Bleed

• Shanghai wrote on 2013-01-06 01:43
  [video=youtube;vxLIlo5ICyI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vxLIlo5ICyI[/video]
  
  It's trying to get on Greenlight. I'm liking it especially for the Metroidvania feel.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2013-01-06 07:15
  Kinda getting tired of these new "retro style" indie games.
• Shanghai wrote on 2013-01-06 10:12

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;1009512:

  Kinda getting tired of these new "retro style" indie games.

  
  
  It's one way the current-gen gamers can know about how awesome retro games were instead of playing the mainstream games today.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2013-01-06 10:49

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;1009512:

  Kinda getting tired of these new "retro style" indie games.

  
  
  You don't have to play it. There is still a big market for it, and people who love these games.
  
  Pixel and low bit rate music, in my opinion, is not an attempt at a cash grab for nostalgic retro style. It is another medium, and a form to represent an established art style. Just like how painting can be done in acrylic, oil, water, or other various methods, video game graphics can now be done in pixels, polygons, cs, hand drawn, etc.
  
  Expressions aside, sprites are incredibly convenient for keeping the art consistent. Its almost like creating a guideline for every piece of visual to be seen on throughout the entire game. This has quite a bit of impact in the overall presentation. Its also just straight up easier and the budget is far lower to stick to pixels. As a small developer with lower funding, it would be wise not to overstep your capabilities. Otherwise you get games like this.
  
  

  [Image: http://www.wolfire.com/lugaru/screens/8.jpg]

  
  
  Just because its pixels doesn't mean its supposed to be some throwback to the 90's. There are plenty of modern pixel games that compete visually with other games.
  
  

  [Image: http://cdn.medialib.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/screens/screenshot_45504_thumb_wide610.jpg]

  
  
  Bro have you even played Sword and Sworcery? Its absolutely beautiful. Go download it on your iPhone or Android or Steam or whatever.
  
  

  [Image: http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/04/Sword-and-Sworcery-1.jpg]
• Chockeh wrote on 2013-01-06 22:08
  [video=youtube;sw7OSfbuLwM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7OSfbuLwM[/video]
  [video=youtube;cWHhyFVjvpk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWHhyFVjvpk&list=UUsQHz0sA5IRWaj5i8bMIJMA&index=1[/video]
  The bullet time reminds me of that 2d flash matrix game with a black guy and a chinese guy.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2013-01-06 23:35
  Wow those boss fights look really fun. I'm interested.
• GODZILLA wrote on 2013-01-07 00:02
  Omg I want.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2013-01-07 00:56

  Quote from Cucurbita;1009554:

  Post

  
  I know I don't have to play it and I'm not "against" retro games collectively, however I do feel that many of them are cashing in on a trend and are hugely overhyped games that are, well, hardly above average, if that. Of course with a lower budget, it's hard to make a game as good as a huge production studio. I suppose my problem with it is I feel like it's losing the novelty it had and starting to attract games/people to, as you said, its own niche genre that just isn't as strong as I'd "like" it to be.
  
  I don't dislike pixel/sprite games. In fact, I love them and some of my favorite games ever fit into that genre. However, I don't feel the games people are putting out are really that good, but they often receive a huge amount of relative attention, almost as if being some sort of countercultural alternative. What I'm saying is that if these games had been developed back when it was normal to develop these kinds of games, I doubt anyone would consider them anything more than average at best.
  
  Of course, I'm not telling people not to enjoy things. I'm just giving my opinion on it, after all. But you have to wonder: What if these games are starting to go in the same direction people oppose so vehemently? That's what I'm seeing. I'm also seeing that these games are being taken nearly as seriously as "big studio" games, so I think it's only fair to judge them as such. If I just look at them as some guy making some cute little game, sure, they're nice. But it's clearly more than that now.
  
  To me, many of these are just extended flash games.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2013-01-07 02:02

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;1009743:

  To me, many of these are just extended flash games.

  
  
  Like Castle Crashers? Or Super Meat Boy? I don't really see what the problem is. Flash games or not, they're still games, and at full length, they're games we're willing to pay for. I'm not sure when "it can probably be made in flash" became the criteria for whether a game is overhyped and below average.
  
  And besides, I really fucking love this game more than most console rpgs. If he puts it on steam for 10 dollars I'd buy it.
  
  

  [Image: http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/001/e/4/lankyroot_jungle_battles_by_kupo707-d5q3kln.png]

  
  
  Content considered, its actually worth ten times more than what Square Enix is putting on mobile platforms for 30 dollars anyways.
  
  

  however I do feel that many of them are cashing in on a trend and are hugely overhyped games that are, well, hardly above average, if that.

  
  
  I strongly disagree with the latter portion of the statement. Yes, many people are taking advantage of it and are trying to cash in on the trend, but they are most definitely not "overhyped".
  
