gaming When is "Retro" Done Right? And When is it Merely a "Gimmick"?

[Guest]

 

From 8-bit to 16-bit stylized gaming, it's pretty clear that "retro" or "retro inspired" games on are the rise, especially with indie developers. Sometimes an artistic choice and others just because the budget doesn't justify anything else. Love them or hate them, retro inspired games are here to stay and it makes us all wonder of the day when 4K resolutions will be considered retro. However with so many retro-inspired games, there are bound to be a few in the mix that are merely taking advantage of the trend to capitalize and cash in. After all, just like back in the 16-bit times, not every game was an instant classic. Many games even back then slapped cool imagery onto themselves in the hopes to sucker in enough sales to justify the production costs.

 

Among the gems there are always stinkers; however when does a game go from being "Retro-inspired" to being just plain gimmicky in the hopes of lighting your nostalgia candle to blind you with the scent so you don't notice absolute crap? Well that's what we're here to discuss.

 

 

Many will say that there is a certain age of retro that is considered "retro" enough and I would partially agree. We all know that NES and SNES have earned their stamp of "retro-approved" however PS1 and N64 era games are still in that awkward time period where many will say they are not the same kind of retro. While their games are still excellent by today's standards, their style just is that awkward before 3D was fully mastered period that just can't ever seem to look great.

 

However the big issue is when is a game making an earnest effort to be retro, and when is it a cash grab, or a cheap money saving choice?

 

In the case of Five Night's at Freddy's I think is a good example of taking advantage of a trend. The games were built upon an ancient engine with outdated graphics due to costs more than aesthetics. Pumped out at lightning speed, and offering little in the way of new innovations, almost copying their entire modest "gameplay" from the cult classic "Night Trap".

 

I think the big factor is when the art style either compliments the game or brings something new to the table such as in VA-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action. Where it delivers an interesting and entertaining story complimented with pixel graphics that blend well with the cyberpunk theme. A major difference is when a game is doing something with an old style that wasn't possible at the time when the style first popped up.

 

What do you think? When does a game stop being truly retro, and just start being a cash grab?

[Unikitty 1,212]

I don't think it's so much a genre/theme issue. A game isn't more or less a good retro game by having x or y retro tropes included/omitted. Rather it's about whether or not the game at its core is well made. If it's a game that has put together elements well and had plenty of heart put into its development, then the tropes and genre defining aspects become almost arbitrary. If a game plays well and feels reminiscent of the retro age(be it through mechanics, aesthetics, mood - any 'retro' trope), then it'll be a good retro-inspired game.

 

Basically, retro isn't so much a theme as it is a feeling. If a game feels akin to those ol' game-y times, it's succeeded at bringing back the retro gaming vibe.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Unikitty

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 42,203]

Issues start happening very rapidly when you take the Volgar the Viking approach. That game specifically advertises that it is a throwback to old school games, but the issue, is that it advertises that for the insane difficulty. Basically, it is a hack and slash platformer that is intentionally stiff in movement and hard as hell to control, as well as having respawning enemies in places where it is entirely unfair and makes zero sense. At this point, the game is just using its 'old school difficulty' as a gimmick entirely, opting to go for some stupid nostalgia factor rather than anything fun.

 

You wanna do retro right? You follow Shovel Knight, at least for that genre. That game absolutely nails the retro aesthetic but still manages to be ahead of the curb in the 2D platforming genre. The controls were very tight and fluid and the gameplay was near platforming perfection. The game is still very difficult in spots, but fair, because the controls are that good. The developers of Volgarr missed the mark so much, that even my brother, an avid fan of Dark Souls, could not get into it whatsoever.

 

To me, the moment a developer opts to sacrifice quality to seem more retro, that is when it hits gimmick territory entirely.

[Discordian 6,021]

Games that try to be like older games almost always do it wrong. They take all of the wrong designs from those games. Things that make them more tedious to play or generally add nothing.

