2D Adventure Game Shipwreck Now On Steam

Looks great! :) I considered covering the Steam release myself but I've been a bit ill lately, so I'm glad you did.

Hah! Make that three. :) Very glad this got covered, it's a fun simple game for that insane cheap price. Initially I had an issue with some serious FPS drop issues, but the developer quickly smashed that bug. :)

It's not over the top long, but the dungeons you crawl oozed every bit of Zelda charm.

Thanks for the heads up. Looks interesting and the price is right. There are DRM free versions on the developer website for those interested.

It never ceases to amaze me how these kind of games are still released. They could have ran on an old Oric-1? If you are a fan of these kind of games, why not just run an emulator on your PC and download the entire catalogue of games from the 80s?

I mean, not to troll or anything, I just don't get it. You sit there with a rig with fifty times the capacity of the NASA server clusters of the 80s... To run games that could have been ran on a entry grade calculator?

It never ceases to amaze me how these kind of games are still released. They could have ran on an old Oric-1? If you are a fan of these kind of games, why not just run an emulator on your PC and download the entire catalogue of games from the 80s?

A free tip: Games are supposed to entertain, benchmarks to test the performance of your system. You see the difference?

If old games are still good (and many of them are), why couldn't new games made in a similar style be good as well? In my opinion many of these new "retro" games are great fun, and often even better than the games they draw their inspiration from, especially if you're not prone to nostalgia. And the fact that they are still released does not mean you get any less of the graphically demanding games you deem worthy of your time.

Disclaimer: This is just me expressing my view. Don't take it personal. :)

If old games are still good (and many of them are), why couldn't new games made in a similar style be good as well?

Cause of technical progression.
For me, these games are like purchasing a new car that is a dupe of a car from the 50s. In fact, that comparison is darn good. Modern cars are *objectively* better on every single account. That's why car manufacturers make the cars they make today.

In my opinion many of these new "retro" games are great fun, and often even better than the games they draw their inspiration from, especially if you're not prone to nostalgia.

In my opinion it's quite the contrary, nostalgia is a requirement to enjoy these games. Plenty of it is needed. Just like the cars. You don't enjoy a car with the properties of a 50s model unless you are exceptionally well equipped with nostalgia.

See, the thing is: These kind of games were all we had back then. We had to pour our fantasies into the screens to make them come alive. The two frames animated sprites were all the hardware were able to push. The 16 colours likewise.
The games were not like this cause the devs wanted them to be like that. They were like that out of necessity. They could not do better.

And the fact that they are still released does not mean you get any less of the graphically demanding games you deem worthy of your time.

True. And I will forever defend their right to exist. Furthermore I totally respect those who see things differently.
I just don't get it. Not one bit. For me this is like purchasing a commercial Dolby surround cinema building and place an old b/w TV on the stage to watch a movie.

I mean, we got smart phones? There's a million retro games sold for a dime a dozen on the Play store.

For me, these games are like purchasing a new car that is a dupe of a car from the 50s. In fact, that comparison is darn good. Modern cars are *objectively* better on every single account. That's why car manufacturers make the cars they make today.

That's a rubbish analogy and here's why: Cars are primarily a means of transportation whereas games are primarily entertainment. Cars are objectively better because we have emission regulations, safety standards, better engineering techniques, computerization and the like. All the technological progress in the world isn't going to make a book or movie plot interesting, music more memorable nor gameplay more fun in of itself. That's because entertainment is a creative endeavour primarily and imagination on the creator's behalf is key there.

Technical progress may enhance the experience but is in no way indicative of a quality product. Taking the argument to the absurd, but logical, extreme: AAA games with the best graphics or the latest 3D blockbuster would therefore be the best games and movies of all time because they have the latest and best techniques and are tailored to a modern audience and equipment.

Nostalgia isn't necessary to enjoy these types of games, though I will concede, it does help at times. What attracts me to these games is that they're fun. It's that simple. You don't need special effects in film to tell a good story and you don't need the latest graphics and physics engines to have great gameplay. It's a stylistic choice to have pixel art and midi-like music and if they're pretty and well polished for what they are, all the better.