  Its really simple actually. If the game is good, its good. If its bad, its bad. People aren't completely retarded. There are hundreds of low budget pixel games pouring through, but the ones that really stick are the good ones.
  
  I'm pretty confident that Bleed will be well above average, and be successful, not because it tried to cash grab on pixels, but because its a good game. Of course I only got a good look at the trailer and the first two stages, so I don't have solid opinion, but it looks like something I'd really enjoy.
• Yoorah wrote on 2013-01-07 02:11
  Well-done pixel art can be fantastic. I love that stuff. And dissing games just because they are built in Flash (or whatever) is silly. Machinarium is one, and it's awesome.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2013-01-07 02:33
  Flash games aren't inherently bad either. I enjoy them. Epic Battle Fantasy is one of my favorite games ever (well, the third one mainly), and inspired me to actually download Adobe Flash and screw around with it in an attempt to learn to make something similar. But nah, I wouldn't pay $10 for it. Not unless it was quite a bit longer and more complicated than it currently is (and EBF is a legendary flash, lol). Nothing wrong with simplicity, but that level of quality is widely available for free. If anything, it's because there are excellent flash games that the standard of quality must be raised a bit. However, it's obvious these games are not made to be indepth experiences that can be enjoyed for long periods of time, but rather something you just do for a few hours at most and then almost never touch again. "No depth" doesn't translate well into commercial games of this era. And games like Sonny, while good, are novelty experiences and would probably not hold up very well in a commercial setting.
  
  You've gotta understand, I basically don't buy games ever. With time, things (generally) get better, and it's inevitable that standards will go up as a result. But even if this game was made back in the old days, do you really think it could compete in a market with games like Metal Slug and Contra? Probably not. Games don't have to be legendary like that to be good, but they do have to be within a certain range.
  
  I don't think it's as simple as "if the game is good, it's good" when it comes to the popularity of these. I don't oppose them having lower end graphics. I understand people have different preferences, but it's hard for me to not see these games as collectively being a bit overinflated, even taking that into account.
  

  Well-done pixel art can be fantastic. I love that stuff. And dissing games just because they are built in Flash (or whatever) is silly. Machinarium is one, and it's awesome.

  It's possibly my favorite art style, and I love Flash games. I just wouldn't pay for them 99.9% of the time, and the .1% is when someone built an absolutely excellent game (like, Contra-level good) and just happened to make it with flash, and only if they built upon what they did by quite a bit.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2013-01-07 03:36

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;1009790:

  But nah, I wouldn't pay $10 for it.

  
  
  I was referencing EBF4, which has like twice the content.
  
  

  However, it's obvious these games are not made to be indepth experiences that can be enjoyed for long periods of time, but rather something you just do for a few hours at most and then almost never touch again.

  
  
  It takes about 6~10 hours to clear Epic Battle Fantasy 3, which is a lot more than I could say about many other "complete" games. And it was quite replayable imo. There was enough side content to stretch the game to about 20 hours.
  
  

  Do you really think it could compete in a market with games like Metal Slug and Contra? Probably not. Games don't have to be legendary like that to be good, but they do have to be within a certain range.

  
  
  You're asking for some god-like range if you're asking for a game to compete with Metal Slug and Contra. They were the best of the best. There is just no reason why it HAS to be a 90+/100 metacritic game for it to be acceptable for use of pixels before people start going "ewugh, not another attempt at NOSTALGIA".
  
  

  But it's hard for me to not see these games as collectively being a bit overinflated, even taking that into account.

  
  
  This sounds to me like this one time when there was a jrpg article and a commenter was like "god all these anime style games are getting overinflated". But honestly, when you actually sit down to consider the number of successful games that have come out, you realize that the trash ones all died off pretty fast, the good ones stuck.
  
  

  It's possibly my favorite art style, and I love Flash games. I just wouldn't pay for them 99.9% of the time, and the .1% is when someone built an absolutely excellent game (like, Contra-level good) and just happened to make it with flash, and only if they built upon what they did by quite a bit.

  
  
  You realize contra was like 60 dollars on release, is 60 dollars for a hard copy now, and about 10~15 dollars on digital purchases?
  
  That said and considered, 5~15 dollars for indie games like these are well met on their price tag, isnt it?
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2013-01-07 04:09
  EBF was pretty special. Even with the massive community of those who love flash, a game of EBF quality will not be produced every single year. 99% of good flash games have to rely on some sort of gimmick (ie, procedurally generated enemies that level as you do, tower defense, etc) to have any sort of longevity. That isn't a "bad" thing per se, but it does leave flash games pretty limited and specialized around a different purpose. And it makes you not want to grind through them twice as it can't manage to not feel like an absolute waste of time.
  