 

The few that I have enjoyed also have enough new game designs in them to offset it. Which adds to the point that going retro is not a particularly good direction. It can't often stand on its own.

[Guest]

 

 

but the issue, is that it advertises that for the insane difficulty.

 

YES.

 

I get so annoyed when the "throw back" to retro is just the insane difficulty. Like there was more to old games than being insanely hard... :I

[Discordian 6,021]

That's kind of the problem with older games. They only had two defining features: Their graphics and the lack of balance (note: Not actual difficulty by design) because developers only kinda knew what they were doing at the time.

 

Everything else they may or may not have done are still done today in many games. What people want out of old games is things brought on by lack of power and inexperienced design. Things we don't really have an issue with today so when they try to implement it we realize that those things aren't actually fun in any sense of the word. It just makes a game seem unfinished or broken.

[duidamasterXD 9,627]

I don't disagree with your conclusion in general (that a game's choice in graphics should complement the gameplay + other parts of the experience) but do take some issue with the notion of "cashing in". Once I start thinking in those terms, it seems to me that /every/ game is trying to cash in, using various things that appeal to players. New graphics, old graphics, big and open worlds, large casts of quirky characters, minimalistic designs, and virtually everything you can describe about a game is an attempt to get money in somebody's wallet, no?

So it seems to me that the main difference between a good retro game and a "cash grab" is whether one enjoyed the game, in which case the accusatory tone comes off as unnecessary.

[Guest]

 

 

Once I start thinking in those terms, it seems to me that /every/ game is trying to cash in, using various things that appeal to players.

 

My mentality is:

 

If your game is just using nostalgia to hide the fact that you put little effort into making the game and little effort into designing an enthralling story, or fun gameplay, you don't get bonus points for being nostalgic to me.

 

I mean that's just my opinion, while I disagree with yours, you are welcome to have it and it doesn't make yours or mine anymore right or wrong.

[AlbaTross 1,586]

I don't think there's an inherently right or wrong way to do a retro throwback. I think at its core the issue is whether or not effort was put into the game and if the devs behind it truly know what they're adapting from the games they're inspired by, and why. Dragon Fantasy is a game I just don't care for. It makes fun of the really old school style of JRPG such as the original Dragon Quest that's just plain tedious to play, but it is that game through and through. Some people may be cool with that, but I find it to be too tedious to grind through it. In more recent years there have been plenty of titles that have adapted retro art styles and/or gameplay mechanics that span multiple genres, but I haven't bothered with them as much as other types of games thanks largely to the bad experience I had with Dragon Fantasy.

 

I think it's important to keep in mind what made games from the past good, and why people loved them. Stuff like a really grind heavy JRPG with random encounters existed due to limitations in technology and the devs getting a feel for what an RPG should be and how it should play which has been refined over the years. Back in the 80s, there really was no precedent to base these games off of. I'm not saying they shouldn't be regarded as classics, and they did inspire many games to come, but it's important to figure out why gamers liked those games. I'm pretty sure stuff like heavy grinding was something they were willing to put up with for the rest if the experience, and not something they flocked to these games for. That's only one example, but I think it illustrates my point.

 

It's highly possible to technically go through all the motions of making a retro tribute right, right down to the last detail, but still have the game feel flat. My theory is that the problem stems from lack of creativity. We don't want a game that's exactly like the games of old as we can just go back and play those if we want to. We want something that celebrates what made games of the past great while still containing some manner of creativity and maybe even takes advantage of current hardware and/or ideas and concepts that didn't exist back in the day. We can have sprites with more animation, or have more sprites on screen now without hardware slowdown even if the same sort of art style is used because we're not using 8 or 16 bit hardware. We can have new ideas that make a game fresh and unique, because we're not limited by the ideas of the 80s and 90s anymore.

 

There's no harm in taking what made old games great and tweaking the concept so that we don't have to worry about the drawbacks anymore. And maybe having something that's retro inspired but new where it counts will have far more appeal as both fans of old games and fans of new and quirky titles will have something to enjoy. That's my take on it at least.