It's art and therefore a subjective experience on how each person appreciates it. You don't need to use computer techniques to be an accomplished artist in our times, even though some artists use a lot of digital stuff to create pieces. A lot of art is still made with canvas and paint. Is one intrinsically better than the other? Is the use of real film better than digital in movies? Are digital sounds better than real orchestration? It can't be measured in objective terms nor can you guarantee that people will enjoy one over the other more.

Hopefully that'll make you understand a little of where people like me are coming from. These games aren't like buying the latest and greatest to then suffer through an old TV, if anything it's more like popping in a remastered version of Modern Times or Gone With The Wind in our modern home theater systems.

There's plenty of crappy retro-inspired games too, so trust me, the millions available on phones are a meaningless thing to bring up. I won't buy them just like I wouldn't buy the latest 'photorealistic' annualized FPS game.

It never ceases to amaze me how these kind of games are still released. They could have ran on an old Oric-1? If you are a fan of these kind of games, why not just run an emulator on your PC and download the entire catalogue of games from the 80s?

I mean, not to troll or anything, I just don't get it. You sit there with a rig with fifty times the capacity of the NASA server clusters of the 80s... To run games that could have been ran on a entry grade calculator?

Please take what I'm about to say as a grain of salt, as it's not necessarily targeted at you, but the shared mindset you're expressing. Which is, IMO, the downfall and collapsing idealogy the gaming industry believes religiously and flamboyantly throws around as a crusade. AKA, AAA bollocks mentality.

I believe BTRE and tuubi summed up (better than I could have) correctly in stating "software" entertainment is not comparable to the relation of hardware advancements. Benchmarking computers/consoles with video games, has become one the most grown fallacies over the decades. Despite the fact it is entirely a byproduct of what a computer is primarily used for, to calculate. Hardware and software will be designed regardless whether or not the entertainment industry has its fingers in the pot.

To paraphrase, Michio Kaku, "[Fuck] Google and Silicon Valley."

View video on youtube.com

You could praise [x] game, [x] console, [x] movie for making that technology popular, but in reality something else would have came along and would have convinced someone.

Phones are probably the best modern example of this. They were never gaming devices, even when there were games made/marketed for them pre-smartphone. Today, they aren't simply used for a single thing, but on the level of a computer where multipurpose software is dominant. Yes, smartphones came with a wide market of games that are simple, but that's because they were designed with the input limitations a touch screen has, and forever will. I have played many of the "retro" games you speak of, but I'm sorry to inform you that touch input doesn't work for traditional controller games. Go play a classic Mario game on it, and tell me with a straight face it even feels "tight".

Look at Nintendo's Wii, M$'s Kinect, and now Intel's new "RealSense" camera gesture technology. These are the real hardware benchmarks of technological advancement (despite limited success stories and vast vocal failures). So why is Intel jumping on board with something that didn't receive so well on consoles? They know around the corner, actual technological revolutions are going to come from catalyst's like VR technology such as the Occulus Rift, and they want to be ready to supply an alternative to more suitable input control. Today's modern controller is only going to hold back that technology.

You may ask, what does this have to do with your point. Simple, as you view these retro games as "primitive", I view them on the same playing field as every other modern game to this date. Yes, I have played those and enjoyed them, but I have yet to be convinced they're revolutionary in any way shape or form because "hey, look at the shiny next gen graphics". Both are forms of interactive entertainment painted on a 2D "glass window". Nothing has changed in the way I play a game.

VR technology is coming (the question is, when does it become public acceptance), and it will likely change your mind to what you perceive as "entertainment". Of course, like a book, playing games through a looking glass is not inferior, even when VR is the new kid in town. If you're not convinced about VR in its current state, then wait for properly fleshed out input controls that suits it.

As for the "download an emulator with some roms" argument, I don't condone piracy, and it's quite likely I have played those already. Of course I would pay to relive a "proper" nostalgic experience and have no problem rewarding said developer with my wallet. Dare I ask, have you played Shovel Knight? Visual nostalgia alone isn't what made that game popular.

Some GREAT posts here now - thank you both for excellent replies. We'll never come to an agreement on this. But I appreciate the discussion for what it is: An insight into different perspectives on things.

Some comments:

All the technological progress in the world isn't going to make a book or movie plot interesting, music more memorable nor gameplay more fun in of itself. That's because entertainment is a creative endeavour primarily and imagination on the creator's behalf is key there.