  And these games do fade out into obscurity. Remember Faster Than Light? Superb game, it was released merely months ago and people've already mostly dropped it. It has a great deal of replayability, too. Even some of the better games like Terraria, Binding of Isaac and Cave Story are rarely, if ever spoken off at all these days. The only one that's really held up and stood the test of time (popularity-wise) is Minecraft, and that's on a pretty steep downward trend as well as far as I can tell. The only reason it's even where it is today is because it was what really kicked off this recent indie game trend.
  
  So are they good value for money? Maybe at $1-10, as they hardly cost anything and thus there's not much to lose in the first place. But generally, with few exceptions, I couldn't justify buying them.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2013-01-07 05:05
  I'm just not understanding where you're going with this.
  
  How does anyone ever make money in video games then? We can't always make BEST OF games nonstop.
  
  If Cave story isn't worth its 15 dollars, then really, what is? EBF was special, but its not a one of its kind or rare by any means. Good flash games get funding and become console games, and then sell a million copies somewhere off of newgrounds.
  
  

  [Image: http://cdn.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/scott-pilgrim.jpg]

  
  
  That mega awesome Metal Slug you were talking about was 60 dollars on launch. I mean, isn't your own sense of good value obscured instead? Going back to the topic at hand, I really don't understand the point or value behind saying the words:
  
  

  Kinda getting tired of these new "retro style" indie games.

  
  
  So what you're telling me is that you wish people who make pixel video games to make nonpixel video games, which would incline you to be more interested in them. Not that your opinion matters in this whole topic because you refuse to contribute to the industry by buying.
  
  Edit:
  
  

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;1009830:

  So are they good value for money? Maybe at $1-10, as they hardly cost anything and thus there's not much to lose in the first place. But generally, with few exceptions, I couldn't justify buying them.

  
  
  You don't really understand where money goes. Indie and small team game developers still spend years on video games. Thats years that a number of people spend all day working on something that is not making any money until it is put on sale. Turns out, the yearly cost of living for a person is pretty high.
  
  When a game goes on sale for 5 dollars, you actually need to move A LOT of copies for it to make up for those years, and if you're lucky and did a good job, maybe you can get enough money to fund the next game.
  
  Steam helps tremendously because they give you a good chunk of the cut. But XBLA and Nintendo eShop are taking like 60% of the cuts. So on average, even if you sell your game at 5 dollars, you lose half of it to the publisher. Most people end up pirating the game anyways, the end result is that a "successful" game in the indie business is when your game has sold ten thousand copies in its first week, which will usually be the major bulk of the game's sale for the rest of the year. Within a moderately successful game's life span, you will be lucky to sell 20k copies, have it get pirated 60k times, and then have the publisher take half of it, to earn 50k dollars, which then gets taxed by the government like a bitch (approximately 15% depending on state).
  
  Back to eating ramen and working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the next year.
  
  And honestly, 10 dollars for EBF3 isnt a bad deal if you really think about it. The game is about 10 hours long, thats a dollar per hour of gameplay. Square Enix wants us to pay 3 dollars an hour for Final Fantasy 13, a game you beat in 20 hours and pay 60 for. I didn't even like FF13.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2013-01-07 07:05
  If flash games are remade for consoles to have more depth and gameplay time, sure, they can be console games. But all that's really saying is that if you take one concept and put it somewhere else, and change it enough, it might just work out.
  
  I'm not saying people should make "the best" games constantly. I'm not saying people shouldn't ever buy these games either. I'm saying not as many people would buy these games under other conditions, like if they had come out at a different time.
  
  And you know, it would be nice if the market was related to hard work, but it isn't. It has nothing to do with how hard you work, only with what you can deliver. If it had to do with work, going to art school wouldn't be an awful idea for all but .1% of the population. Neither would chasing after a career in writing. The only thing that's relevant is whether people will buy it or not. And "really good" just isn't good enough to make a living on, a lot of the time.
  
  And of course there's more to gaming value than hours spent, but I guess I can slightly understand it. Thing is, if that was true for MMOs I play, I'd be spending maybe $0.10/hour whereas if a game is a fun experience, I'll still recognize it as a better game even if it was $3/hour. But that game would have to be loaded with raw fun, basically. If that's not a fair comparison because MMOs never end, then replace "MMOs" with fighting games, rhythm games, sim racing/driving games, or many of the others I like playing, I guess. Point is, it's a mix of content and time.
  
  And no, $10 for EBF3 isn't bad. But I'd like to see more in that game first.
  

  So what you're telling me is that you wish people who make pixel video games to make nonpixel video games, which would incline you to be more interested in them.

  ...no. I'd still be equally as interested in them.
  

  Not that your opinion matters in this whole topic because you refuse to contribute to the industry by buying.

  The difference between me choosing whether to buy it or not is the value of one copy of the game (unless others decide to buy it or not based on it). I'm not trying to make my opinion end the world and put him out of business. It was just a one line opinion/observation that happened to not be in his favor.