“The original NES hardware literally only had around 55 colors that were pre-programmed in and no other color was allowed,” Wozniak explained. “We broke this rule by adding 5 colors to help with a few things the NES palette lacked—namely, darker and desaturated colors. But we justified that decision by treating it as compensation for the fact that everyone is playing these games on much brighter, higher fidelity screens than the CRTs of the past.”
This is a great example of how some retro-style projects get it and some don’t. The successful projects are the one that have the feel of the games you used to play in the context of today’s gaming, not the ones that do a historically accurate, 1:1 conversion. There’s an art to it.
That’s the problem with many modern AAA games. They lack innovation. Since they only look to maximize profits, they stick to reliable formulas that are known to be profitable.
This is the reason why I only play indies nowadays. How many AAA studios have new ideas? Sure, we see, every now and then, a new game that really feels new, but they are rare. Meanwhile, the indie sphere cooks new things constantly. Sure, not all are pretty or good or polished, but at least they try new things!
I hate that people use “AAA” for this argument, because nobody knows what the hell “AAA” means anymore. It’s the “woke” of complaining about games.
For what it’s worth, you’re not wrong that there is a subset of studios, big and small, that tend to think the recipe for recouping their risky investment on a creative product is doing something that is already successful in the exact way it’s already successful. Which is consistently a problem, because the successful thing already exists and people are already playing it, so there isn’t much incentive to go play the same thing again elsewhere, especially if twenty different identical games just sprouted up like weeds.
But that’s not a “AAA” thing. For sure it’s near-universal in the GaaS sphere where everybody is trying to tap into the same blob of users, but there are plenty of interesting, unique ideas in very large games and plenty of derivative small games. How many iterations of Meat Boys and Hollow Knights and “2D Dark Souls” have you played in the last decade? Because I’m pretty sure I can’t count them with my fingers anymore.
For the record, an AAA game is a game with a big budget from a big studio. I think everyone can agree that an Assassin’s Creed is an AAA game while shovel knight isn’t.
Sure, but definitions aren’t good when they cover the obvious use case, they’re useful if they aren’t messy or meaningless around the edges.
You may have a set definition for where those edges are, but I’ve also seen people argue that Baldur’s Gate III isn’t a “AAA” game even though it’s a game with a nine digit budget from a studio staffed by many hundreds of people using a license from a major corporation.
For many people online, “AAA” means “A big game I don’t like” and their read on “AAA studios” is restricted to whichever of Ubisoft, Activision or EA is popular to dunk on that week, ignoring all the studios making big games that don’t fit the couple of game concepts they associate with the term.
Well, you are assuming a lot of things I haven’t said there.
First of all, I said that in the AAA world, original games are rare. They exist, but they are rare. And there’s a reason: an AAA game is made by a company that has a stakeholders board deciding what has to be done and what not (which is the reason why people say BG3 is not an AAA game but an indie). Since those boards want their money and only that, they don’t care about innovation or anything else.
This doesn’t mean that AAA companies don’t make original games, it only means that they rarely experiment and tend to focus on already succesful formulas.
Second, I never said that AAA games are just “big games I don’t like”. As I said, sometimes they do good games. But seriously, how many times have you seen an AAA company take a serious risk in what they do?
Also, I don’t think it’s just the usual three. I think GTA is doing the same. What are they gonna do with 6? Just GTA V but bigger. That’s exactly what I mean when I say that they don’t innovate.
I’m not assuming anything you said or meant, I’m talking about the term in general, regardless of how you speficially are using it.
Even if you were super rigorous about it, the term is now meaningless because it’s routinely misused (again, the “woke” of complaining about games).
But I don’t think you’re being super rigorous about it, either. I guarantee that Larian has a board, despite being a private company. They have six different studios at this point, someone is managing that investment. Also that Hasbro and WotC had at least some say about the content, even if they were smart enough to sit back and let Larian cook.
Larian is privately owned, which does mean their obligations to their investors are different than to public shareholders. But that’s not how you (or anybody else) is defining AAA.
So in terms of examples of AAA companies taking risks the struggle becomes that I don’t know what you mean by AAA and I don’t know what you mean by “taking a risk”.
