Humble Bundle Thread

Nah, I don't think Dust is a good example at all. The dude is a professional animator by trade. The fact that he was able to learn programming to make the game, that's what's impressive. (And in fact a lot of people have said the game is quite ugly anyway - although I would completely disagree with that.)

Also Zeboyd's games are not made in RPG Maker and in my opinion they are far more "authentic" than most pseudo 8/16 bit games. The style is overused but hating on those guys is just misplaced IMO. Although I would certainly agree that their graphics aren't executed anywhere near the level of late-16-bit-era games like Bahamut Lagoon or even FF6.

 
What about those people that are creative, but both financially and artistically challenged?  Sometimes I think when someone does something exceptional, that it is then wrongfully held as a standard.  Just to put myself out there as an example, I have various ideas for games and have been storyboarding a few, but don't have the artistic skills required and certainly don't have the financial means to acquire them.  If I ever get out of the planning phase, I'd likely just use RPG Maker assets as it's an affordable tool I can use to verify proof of concept.   

 
Neuro5i5 said:
What about those people that are creative, but both financially and artistically challenged? Sometimes I think when someone does something exceptional, that it is then wrongfully held as a standard. Just to put myself out there as an example, I have various ideas for games and have been storyboarding a few, but don't have the artistic skills required and certainly don't have the financial means to acquire them. If I ever get out of the planning phase, I'd likely just use RPG Maker assets as it's an affordable tool I can use to verify proof of concept.
Click to expand...
The offer for a sick OST is still on the table, if you ever get those ideas off the ground :mrgreen:

 
Neuropod said:
Nah, I don't think Dust is a good example at all.
Click to expand...
Well what about:

[customspoiler="Bastion - Team of 4"]
bastion5.jpg
[/customspoiler][customspoiler='Braid - Team of 5 (if you count composers)']
0000007899.1920x1080.jpg
[/customspoiler][customspoiler='Fez - Team of 1']
fez-ss01.jpg
[/customspoiler][customspoiler='To The Moon - Team of 3']
ss_23b844b452cacfaaef177f78f99793ae527bb273.1920x1080.jpg
[/customspoiler]

All I'm saying is that it's completely possible to have a great looking game no matter your budget/team size. All it takes is passion and artistic talent, which those who don't have should seek out those that do. It's not very difficult, but hiding behind the "it's retro" excuse it only that. An excuse.

 
warreni said:
Not to harp on this excessively (unless it's too late), but this is what I'm talking about. This is from a game that was released in June 2013:

HOhzW4R.png

This is one of my pet peeves with modern indie RPGs. Look, I've never been one to argue that graphics are the thing that makes or breaks an RPG because that's a ludicrous argument. Nevertheless, there is a definite trend in this segment of the industry to declare something is made in a "retro" style as an excuse to justify crappy graphics. To say that you have a small studio with a limited budget with 1-2 folks providing the coding, graphics, animations, sound effects and music is a grossly-inadequate justification for having an ugly game. The game on the top is an ugly game and you can argue that this particular studio has a signature "style" that demands this look, but it's just BS--it's an ugly game because as far as anyone can tell, this is the best this studio can do in terms of quality of artwork, and it's kinda pathetic.
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for everyone, nor have I played any of these games (I could only pick one out of a lineup and that's Grimlock) but I think the top one has a simple yet pleasing style to it...

As Ash pointed out, rather she wanted to or not, there is an art to pixels and I think the above nails it more than it misses it... Off topic (sort of) but I got a new 3ds XL and I've been playing the new Zelda game... It looks great, it honestly does, but I feel the art style (its 3d rendered) is a bit off... Its suppose a sequel to "A Link to the Past" (SNES) and I cannot but help but miss the old pixels*... Or at least the style.

* Obviously the 3D wouldn't really work with pixels... So I understand Nintendo's choice but the first thing i did was turn off the 3D as I don't really like/see a need for the gimmick.

