhetoric, very few people actually want to go back to a manufacturing economy.

    Eventually services will also be automated too. The economy will transition to something else. Or it will cease to exist. Neither of those outcomes strikes me as a bad thing.

    Why not? Food scarcity has gone. Scarcity of manufactured goods is gone. Scarcity of information is gone.

    It's possible that we will continue to invent new needs, humans are pretty good at that.

    The mega trends over the last couple of mellenia say otherwise. War is dropping, crime is dropping, life expectancy is rising.
     
    JoeStrout likes this.
  28. p1zzaman

    p1zzaman

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Posts:
    64
    So ya... about Megaman...
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  29. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    Retro game art is always awesome - plenty of people love it.

    Retro gameplay? I'd have to think about it more... but alot of retro stories are trash and some gameplay systems suck compared to modern versions.

    But Retro Systems? Trash. Yet some retro games try too hard to simulate some of them, or don't do enough in their remake/remaster to update the systems. (Roguelikes come to mind. Some developers will clone not just the positive aspects of past roguelikes, but also the negatives...which is just facepalm worthy...they didnt have to clone Rogue in EVERY way. Roguelites more often replace the outdated turn based movemebt or ascii art for something modern.)

    Double Fine's Day of the Tentacle (1993), the sequel to Maniac Mansion, is a great example.

    They updated the art, but kept the alternate rendering mode (pixel art) which is awesome.

    They added in better input systems, including controller support. Way awesome.

    However I just got off playong Night in the Woods & Oxenfree before starting up Day of the Tentacle.

    And boy is it not deserving of as high a rating as those other two games.

    The remastered aspect is though. Graphics look fantastic updated. Controller support is awesome. Gui is better. Voice acting is timeless. Jokes are funny.

    But the game itself, something that cant be remastered (only remade) is dated. Quite dated. The game feels very slow and boring at times. Some of the clues are...perplexing. And honestly Point & Clicks made in 2016 seem, IMO, far superior to older ones.

    Now I have't played it yet, but I believe Gabriel Night: Sins of the Father, is a remake not a remaster. A total recreation. Now, I actually think I prefer the pixel art. I love it. And I haven't played the remake. But this is also an adventure game, so maybe there is something (design) in comparing

    Day of the Tenacle REMASTERED vs Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Father REMAKE

    Because DofT:Remastered updated the systems, but not the gameplay...and IMO suffered for it. At least for those of us who never played the 1993 version.

    There is some interesting study in Remasters & Remakes. Looking at what did or didnt work, or what specific updates would or wouldnt make a retro game better.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  30. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    MV10 and CarterG81 like this.
  31. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    Although I think it depends heavily on the genre, I really think the majority is simply nostalgia.

    The retro games I loved as a kid are still fun, but ones I missed seem very dated.

    Like I said though, it just depends on the genre.

    Platformers are oversaturated today from indies, and IMO most are significantly worse than retro classics. The breakout indies were successful because their games were very innovative (Fez camera changing, Braid time manipulation, etc.)

    Simple retro Atari games are still more fun IMO than alot of the lame atari-simple free games released today. Same simplicity, but real retro has nostalgia.

    JRPG's pretty much disappeared on my map entirely after the death of retro consoles. Idk how they did, but aint nobody got time for that no more!

    Action RPG's have greatly evolved going to 3D.

    Point & Click adventures have been replaced by more content, less downtime between story bits (less tedium, less boredom), etc. (Compare Maniac Mansion gameplay with Oxenfree, NiTW, or TellTale games). But story writing is still title dependent. (Old school stories can be empty or amazing, while modern stories are a mix of great and "What jr.high fan-fic author wrote this TellTale story?" Voice acting is also still great in past games. Writing & Acting are two things not really game related, maturing well before gaming existed. Although alot of retro stories suck, like Shining in the Darkness (pretty much no story, really). At least modern games like that guarantee a story, even if it's bad writing.

    Dungeon Crawlers (ex. Might&Magoc, Shining in the Darkness) have seen games like Legends of Grimlock and Darkest Dungeon.

    Zelda and Mario gamss have evolved alot but havent lost their flair either. Nintendo has kept alot of their designs while making them fresh.

    RTS games have improved a ton, with some exceptions (Starcraft vs Starcraft 2 debates).

    MMORPG's just cloned WoW, so IMO the retro MMO's have alot of design elements that are still great because we never saw those elements improved - mostly ignored in favor of WoW features or were failures in design (pretty much every MMO that tried to do FFA Full Loot PvP inspired from Ultima Online, like Darkfall/DarkFail).

    Which leads me to this theory:

    Has the gameplay improved since?

    When games have been iterated on so much that retro systems become severely outdated, we become spoiled on high quality and nothing short of nostalgia can save a game.

    I can play Fallout 1 & 2 because even in 2017 they are great. Starflght, after 3 decades, has still never been remade or even iterated on. I can't think those games are S*** bc there's nothing to replace them. Bethseda's Fallout games are alot S***tier in many ways, even if visually superior.
    - they are DIFFERENT, not necessarily BETTER. Platformers of old, like Mega Man X are still kickass games.

    Stategy games though? Hard to enjoy some retro ones when we have so many innovative titles or sequels of the greats. FPS games I've never tried a retro, but I have doubts I'd enjoy it over playing the latest Battlefield, Overwatch, or even older versions like BF 2142 (my fave). And even though I think Everquest 1 has great design, the game has changed too much and is too flawed in some areas to enjoy in 2017. You don't see me going back to play. Then again, I would probably like a classic server better than most current day MMO's, which IMO are either "Just Different" or in fact inferior/lame.

    I struggle to enjoy some retro games, especially after playing modern versions immediately prior.

    So "Has the game system in question been improved?"
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  32. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
  33. cdarklock

    cdarklock

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Posts:
    455
    I was just thinking about SF last night. Do you think it's something worth having a conversation about, or is it just something to mention in passing? I haven't invested a lot of thought in it, but I can see some spiritual successors.
     
  34. MV10

    MV10

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Posts:
    1,889
    I can't quite see why they'd be sh*t if there were replacements... but Wasteland 2 did a pretty credible job of modernizing the original Fallout. The other obvious examples of the heavy-story ortho-RPGs would be Baldurs Gate and Planescape Torment, and there again we have the new Torment: Tides of Numenera, which has really nailed it as modernization of the genre (despite the mind-bending number of release 1.0 bugs).
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  35. cdarklock

    cdarklock

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Posts:
    455
    You get used to the enhanced versions, and the originals feel backwards. Like if you play a remake of Asteroids which has rendered 3D graphics and better ship physics, going back to the original isn't as good anymore.
     
    CarterG81 likes this.