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?

Quoting: BeamboomIt 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. :)

Quoting: tuubiIf 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.

Quoting: tuubiIn 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.

Quoting: tuubiAnd 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.

Quoting: BeamboomFor 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.

Quoting: BeamboomIt 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:

Quoting: BTREAll 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!

Quoting: BTRETechnical 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.

Quoting: BTRENostalgia 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?

Quoting: BTREIt'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.

Quoting: BTREIt 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.

Quoting: BTREnor can you guarantee that people will enjoy one over the other more.

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

Quoting: BTREHopefully 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:

Quoting: KeizgonPhones 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.

Quoting: KeizgonYes, 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.

Quoting: KeizgonVR 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?!

Quoting: KeizgonOf 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.

Quoting: KeizgonDare 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!".