This is a common argument, but the problem is that there are progression made in authorship and especially movies too. I can usually tell within the first three pages roughly what decade a sci-fi book was written in. Not on the YEAR, but there's a notable progression in how the stories are laid out, the complexity and topics raised and obviously the language. I am pretty sure fans of other genres would agree in regards to their respective genres too.

And in regards to movies: A movie have to be of the really, really excellent kind, the absolute peak level of quality for that time, for me to be able to see past the aging of the movie. The effects, the makeup, the image quality, the camera techniques, directors, screen writers, not to mention the average performance of the actors have improved significantly over the decades. Significantly!

Technical progress may enhance the experience but is in no way indicative of a quality product.

Agreed. So I cut out the rest of your reply relating to this point. No discussion there. There's loads of trash in new coating to be found.

Nostalgia isn't necessary to enjoy these types of games, though I will concede, it does help at times. What attracts me to these games is that they're fun. It's that simple. You don't need special effects in film to tell a good story and you don't need the latest graphics and physics engines to have great gameplay. It's a stylistic choice to have pixel art and midi-like music and if they're pretty and well polished for what they are, all the better.

I might surprise you now: I agree. They can be fun. Just like I enjoyed my video games back in the 80s. I still remember some dracula-themed platformer on my Oric-1.
But here's the thing: New, good games are better. Much better, even! Better audio, better graphics, better effects, better animations, better models, better artwork, better... Every friggin' last thing.

So even if you took that exact same game mechanics (and let's face it, most advancements are made on the cosmetic areas) - the very same lines of code - and placed them in a modern visual wrapping - the end result will be better!

Take the Trine games for example. To me, those games are the prime example of a very traditional formula (plain old 2d puzzle/platformer) wrapped in glorious, fantastic, glitteringly detailed modern visuals and effects. And the result is stunning! Now, why on EARTH would I want to play that same game in 8 bit choppy pixmap accompanied by beepy C64 tracker music?

It's art and therefore a subjective experience on how each person appreciates it. You don't need to use computer techniques to be an accomplished artist in our times, even though some artists use a lot of digital stuff to create pieces.

And THIS is the core of the disagreement. The claim that games are primarily just "art".

Anything made by man can be art. The wrapping of a candy bar can be art. The design of a guitar amplifier can be art. A chair can be art. A house. A hairdo. A pen. Thus, the term "art" in itself is meaningless.

Computer games are first and foremost entertainment products. That's what they are. The totality of a painting, melody or a poem has a much, much higher percentage of "art" in them than a regular computer game.

It can't be measured in objective terms

In games there are plenty objective factors. Ref the recent baluba in regards to Dying Light. What's criticized there, are the OBJECTIVE facts regarding that game.

I'm not a musician, nor a painter. But I got a feeling that the same will apply to even those crafts, where artistry is a much more dominating factor than games. I bet, that a music professor will say that there are objective factors that differs good guitarists from the rest. Or good componists, drummers, vocalists, etc. In OBJECTIVE terms.

nor can you guarantee that people will enjoy one over the other more.

True. But I can have an opinion on the matter. :)

Hopefully that'll make you understand a little of where people like me are coming from. These games aren't like buying the latest and greatest to then suffer through an old TV, if anything it's more like popping in a remastered version of Modern Times or Gone With The Wind in our modern home theater systems.

Thank you very much for taking your time in replying, BTRE. I understand your perspective a bit better now - I just find myself inherently disagreeing with it. As I guess noone should be surprised about. :)

A big thanks to you too, Keizgon, for taking your time. Great reply.

Again, a few comments:

Phones are probably the best modern example of this. They were never gaming devices, even when there were games made/marketed for them pre-smartphone.

Just as a footnote: The same is the case for the home computers of the 80s, or the PC. The consoles are the only devices designed for gaming.

Games designed for the device runs best on that device. A retro game designed for one kind of hardware doesn't usually transfer well over to a device with different input technology - being it from keyboard/mouse to gamepad, or from a 80s joystick to a touch screen.
Like you too state.
But that doesn't mean that a retro game can't ever work on a smartphone, and I am surprised if no dev has cracked that "input-code" yet for their retro games.