Do I think Activision took a risk by shipping Call of Duty without a campaign? Sure. Do I think it’s a particularly interesting or creative risk? Probably not.
Do I think Larian took a risk putting their AAA franchise sequel on Early Access for two years and barely talking to people about it for that long? Absolutely, holy crap. Do I think they took a ton of risks with the game proper? No, it’s pretty much a Divinity sequel with a D&D license and a big budget.
Do I think Naughty Dog took risks with The Last of Us 2? Narratively, for sure, that game is the Metal Gear Solid 2 of that franchise. Gameplay-wise less so.
Do I think Sony took a risk making a AAA Astro Bot? Meh, we could debate about it, but it’s certainly a AAA-ass game that succeeded, I think that’s undeniable.
Do I think Capcom takes risks with its AAA games? Well, Dragon’s Dogma 2 is an alien artifact and Kunitsu-Gami is weirder than that. I don’t think Okami is as much of a risk, or Monster Hunter.
Do I think Ubisoft takes risks? Well, they shipped not one but two 2D Prince of Persia games, including some roguelike from some of the Dead Cells people. You know it was a risk because they both failed. Were they AAA? I don’t know. They’re Ubisoft games, though.
So see, I don’t know what you mean by “AAA studios don’t innovate” or “don’t take risks”. I don’t know what you mean by “innovate” and I don’t know what you mean by “AAA”. Not all of that is your fault, other people ruined those terms for you, but by using them as if they made sense you make it so I can’t give you the benefit of the doubt or assume I know what you mean.
“Woke”.
I dunno about “everything” being a new idea. There definitely were some, but there were a lot of clones of other games and genres being beaten to death just like now.
Mario-style platformer? Side-scrolling beat-em-up? Couldn’t count them all.
Shovel Knight brought with it a ton of new ideas in terms of gameplay, but a lot was borrowed as well.
To be fair, it was like that in the actual NES era too.
Unless you’re an actual enthusiast, there are TONS of NES games that you’ve never heard of, that inspired the gameplay of other games.
Then there’s the games that were japan only, never got an outside release. But then a later game that DOES get an outside release uses elements from those games. From out perspective, that 2nd game invented that formula. You find out years later it wasn’t.
Sure, but they’ve made more games. Shovel Knight Dig and Pocket Dungeon are both fun genre-blending twists.
I don’t think he’s saying you should make something entirely unique, just that you should disregard modern tropes and treat what you’re making authentically:
“I can tell when I’m playing a game made by people who are well versed in the game type they are making,” said Wozniak. "The people who are making an NES game should play a ton of NES games and be experts on the topic.
Same way that if you’re going to write, you’ve got to read a lot. My favourite metaphor for creativity is a conversation, and the most interesting “statements” in any creative conversation come from a highly relevant observation based on everything said so far, not from someone who blurts out a complete non-sequitur. A brilliant random comment can add worthwhile variety to a conversation, but they’re not the moments that feel like something insightful has been discovered - I hope that hangs together, mostly.
Yacht Club does feel like one of those people who, when they speak up you always want to listen. I don’t do much mobile gaming, but I went out of my way to play a bit of Pocket Dungeon. It put me in mind of mobile games from way back before everything was an addictive by design skinner box, but it also managed to be something I could pick up and put down with very little friction. It’s kinda perfect, and if I was going to play more mobile games I could do worse than going back.
That’s how all art is.
Yes well, even though I was raised by artists and have given over a large portion of my life’s energy to creative pursuits, nobody actually told me that art is the study of choice (and everything started clicking into place) until about a year ago and I’ve been riding that high ever since.
One of the great things about art, no matter the medium, is you can always learn something new.
Keep riding that high, that’s really cool.
This comment is true for all games, regardless of graphics quality. If a game offers nothing new from a story/gameplay perspective, its graphics wont carry it very far.
Super Amazing Wagon Adventure was a great example of retro style mixed with modern wtf madness
Old games stood on their own merits: artwork, sound design, game mechanics. I have no idea what “retro authenticity” is supposed to be, but it doesn’t sound like it involves inspiration or imagination.