 
MrNinjaSquirrel said:
All I'm saying is that it's completely possible to have a great looking game no matter your budget/team size. All it takes is passion and artistic talent, which those who don't have should seek out those that do. It's not very difficult, but hiding behind the "it's retro" excuse it only that. An excuse.
Click to expand...
2 people worked on Fez... Lets not inflate Fish's ego anymore than it already is.

Also Fez had how much resources from MS in its 5 year development? Its not really the norm.

 
INMATEofARKHAM said:
2 people worked on Fez... Lets not inflate Fish's ego anymore than it already is.

Also Fez had how much resources from MS in its 5 year development? Its not really the norm.
Click to expand...
Fez didn't have any resources from Microsoft. Fish did all of the art if I remember correctly. It's a fantastic example of a small team making a game that looks great.

 
I'm pretty sure Fez had more than one developer, otherwise Phil Fish's epic meltdown in Indie Game the movie was him complaining about himself Gollum-style.

 
BlackEyedSceva said:
Fez didn't have any resources from Microsoft. Fish did all of the art if I remember correctly. It's a fantastic example of a small team making a game that looks great.
Click to expand...
That's completely subjective. I thought Fez was boring and didn't enjoy the "lol retro" art style at all. I tried putting on black-rimmed glasses and a hemp scarf and listening to Julia Holter while making foam pictures in my decaf chai latte and posting them on Tumblr, but not even that helped.
 
Last edited:
MrNinjaSquirrel said:
Well what about:

...

All I'm saying is that it's completely possible to have a great looking game no matter your budget/team size. All it takes is passion and artistic talent, which those who don't have should seek out those that do. It's not very difficult, but hiding behind the "it's retro" excuse it only that. An excuse.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't disagree at all, but it's only possible when one of the members of that tiny, no-budget team is a skilled artist who is willing to go unpaid until the game releases and makes money, if that ever even happens. And I don't think it's reasonable or necessary for every game to go down that path.

And I do agree that "retro" makes a nice excuse for shitty-looking games, but that's no reason to dismiss it entirely (not that I think you are, but there are plenty in here who would.) Actual care and attention to authenticity is the difference between Retro City Rampage (which looks like a real NES game) and, I dunno, Dead Pixels (which just looks like warm barf.)

 
Neuropod said:
Nah, I don't think Dust is a good example at all. The dude is a professional animator by trade. The fact that he was able to learn programming to make the game, that's what's impressive. (And in fact a lot of people have said the game is quite ugly anyway - although I would completely disagree with that.)

Also Zeboyd's games are not made in RPG Maker and in my opinion they are far more "authentic" than most pseudo 8/16 bit games. The style is overused but hating on those guys is just misplaced IMO. Although I would certainly agree that their graphics aren't executed anywhere near the level of late-16-bit-era games like Bahamut Lagoon or even FF6.
Click to expand...
Zeboyd's games may not be made in RPG Maker but they look like that or worse. I think they look terrible and like nobody cared about the art.

INMATEofARKHAM said:
I cannot speak for everyone, nor have I played any of these games (I could only pick one out of a lineup and that's Grimlock) but I think the top one has a simple yet pleasing style to it...

As Ash pointed out, rather she wanted to or not, there is an art to pixels and I think the above nails it more than it misses it.
Click to expand...
Neuropod correctly intuited that that was Rain Slick 4.

Blade said:
That's completely subjective. I thought Fez was boring and didn't enjoy the "lol retro" art style at all. I tried putting on black-rimmed glasses and a hemp scarf and listening to Julia Holter while making foam pictures in my decaf chai latte and posting them on Tumblr, but not even that helped.
Click to expand...
I agree that Fez's art is terrible.

Neuropod said:
Oh I don't disagree at all, but it's only possible when one of the members of that tiny, no-budget team is a skilled artist who is willing to go unpaid until the game releases and makes money, if that ever even happens. And I don't think it's reasonable or necessary for every game to go down that path.