Yes, I have played those and enjoyed them, but I have yet to be convinced they're revolutionary in any way shape or form because "hey, look at the shiny next gen graphics". Both are forms of interactive entertainment painted on a 2D "glass window". Nothing has changed in the way I play a game.

I essentially agree when we talk about the traditional genres. Like my example with Trine in my earlier reply. My point is this: When there are no core differences, why not pick the alternative that looks light-years better? Why bother sitting there with sprites and beeps from the 80s when you can get the same core experience wrapped up in the beauty and fluidity of, for example, Trine. There's plenty other examples of current games that offer essentially the same, only executed so much better!

Then there's genres that's enjoys huge gameplay/mechanical advancements, prime examples being the simulators and the strategy games. The old ones really can not compare in any way shape or form with them, when it comes to complexity, AI and features. As an additional bonus they also look much better. But that's a bonus.

VR technology is coming (the question is, when does it become public acceptance), and it will likely change your mind to what you perceive as "entertainment". Of course, like a book, playing games through a looking glass is not inferior, even when VR is the new kid in town. If you're not convinced about VR in its current state, then wait for properly fleshed out input controls that suits it.

I'm a HUGE fan of VR and the potential that comes with it. Super-excited. And I can clearly see myself in around a decade from now arguing the same way for VR-games:
Why the heck bother with games that only support a 2D display, when you can get that SAME kind of content only embedded in a virtual, 360 degree 3D experience?!

Of course I would pay to relive a "proper" nostalgic experience and have no problem rewarding said developer with my wallet.

And I totally agree with you here.

Dare I ask, have you played Shovel Knight? Visual nostalgia alone isn't what made that game popular.

Nope I haven't. :( I've noticed the high metascore of that game though.

I have tried a few popular retro games, like that super meatball game, and others that's spoken greatly of. And after a few minutes I always - ALWAYS - end up thinking, "why do I bother with this? I'd much rather spend my time to play <insert comparable modern game here> again!".

A big thanks to you too, Keizgon, for taking your time. Great reply.

Likewise, I enjoy a civil conversation no matter the point of view. Though time is limited, so I will tread off as my last response to this subject. :)

Just as a footnote: The same is the case for the home computers of the 80s, or the PC. The consoles are the only devices designed for gaming.

Exactly in what way are consoles only meant for gaming? They were designed for social (shared) experiences and accessibility (cost). This has been shifting to an entirely unstable marketing area as modern devices start to embrace additional non-gaming designs to them. It's starting to draw the line for consumers to realize they're just PCs, but in an uncomfortable closed environment of paid services layered of more paid services.

This is where it's interesting to see where Steam machines go and are perceived at by wide audiences. Despite what happens (good or bad) as a result, it will be leaving a mark in console history to shake the faith of couch audiences.

But that doesn't mean that a retro game can't ever work on a smartphone, and I am surprised if no dev has cracked that "input-code" yet for their retro games.

It has nothing to do with "cracking it". It has to do with the market saturated with an unregulated input design. The wild west of cash grabs and amateur game philosophy. It is very easy to get alienated in this market space for games, so giving up before you find it is not uncommon.

I essentially agree when we talk about the traditional genres. Like my example with Trine in my earlier reply. My point is this: When there are no core differences, why not pick the alternative that looks light-years better? Why bother sitting there with sprites and beeps from the 80s when you can get the same core experience wrapped up in the beauty and fluidity of, for example, Trine. There's plenty other examples of current games that offer essentially the same, only executed so much better!

Then there's genres that's enjoys huge gameplay/mechanical advancements, prime examples being the simulators and the strategy games. The old ones really can not compare in any way shape or form with them, when it comes to complexity, AI and features. As an additional bonus they also look much better. But that's a bonus.

Not going to debate game-play and art decisions together. A sprite can be drawn and still perform the same tasks the physics engine requests from it. Whether it is practical in certain situations, is a different subject matter and is ultimately up to the artist.

While I'm not a music composer of any kind, I can only assume this holds true in a similar sense as an art form discussion. Again, mixing things together as the presentation doesn't give you the justified slice of the pie for objective interpretation of art.