Gonna get lynched for admitting to this here, but I’ve stayed away from Shovel Knight because of how premium they take themselves to be. I have gotten Hollow Knight and plenty of other Castlevanias on discount, though, even though I’m not a fan of the genre. I think this statement coming from them is a bit ironic consider how they treat their product, although they aren’t the only one.
I’m SO confused by what you’re saying. And I think what is happening, is you’re saying something so outragous that my brain REFUSES to process the information. Leaving me bewildered by recent developments.
Let me get this straight…you think that the studio behind shovel knight doesn’t deserve to state their opinion on how to mske good retro games??? And this is based on the fact that they don’t discount their games, and they take the genre too seriously…just to make sure I understand you. That’s what you’re going with?
I mean, we can wait for them to clarify, but the way I read it is that… it’s bad that they don’t sell their game for cheaper?
I profoundly disagree there, too. There’s this notion that pixel art games are inherently low-end, cheap stuff and that’s just not true. Plus games are too cheap these days anyway. I bought Shovel Knight full price (several times, actually), and while it’s not my favorite 2D platformer it always felt like good value. I mean, the soundtrack alone is worth the price of admission, and all the expansions are fun and worth playing. Even if they weren’t, the franchise now includes more interesting games I am glad their success was able to fund.
I agree with the sentiment. People think that non 3d graphics should be cheap because they don’t understand the amount of work that can go behind them.
Take chained echoes or sea of stars, two modern pixel jrpgs with “premium” prices. If someone thinks those games shouldn’t cost their full price, they are out of their minds.
Same with shovel knight. I bought the treasure trove and the amount of fun it has give to me puts so many 80€ games to shame.
Shovel Knight is flipping huge. I mean, sure, Treasure Trove includes what? Five full games in there, given their DLC structure. But even if it didn’t, I don’t think people realize how big these “retro games” are.
Shovel Knight is probably three, four times larger than Duck Tales, both in terms of assets and playtime. If anything, a pet peeve of mine with modern retro games is they all feel this compulsion to give you a five hour playthrough at least and that’s often too much for the older mechanics they’re leaning on.
Castlevania will last you an hour on a blind run and that’s perfectly fine, even if you get to that bar by having more content instead of being obtuse and difficult the way an older game would due to memory and budget constraints.
Not that they don’t deserve their opinion, just that it is somewhat hypocritical to use nostalgia to put the game on a pedestal and prevent it from being as accessible. Most devs don’t take it as a personal attack to their character to make their games more accessible to players and get more of a fan base going, and frankly, ease of access for a lot of kids of free retro games on their emulators is what has compelled them to later become loyal fans of the franchise. It is not a commentary about the value of games itself, and I will not shed a tear for indie devs that are already millionaires keeping prices high on their games as if it was necessary. Also not a fan of IP laws that are just an excuse of profitting way beyond the cost of development of something.
This would not be acceptable anywhere outside this particular sub-industry, and it does not even make sense once sales have dropped down low enough since the benefit you get from advertising is greater. This only makes sense if you see any sense in huffing and puffing and taking it as a personal aggression having to consider selling your product that has already profited its development costs several times over for less.
Personally, I will not buy it because it is not a genre I particularly like. But I would not mind buying it to see what all the fuss is about on discount. Take that as you will, but the outcome is that I will probably play something made inspired by the game before I play the game itself. Counterexample for me is Tunic, would not have bought it, in fact, I haven’t even finished it, but the devs didn’t put it in a pedestal so high that I didn’t mind giving it a try and adding it to my library. Doesn’t mean it isn’t a great game, specially for those into the genre. I’ll let you get right back to getting offended now.
Actually, a better counterexample: Bastion. Not a fan, but aspects like the quality, the way the game handles replay-ability, and other aspects of the game like the narrator, now has made me a fan of Supergiant Games and anything else they make, even if I’m generally not a fan of the genre. Also why I supported them with Hades on early access and why I played Pyre when I generally wouldn’t have.
Last year there was a sale with 50% off, if that is what you’re upset about?