And I do agree that "retro" makes a nice excuse for shitty-looking games, but that's no reason to dismiss it entirely (not that I think you are, but there are plenty in here who would.) Actual care and attention to authenticity is the difference between Retro City Rampage (which looks like a real NES game) and, I dunno, Dead Pixels (which just looks like warm barf.)
Click to expand...
Eh, I dismiss it because there's no need for that kind of thing today; however, I get that there are strange people out there who like this sort of thing.

 
Dislike Fez's art style all you want, but when you say that it's "terrible" or suggest the "retro" style was a cop-out without considering the meticulous amount of detail and effort put into every single asset you start to sound like a pretentious internet-hipster. Fish might be pompous and Fez may be over-hyped but come on.

 
i can play guitar pretty decently and screw around on keyboard (if i have a guitar part written, i can make a rudimentary keyboard part to go along, or i can make a keyboard "riff," don't actually know how to play tho).

 
BlackEyedSceva said:
Dislike Fez's art style all you want, but when you say that it's "terrible" or suggest the "retro" style was a cop-out without considering the meticulous amount of detail and effort put into every single asset you start to sound like a pretentious internet-hipster. Fish might be pompous and Fez may be over-hyped but come on.
Click to expand...
I can't take you seriously if you're calling other people pretentious internet-hipsters while named after an obscure 90's band that plays in non-4 time signatures and uses French silent film subtitles in their music videos.
 
Last edited:
BlackEyedSceva said:
Dislike Fez's art style all you want, but when you say that it's "terrible" or suggest the "retro" style was a cop-out without considering the meticulous amount of detail and effort put into every single asset you start to sound like a pretentious internet-hipster. Fish might be pompous and Fez may be over-hyped but come on.
Click to expand...
The internet is a place that's full of opinions and not all of them are congruent with mine. Moreover, we're getting pretty far afield from what was initially a stick-stirring-an-anthill about the quality of graphics in indie role-playing games; neither FEZ nor Braid could even remotely be considered role-playing games, even if you squint really hard from about fifteen feet away. It is my strong belief that many of the indie RPGs on the market that rely on crap graphics do so because the team working on them have neither the expertise nor the commitment to make something that doesn't look like a Colecovision cartridge vomited on your monitor.

The fact that I believe that FEZ's art is terrible is a reflection of my basic opinion that pixel art is neither attractive nor desirable. Look, Ashes made an important point here that shouldn't be casually glossed over, and it is this: the history of gaming is essentially a history of programmers and developers challenging the limits of what hardware and software made possible. When Pong came out, it was amazing because no one had ever done anything like it and no one really had even thought about using a computer for this purpose. When the Odyssey came out and arcade cabinets were made and the Atari 2600 was produced, we got things like Breakout and Centipede and Dig Dug and Frogger and Asteroids and Tempest and Defender, and let's be honest, they looked like crap. But at the time, they were absolutely fantastic and mind-boggling. And time marched on and we got things like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace when the industry flirted with laserdisc technology. Laserdiscs didn't last too long and were sort-of a detour on the road of gaming. New generations of both personal computers like the Apple and the TRS-80 along with more powerful gaming consoles like the Jaguar, Colecovision, and Nintendo brought yet more impressive graphics to our screens. Generations passed again and gaming experienced a variety of trends and dead-ends: the brief and unhappy flirtation with FMV, the early experimentation with 3D (which was largely dreadful), the resurgence of 2D game worlds when the industry came to the conclusion that a) 3D wasn't quite "there" yet and b) not everything really needed to be in 3D. And so on.

The point is that as technology got better at representing virtual reality on our screens, developers worked to make things look better right along with it. seamoss pointed out that not everyone has a multimillion dollar budget for graphics, modelling, motion-capture, animation, et cetera so not everything is going to look like a Naughty Dog or EA title. But nothing really needs to look like a relic from decades gone by at this point either. The tools are there to make things look better so why don't we?

