Hey, it's circlejerk time!
kitten wrote:why do all of these retro homages always read the exact same in their pitches and always end up being sloppy, stakesless, "metroidvania" trash?
Metroidvania gives you free reign to combine somewhat intense real-time action with RPG, sandbox, and collect-a-thon elements (i. e. muh longevity), making it the most universally marketable "retro game genre" for today's audience. And as you've mentioned
in the past, it also gives the creator a pass to be careless
in level design and throw
in a bunch of toys. It's not hard to see why a struggling indie dev would find such a safe choice attractive.
Sumez wrote:Do they even know what those terms mean? And since they obviously don't, what exactly do they think they mean? I'd assume it has something to do with the number of colors used, but it really could be anything that fits their agenda.
Both the Apple ][ and PC Engine Supergrafx ran on 8-bit CPUs, so your guess is as good as mine. It doesn't help that those terms are carelessly tossed around even here.
Maybe your level cap jumps from 255 to 65535.
kitten wrote:i watched a hollow knight review a few months back where the reviewer goes on at length about how mario had a "binary" jump and that hollow knight's addition of a jump that went higher if you pressed the button down longer was revolutionary brilliance.
seriously, listen to this idiot, i link to probably the funniest timestamp. this guy got 200k+ reviews and probably makes his living on his videos.
I suspect you're playing right into his hands by linking that video here, because he can't possibly have overlooked such a fundamental mechanic by accident. It isn't uncommon for YouTubers to miss stuff like this on purpose to stir up negative attention and get people making corrections
in the comments section.
Just your usual fishing for views, nothing more.
kitten wrote:there is a vibe from people covering modern stuff with classic inspiration that suggests they genuinely believe controls & design have unilaterally improved across the board and that classic designers had no idea what they were doing. "castlevania would have been better if they had programmed the jump better," etc. total nonsense like that that shows an astounding lack of a grasp on anything about design.
Could it be because all the people who played these games back
in the day did so when they were eight years old and idiots? Or perhaps because the people buying these are likely to be similarly dumb eight-year-olds with no perspective?
I have this theory that most of the people designing these "retro tributes" are like game journalists
in that they weren't good enough at programming to get legit tech jobs. The games they design end up coming out like this because their lack of ability and discipline prevented them both from understanding how games from their vaguely defined "retro" period worked and from having enough creativity to sell a game based on good design alone.
Andrew Greenberg is an Ivy League graduate. So is Jordan Mechner. Even Horii Yuuji spent his undergrad career at Waseda, albeit as a Humanities major. Nasir Gebelli had years of Golden Age game design under his belt before coming to Square. What are this guy's credentials?
__SKYe wrote:It's also a thing with many people, where they cannot comprehend that games can have significantly different jump mechanics and all still be tight and fun to play (ie. anything that is not acceleration-based like Mario is imperfect, and only exists because the devs couldn't do better).
Which leads to my second point that many people also do not (or cannot?) distinguish from a non-standard mechanic programmed exactly as intended (eg. Castlevania and Makaimura's committed jump), and a bad one due to the devs being unable to program what the designer had
in mind (eg. any game with a buggy jump

).
This is probably it.
BIL wrote:Going "Wahhh! CV demands a modicum of tactical awareness and won't let me takesy-backsy my cretinous panic hops! Nintendo Hard!" is another thing entirely, ofc.
Blaming perfectly serviceable mechanics for their own lack of attention? No, I don't think they're particularly different at all.
Jonny2x4 wrote:As for "Nintendo Hard", I've first seen it used in TV Tropes and I always assumed they made up the term (since they always make dumb cutesy-sounding nicknames for every cliché and archetype in existence), but apparently there was a deleted Wikipedia article from the early-to-mid 2000's describing the use of that term (the current version of the article is not the same one) and TV Tropes is not that old of a website (so I'll forgive them for assuming they coin them). It carries the wrong implication that Nintendo games were ridiculously hard when it's usually third-party NES games that were difficulty and even that tends to be overstated (just look at all the scrubs that always spout the meme that the NES Contra is impossible without the 30-lives cheat).
This is what happens when history is written by Internet comedians catering to edgy teens and the incompetent writers trying to leech off their audience.
Imagine what would happen if sex ed was taught like this. "Don't you know that if a girl doesn't have a hymen she's not a virgin? You have to make her bleed with your massive schlong the first time you have sex! Also the more people she does it the more loose her- "
oh wait