I always loved retro-style games, long before I learned that they’re considered retro. I’m not sure what makes them so fun but they completely dominate my gaming nowadays.

Naturally, I became curious about the games that had inspired my favorite titles. I tried many of them, and eventually came to a conclusion: most of the time, retro games are nothing but a historical curiosity.

Ultima 4 has fairly unique concept but falls flat with its roleplaying feeling forced, its bland gameplay and its setting with no originality whatsoever.
Compare this to Moonring. Gameplay rivals many modern roguelikes (the classic definition, so Brogue, not Isaac), great setting that sucks you in immediately, and so so many mysteries.

Ambermoon pretends to be an open world RPG but is actually a linear RPG-lite with combat feeling more like a puzzle (and a wrong solution punishes you by 15 mins of you and your opponents missing each other every turn).

That’s not to say that retro games aren’t important - the modern indies are standing on the shoulders of giants. Yet I can’t say that retro games worth the trouble of getting into them, compared to the polished modern indie titles.

  • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    2 days ago

    we came to the conclusion that while Die Hard had done so much in fresh and interesting ways at the time, it had been so thoroughly copied from by so many other films that it offered little to an uninitiated modern audience, looking back.

    This becomes SO obvious when you look at “the great classics”. Citizen Kane is, by all modern standards, a pretty boring and uninspiring movie about a really lame topic.

    But at the time, it was absolutely groundbreaking. It basically pioneered half a dozen techniques such as “letting foreground and background be in focus at the same time” and “nonlinear storytelling” (which of course was hugely telegraphed, because it was new) and “using a montage” with “Sound to make transitions”. He also used such amazing techniques such as “long takes” up to several minutes. He moved the camera around, not just taking a stage-view, but low and high angle shots, and then he added lighting to make things stand out.

    Stuff like that is now SO basic that they might not even teach it in filmschool, simply because people are inundated with it from modern media. Orson Welles basically invented all of that though, and it was revolutionary. Now it’s just boring a movie about an asshole’s sled.