Yes. I get it. You can spend a lot of time and energy making something look crappy. But who's really being pretentious in this picture? The guy who's calling it out for looking terrible or the people who thought it was a good idea to make a deliberate effort to make something that looks terrible? The reality is that you can justify anything you want on the grounds of artistic license, but if your finished product looks like something that would come on an 8K cartridge at your neighbor's garage sale, how am I or anyone else to know that you're actually capable of producing something that looks good if you're not trying to make a point?

 
MrNinjaSquirrel said:
Just to chime in on the limited team/budget debate, anyone who claims their game has bad graphics because they couldn't afford any better needs to look at Dust: An Elysian Tail. One dude made this:

[customspoiler='so purdy']
screenlg5.jpg
dust-fire-bridge.jpg
VJZnz3S.jpg
[/customspoiler]
Click to expand...
Beside that, the soundtrack is just amazing for Dust: An Elysian Tail, very emotional and sentimental. I wish they sell the soundtrack as DLC.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/1Q6wjM4blJk[/youtube]

 
warreni said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
All valid points. Three things. One, art is subjective. Yes, I'm one of those that consider video games an art form. They are an extension of someones thoughts, visions, creative desires. Two, just because technology advances does not mean that by using it, it will make things better. It is a tool and one must know how to use and implement it properly. Third, I sense that a generalization is being made that devs that do not have acceptable graphics in their games are doing so on purpose. Because they are content/pleased with their product, I don't think that means that they don't wish they could have done more with it.

That is all. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 
iSerra said:
Beside that, the soundtrack is just amazing for Dust: An Elysian Tail, very emotional and sentimental. I wish they sell the soundtrack as DLC.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/1Q6wjM4blJk[/youtube]
Click to expand...
You have one day and 13 hours to buy the OST for a dollar.

http://www.gamemusicbundle.com/

GO.

(Or wait until it shows up in a Humble Bundle. You'll get the OST there, no doubt about it.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Damn. A LOT of us are making good points here. Warreni, Seamoss, Ashes, Neuro515, MNS, hats off to all of you. Well said.

Just to throw my hat in the ring, I actually think that there's a time and a place for pixel art and "retro" graphics. It can be here and now. I personally thought Gunpoint was gorgeous. Dismissing the "retro" aesthetic would be akin to shunning a modern movie that wasn't shot digitally, or otherwise includes intentional camp (for example, Black Dynamite used both camp and outdated filming standards to tremendous effect, and is an excellent movie. Pacific Rim included campy bits effectively, as well). That said, not everything uses it effectively, and using a "retro" aesthetic doesn't automatically qualify your product as a quality piece of art (like Neuro515, I believe strongly in games as art). Not all games aspire to be art, though, and that's okay too. While Dust shows that games do not require huge teams to be beautiful (the huge teams/budget excuse is a cop-out that's used far too often), it also shows that a game doesn't need the latest tech to be beautiful. A game can try to use modern graphics standards effectively, and fail miserably, as can a game using the retro aesthetic. But I'm not sure games in either style (retro or modern) should be dismissed or accepted outright.

Since the original discussion was regarding RPGs, I'll say that there have been more than a few indie RPGs that look fuck -ing awful (Legends of Dawn, Iesabel, I'm looking at you), and it is not justified by an intentional aesthetic, small team, limited budget, or any other excuse.

Moral is, that while there are shitty games in every genre and aesthetic, there are excellent ones, as well. Obviously the real monster is...  mobile ports.