Whether you like this argument or not, art (visual, audio, writing, etc.) is subjective. It always has been, so what looks better to you doesn't mean what looks better to me. From an artist's perspective, I can objectively say that a piece (representation) was drawn with no thought of shading/light source/colour theory/etc. making it result in an abhorrent mess representing a 5-year old drawing. Believe it or not, those traditional art design choices still exist in digital mediums and what you know as "pixel art". Believe me, I will scrutinize a game for this (with some rational restraint) because being an artist inherently makes you a critic as a byproduct of a never ending cycle of improving.

What separates you and me, are our ideas of what the outcome should be. My only interest is the artist's consistency of the presentation. Yours is the interpretation, assuming you just want to consume a product. You can only say it is subjectively inferior to your interpretation.

I'm a HUGE fan of VR and the potential that comes with it. Super-excited. And I can clearly see myself in around a decade from now arguing the same way for VR-games:
Why the heck bother with games that only support a 2D display, when you can get that SAME kind of content only embedded in a virtual, 360 degree 3D experience?!

My personal opinion is VR's strong point isn't going to be necessarily games (at least not starting out) that drive the actual interest, but experiences that it provides as a platform. I can easily see well structured Visual Novels (no, I don't mean exclusively Anime/cartoons) being that potential foundation. I want to compare the concept to a structured "dream" world someone designed, where books were the guided sandbox for an imagination in the entertainment medium.

But I'm talking about something that isn't commercially polished or matured yet, so who knows?

Nope I haven't. :( I've noticed the high metascore of that game though.

I have tried a few popular retro games, like that super meatball game, and others that's spoken greatly of. And after a few minutes I always - ALWAYS - end up thinking, "why do I bother with this? I'd much rather spend my time to play <insert comparable modern game here> again!".

Well if there was a "retro" game to accurately represent what makes those games a great experience, it would be Shovel Knight, not Super Meat Boy. Its enjoyability isn't designed around speed running for game-play like that is.

Beamboom, for the record, I enjoy civil conversation and thanks for taking the time to reply. However, I'm going to enjoy trying to pick apart your arguments :D

I can usually tell within the first three pages roughly what decade a sci-fi book was written in. Not on the YEAR, but there's a notable progression in how the stories are laid out, the complexity and topics raised and obviously the language. I am pretty sure fans of other genres would agree in regards to their respective genres too.

And in regards to movies: A movie have to be of the really, really excellent kind, the absolute peak level of quality for that time, for me to be able to see past the aging of the movie.

Here you are simply confusing cultural norms for quality. Language changes and so do values. There are universal truths in creative media which are common to humans in all ages. Themes of love, alienation and redemption are universal throughout the history of literature. However, styles change. Word choice and usage as well as preoccupation about cotillions, the plague, the Hellenistic pantheon are matters that come in and out of fashion. It's never a linear progression. How stories are told and what topics are in them change back and forth from generation to generation.

I love Hemingway and he's a break with a lot of convention of his time. A lot of modern authors mimic him. His terse style is (in)famous. Yet some authors, both contemporaneous and modern, reject that entirely and have since his time written in their own styles. Compare it with any other movement in art and you'll find similar developments. There's always people who want to return to the 'basics', others who create increasingly elaborate things and others who try to do a break with the former entirely. I don't disagree that there are identifiable traits for 'periods' in art but it's never something that always changes either for the better or perpetually into something else.

The effects, the makeup, the image quality, the camera techniques, directors, screen writers, not to mention the average performance of the actors have improved significantly over the decades. Significantly!

You clearly don't watch enough movies! All those things are false, save for perhaps camera technique. There are unquestionable advances in technology that factor in there but isn't necessarily reflected in the quality of the final product. Though it's tangential to my central argument I think it's important to point out that the *vast* majority of content is still produced unambitious with a single camera or with a three camera setup using the same types of shots and angles as generations ago. CGI is the only thing that's improved and it's been used to disastrous effect in modern movies because most directors (who you claim have improved) use it for everything instead of tiny little touches and alterations. I could rant for days about all specific major actors, directors and screenwriters (cough *Lindelof*) and how they're anything but improved from the greats but that's getting too far away from the primary point I'm making.