My two cents, anyway,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neuropod said:
Nah, I don't think Dust is a good example at all. The dude is a professional animator by trade. The fact that he was able to learn programming to make the game, that's what's impressive. (And in fact a lot of people have said the game is quite ugly anyway - although I would completely disagree with that.)
Click to expand...
I really liked the overall art style. The NPCs weren't usually my thing, but they were consistent and they work well (I'm also not a fan of a lot of newer Disney animation). The thing that gets me it a lot of people bash Dust for being Furry art. ...and those people don't know what Furry art is... Dust art isn't (hyper) sexualized. OMG anthropomorphic animals... like a lot of WB characters, " [customspoiler="Bugs Bunny, indoctrinating children into the Furry lifestyle"]
whats-up-doc.jpg
[/customspoiler]
 
For the record, I'm fully on board with Dust, played it when it first came out on :360: (with nothing at all hinting toward a PC release) and loved it. But yes, furries / anthros / whatever are another art style choice some people just can't tolerate for whatever reason. Their loss!

 
Neuropod said:
For the record, I'm fully on board with Dust, played it when it first came out on :360: (with nothing at all hinting toward a PC release) and loved it. But yes, furries / anthros / whatever are another art style choice some people just can't tolerate for whatever reason. Their loss!
Click to expand...
Are you a fan of the Bloody Roar series? I was disappointed there was never a PS3 addition to the series. I was crazy with Bakuryu the Mole.

 
PKB Mac said:
Damn. A LOT of us are making good points here. Warreni, Seamoss, Ashes, Neuro515, MNS, hats off to all of you. Well said.

Just to throw my hat in the ring, I actually think that there's a time and a place for pixel art and "retro" graphics. It can be here and now. I personally thought Gunpoint was gorgeous. Dismissing the "retro" aesthetic would be akin to shunning a modern movie that wasn't shot digitally, or otherwise includes intentional camp (for example, Black Dynamite used both camp and outdated filming standards to tremendous effect, and is an excellent movie. Pacific Rim included campy bits effectively, as well). That said, not everything uses it effectively, and using a "retro" aesthetic doesn't automatically qualify your product as a quality piece of art (like Neuro515, I believe strongly in games as art). Not all games aspire to be art, though, and that's okay too. While Dust shows that games do not require huge teams to be beautiful (the huge teams/budget excuse is a cop-out that's used far too often), it also shows that a game doesn't need the latest tech to be beautiful. A game can try to use modern graphics standards effectively, and fail miserably, as can a game using the retro aesthetic. But I'm not sure games in either style (retro or modern) should be dismissed or accepted outright.

Since the original discussion was regarding RPGs, I'll say that there have been more than a few indie RPGs that look fuck -ing awful (Legends of Dawn, Iesabel, I'm looking at you), and it is not justified by an intentional aesthetic, small team, limited budget, or any other excuse.

Moral is, that while there are shitty games in every genre and aesthetic, there are excellent ones, as well. Obviously the real monster is... mobile ports.

My two cents, anyway,
Click to expand...
Camp is veering really far afield. Frankly we can probably devote a message board to camp, but that's not an aesthetic that you typically see in video games. To me, it's a fairly fine line between camp and parody, but that's probably because I don't understand the former all that well. I haven't seen Pacific Rim because everything I've read about it leads me to think it's Del Toro trying to be Jerry Bruckheimer and, for better or worse, succeeding; this would make it that rarest of animals, a Del Toro film I don't like.

The broader point that a game should not be dismissed out of hand because of its style has some legitimacy: you can make a game that looks like trash but actually is a very compelling experience. To The Moon falls in that category for me. It looks like an old Nintendo game and what gameplay there is is tedious, but it tells a wonderful story and the music is fantastic. I will say that I bought Gunpoint outside of a bundle recently because the gameplay and writing trump the poor quality of the graphics in that case.

On the other hand, it's all too easy to say something like, "Yeah, I know my game looks like crap but it has three-dimensional characters and an epic plot!" It still seems a bit like an excuse.

PKB, you're more than entitled to your 2p, but I'm a little confused by your examples. In your opinion, this

Ees4uho.png

and this

l4BTwfw.png

are examples of ugly games? All I can say is I disagree. These may be bad, poorly-optimized, and ill-conceived games but they don't seem to be ugly.

Also, I agree that most phone game ports are dreadful and shouldn't exist. I've never understood the cultural juggernaut that is Angry Birds. I also can't really understand why anyone would want to play a game on a phone when that person has access to a computer or game console. But, hey, I'm an old guy who doesn't understand kids today, so what do I know?

By the way, get off my lawn! :boxing:

Neuropod said:
For the record, I'm fully on board with Dust, played it when it first came out on :360: (with nothing at all hinting toward a PC release) and loved it. But yes, furries / anthros / whatever are another art style choice some people just can't tolerate for whatever reason. Their loss!
Click to expand...
I don't have much of an opinion on Dust; I'm waiting for a bundle. However, it does look like it was done by some talented artists.

 
For what it's worth:

I really liked fez's aesthetic

A good example of a game with a shitty ugly art style (IMHO) but is still a good game is Hotline Miami

 
Usually internet debates devolve into strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks and other shallow name calling, but I'd just like to say that I've enjoyed reading this discussion on "games as art" and "subjective beauty" quite a bit.  Even though I don't agree with everyone here, I love how people are making great arguments to support their stances without having to attack people personally.  Whether on topic or not, this has been a great read.

My two cents:

I do agree that many RPG's use retro graphics because they don't have the resources or experiences to do any better... not necessarily because it's more aesthetically pleasing.  I think games like To The Moon, Penny Arcade 3/4, and Corpse Party are all excellent games that are somehow better served by their simple graphics though.  Actually, a good example is Lone Survivor, as the low-fi visuals allow me to leave more to the imagination.  I think there's a reason a game like Amnesia: Dark Descent is scarier than Dead Space 3, and it's the same reason why I was so scared playing Clock Tower on the SNES decades ago: our imagination can often conjure up something scarier than a developer can.

However, some games use retro graphics as a crutch, and the biggest perpetrator in recent memory is Dragon Fantasy book 2.  The first DF game was fun in a throwback sort of way, as it was a pretty simple Dragon Quest 1/2 knockoff.  However, the sequel tried to enter the "16 bit" generation aesthetic, and honestly I think it utterly failed.  It's one of the ugliest RPGs I've ever seen, even though it is technically more complex than its predecessor.  I am someone who believes sprite art is hard to do well, and thus is an art form in itself, and I point to DF book 2 as exhibit A in sprite art done horribly wrong.

As for Dust, while I do believe it is a beautiful game, just as I mentioned in my indies review post I don't understand why it gets so many accolades.  The gameplay is pretty much the same at the end of the game as it is in the beginning, and the power-up/unlocks that allow you to access previously inaccessible sections are incredibly boring (double jump and lots of keys) as opposed to a good Metroidvania game like Guacamelee.  Also, I don't mind the "furry" aesthetic so much (sarcastic use of quotes, I agree with ashes that these are not furries), but I absolutely will groan and roll my eyes when these anthropomorphic cartoons wax philosophic and contemplate on the meaning of life and destiny.  The entire plot and dialogue felt like I was reading some middle schooler's fanfic, and whether Fidget is a furry or not, I will never enjoy those types of characters.  /rant