All the so-called improvements that you've pointed out did nothing for the second Star Wars trilogy, nor did it do anything for the Total Recall remake nor has it made any film in the last decade more outstanding than stuff like The Searchers, The Killers, Life of Oharu, Chinatown, Blade Runner, The Great Dictator, Stalker, Terminator or Alien to name a few examples. You may argue that that's because individual techniques weren't applied properly but I fail to see how your average actor or director has gotten any better (and would love examples).

So even if you took that exact same game mechanics (and let's face it, most advancements are made on the cosmetic areas) - the very same lines of code - and placed them in a modern visual wrapping - the end result will be better!

I get where you're coming from here. But it won't necessarily. A lot of what you praise about Trine and any other new game boils down to art direction. Choosing the color palette, the type of instruments and the general feel of things is a very important part of it. Just because it's newer and flashier doesn't mean it will execute what it's going for better. Sometimes simpler things visually are better because they leave things to the imagination - and that's a powerful technique content creators use even despite sometimes having better tools. Sure something with the latest 3D graphics can do a scene as well or better than older styles but that's not a guarantee made by the technology itself. It's a thing that's determined by the art director and content creator. That's the point I was making with the movie talk. And a lot of this older stuff used their available resources in a way that was so effective that changing it would take away from the intended experience.

I think remakes illustrate this rather well. In video games there's loads of examples both good and bad. Simply updating graphics and sound isn't enough to make something good. It can be but it boils down to mostly the little touches. And that, I think, is independent of technology. I would readily concede that the Resident Evil Remake (haven't played the latest remaster) is superior to the original but the Mega Man X PS remake was inferior. Both are technically better than their originals and have (mostly) just gotten graphical and audio updates with gameplay (mostly) intact but MMX doesn't sound as good and it doesn't look as charming as the detailed original sprites and backgrounds. Translating this into new games: I care a lot more for art direction than shiny things because I know it's not just a simple interchangeable component of a game.

And THIS is the core of the disagreement. The claim that games are primarily just "art".

I never made that claim. They fall under the broad scope of art=creative endeavor but that's all I said. Insofar that it matters for the sake of argument is that technique and how you execute it is independent of technical ability. That's the point I was making. There's different ways of doing things with different mediums and styles.

I would, however reject the argument that a particular medium has more "art" in it than any other. I think that's up to the individual to appreciate depending on how it speaks to him. But that's neither here nor there and certainly not related to the other points I'm making.

In games there are plenty objective factors. Ref the recent baluba in regards to Dying Light. What's criticized there, are the OBJECTIVE facts regarding that game.

I'm not a musician, nor a painter. But I got a feeling that the same will apply to even those crafts, where artistry is a much more dominating factor than games. I bet, that a music professor will say that there are objective factors that differs good guitarists from the rest. Or good componists, drummers, vocalists, etc. In OBJECTIVE terms.

This is where we disagree fundamentally. I've been saying that there's no objective facts to criticize for these games. At least none in the sense that you're presenting.

Dying Light has technical problems. The criticism there is about performance and bugs! That is objective because you can measure FPS and draw distance or sound crackling or any other myriad of technical issues. I haven't really seen anyone criticize the storytelling nor the core gameplay mechanics. At least, not as much as aforementioned issues.

Yeah, there definitely objectives standards within art. But those are all, again, technical critiques. A music professor will tell you whether or not your pitch is within range or if your guitar isn't tuned to the right key. Or how to best operate your instrument so that you can get a full range of sound more easily. But he can't very much tell you, in an objective manner, if the type of music you create is good or bad! In fact the history of music is filled with prominent experts on technical stuff criticizing the type of music people create. Beethoven, Berlioz, Sibelius, early jazz, Glass, Dylan and many many others were highly criticized for not conforming to technical norms and styles of the time.

Yeah, you're free to have your opinion on what you like or you don't and I think we both agree on that :)

But I hope that you realize that things aren't as objective as you're arguing they are. I think that implementation of technique is much more important than technique itself. You can criticize performance of a game, any bugs you encounter and certain design decisions as objective fact (in the latter category think of stuff like not being able to jump to a certain height, enemies/traps that instakill you, load times etc) but the rest I don't think is objective at all. How music and graphics are used to create an effect in their particular style, however, is completely subjective. That's because how you react to it is really up to the individual. As with the example of remakes, sometimes they work sometimes they don't. And that's up to every person to decide why.