 
warreni said:
Also, I agree that most phone game ports are dreadful and shouldn't exist. I've never understood the cultural juggernaut that is Angry Birds. I also can't really understand why anyone would want to play a game on a phone when that person has access to a computer or game console. But, hey, I'm an old guy who doesn't understand kids today, so what do I know?
Click to expand...
This I'd like to respond to. For one, I'm by no means a fan of Angry Birds and don't get the hype surrounding it. It does it's job as a physics based time waster well enough, but really is over-hyped IMO. As to why portable gaming is growing, well, the obvious is people don't always have access to a PC or console. When I was commuting 3+ hours a day by train, I wish I had an iPad back then as it would have made the trips WAY better. Also, I've come to the realization that I actually prefer some games on mobile devices (iPad here). I'm not much of a strategy gamer and while I love P&C adventures, I don't find myself playing them as much as I would like. I find that I play both genres considerably more on my iPad. P&C adventures feel right at home on a touchscreen device and strategy games feel more intuitive (at least the one I have) as well. I can't wait to get FTL for iOS.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neuro5i5 said:
This I'd like to respond to. For one, I'm by no means a fan of Angry Birds and don't get the hype surrounding it. It does it's job as a physics based time waster well enough, but really is over-hyped IMO. As to why portable gaming is growing, well, the obvious is people don't always have access to a PC or console. When I was commuting 3+ hours a day by train, I wish I had an iPad back then as it would have made the trips WAY better. Also, I've come to the realization that I actually prefer some games on mobile devices (iPad here). I'm not much of a strategy gamer and while I love P&C adventures, I don't find myself playing them as much as I would like. I find that I play both genres considerably more on my iPad. P&C adventures feel right at home on a touchscreen device and strategy games feel more intuitive (at least the one I have) as well. I can't wait to get FTL for iOS.
Click to expand...
I'll formulate an opinion on this after I play FTL. 8-[

I like iPads actually. It's the one iDevice that actually seems like a genuinely-useful thing, even if the name is still really stupid. I've used my wife's iPad mini and my Nexus 7 and as much as I love Android, the iPad is more responsive and has a more attractive screen. However, IMO mobile gaming is overrated. I understand that this puts me in a minority again, but I just don't see the point. I'll play chess or word searches on a phone or tablet, but if I have a tablet and nothing to do, I'd probably rather be reading a book on it.

 
warreni said:
I'll formulate an opinion on this after I play FTL. 8-[

I like iPads actually. It's the one iDevice that actually seems like a genuinely-useful thing, even if the name is still really stupid. I've used my wife's iPad mini and my Nexus 7 and as much as I love Android, the iPad is more responsive and has a more attractive screen. However, IMO mobile gaming is overrated. I understand that this puts me in a minority again, but I just don't see the point. I'll play chess or word searches on a phone or tablet, but if I have a tablet and nothing to do, I'd probably rather be reading a book on it.
Click to expand...
whyyyyyy haven't you played ftl? It's so good.

 
pasports31 said:
whyyyyyy haven't you played ftl? It's so good.
Click to expand...
Dude. I'm a CAG. Ratio of time available : games available abysmal.

My brother gifted it to me not long after it popped up on Steam and I have it installed and waiting. I decided to tackle one of my other installed and pending games instead--Orcs Must Die!, which has proven to be frantic but entertaining.

 
warreni said:
Dude. I'm a CAG. Ratio of time available : games available abysmal.

My brother gifted it to me not long after it popped up on Steam and I have it installed and waiting. I decided to tackle one of my other installed and pending games instead--Orcs Must Die!, which has proven to be frantic but entertaining.
Click to expand...
I also recently got into OMD - after both 1/2 were in the recent bundle and I bought them in the halloween sale (grumble grumble) I decided to boot it up. Good, but I can't play too long or I get a bit bored w/it. Pretty great for 1-2 level spurts though

 
warreni said:
snip
Click to expand...
Warreni, you're absolutely right that I veered a bit off course with the camp argument (I probably shouldn't jump into these things when I'm tired). Perhaps a better example would be a film with practical effects rather than CG. The point I was attempting to get at (which you're on board with, based on your reaction to "To The Moon"), is that a well-made product can transcend graphics or other modern technology. The important thing, I suppose, is to not use it as a crutch or a gimmick (which happens far too often), and instead make conscious decisions about what will best support the game or the narrative.

As for Legends of Dawn, it looks fine in stills, but I was more referring to the optimization. Iesabel isn't exactly ugly, but it doesn't exactly push technology forward, as you had wanted. It seemed to fall into an odd middle-area where all I could say was "Of all the games I've seen in my life, that was one of them". I was neither impressed, nor revolted. Perhaps both games were overshadowed by other games in the genre. Maybe I was just bitter as I was excited for both of them, and felt let-down. Maybe they have been patched for better optimization. They might warrant a second look. Are they worth revisiting?

EDIT: also, let me know what you think of FTL. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Neuro5i5 said:
snip
Click to expand...
For the record, I wholeheartedly agree. I spend enough time on the metro, that it would be painful without some mobile gaming. However, it's getting alarmingly common for mobile games to get ported to pc or console, which to me, seems lazy. I think the games that most successfully distinguish themselves as art are the ones that take advantage of their medium (same goes for films, plays, or anything else, really), or push the limits of it. Even a game that doesn't exactly become art should take advantage of the medium. PC's have different control methods, and a different experience (large monitor, sitting close, etc.) than a mobile device, so it saddens me when I see a game ported from mobile, and offering the same experience, and expected to be the same quality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PKB Mac said:
As for Legends of Dawn, it looks fine in stills, but I was more referring to the optimization. Iesabel isn't exactly ugly, but it doesn't exactly push technology forward, as you had wanted. It seemed to fall into an odd middle-area where all I could say was "Of all the games I've seen in my life, that was one of them". I was neither impressed, nor revolted. Perhaps both games were overshadowed by other games in the genre. Maybe I was just bitter as I was excited for both of them, and felt let-down. Maybe they have been patched for better optimization. They might warrant a second look. Are they worth revisiting?
Click to expand...
Beats me. I haven't played LoD yet and I don't own Iesabel. I just think they look pretty good for indies. I've read that LoD is actually a terrible game and I think the devs have either already moved on to a sequel or are close to doing so, so the number of new patches that are forthcoming is probably dwindling. I'm sure I'll do a thorough review when I get around to Legends of Dawn.

EDIT: It probably reflects poorly on me and my lifestyle choices but I'll pay Groupees $0.75 for a dubious RPG while I'll keep my bits in my billfold if they offer me an ostensibly-good platformer.

PKB Mac said:
PC's have different control methods, and a different experience (large monitor, sitting close, etc.) than a mobile device, so it saddens me when I see a game ported from mobile, and offering the same experience, and expected to be the same quality.
Click to expand...
This is my biggest beef with mobile ports. The fact is that touch interfaces don't work all that well with normal PCs (<cough>, Windows 8). But developers seem to think it's okay to treat a PC port as just another revenue stream like an iOS or Android port, giving little to no thought to optimization of controls, enhancement of graphics, et cetera. There are quite of few of these things floating around these days, but only a few of the ones on Greenlight are actually promising to make these kinds of changes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
warreni said:
This is my biggest beef with mobile ports. The fact is that touch interfaces don't work all that well with normal PCs (<cough>, Windows 8). But developers seem to think it's okay to treat a PC port as just another revenue stream like an iOS or Android port, giving little to no thought to optimization of controls, enhancement of graphics, et cetera. There are quite of few of these things floating around these days, but only a few of the ones on Greenlight are actually promising to make these kinds of changes.
Click to expand...
Exactly (though Kingdom Rush Frontier looks like they're putting some work in). Even when the kinks with touch screen PCs get figured out, screen size will likely make for a substantially different experience, and require work, time, money, and focus to port games properly. Whole thing kinda reminds me of early attempts to bring RTS games to the console. Even if they ever got controls configured correctly (which few, if any, that I can think of did), sitting 10 feet away looking at a TV monitor provided a fundamentally different experience than sitting close to a computer monitor. Made micromanagement and focusing on some of the details more difficult. A bit tangential, but I always think about that when I see another mobile port.

 
ATLUS, ACE Team, Tripwire weekly

$1+

Zeno Clash

Zeno Clash 2

Killing Floor

Dwarfs!?

$6+

Rock of Ages

Rising Storm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top