Anybody else remember "Flashback", that early 90s action/platformer
created by the same devs beyond the (much better known) "Another
World" (a.k.a. "Out of This World"). It isn't as well remembered as
its forebear - largely because it lacked the novelty and innovation of
the early games, instead following in their well-tread footsteps - but
it was a solid experience nonetheless. Sure, its gameplay was just
'more of the same', but "Flashback" offered solid platforming,
colorful visuals and an interesting universe. It wasn't a game that
was going to change the industry, but you could have a lot of fun
playing it.

"Flashback" has largely been relegated to history, though. There was a
sequel ("Fade to Black") released in 1995 that had an awful control
scheme and was plagued by that era's primitive 3D graphics, and a
remake of the original was released in 2013 that - while a bit too
excessive in upscaling the graphics - still wasn't so bad as to
overwhelm that nostalgic itch, but on the whole the world moved on.
"Flashback" wasn't a game that needed a sequel; it was fun for its
time, but it was otherwise a flash-in-the-pan production.

(You know where I'm going with this, right?)

So of course they've gone and made a sequel.

There's a trailer here if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XIkFb86zQ but it doesn't really show
much (which is itself rather telling, I think). Its developers -as far
as I can tell- have nothing to do with the original team; this is just
another game designed to milk older gamers of their hard-earned cash
(and you know how I feel about THAT ;-). Otherwise it doesn't seem to
have any reason for existing (it also invalidates "Fade to Black" as a
sequel, which is a shame because that game /was/ made by the original
devs). From the little in-game gameplay we could see, it seems to
mimic the original's fairly well, which is good (the original, as
mentioned, was a pretty good game); it's just that it doesn't do
anything more with it. "Flashback" wasn't a game that was crying out
for a continuation.

(And yes, I say this well knowing the original ended on a cliffhanger
with the hero drifting through space in an escape pod).

I'm just not a fan of publishers mining old IPs simply to make money.
Microids (which incidentally has little to do with the company of the
same name from the 80s and 90s, other than owning their IP and using
their name) has - as far as I can tell - had claim to the "Flashback"
license for close to a decade and haven't done anything with it until
now; this wasn't a developer that eagerly wanted to make a new
"Flashback" game just because the original had been so influential on
them. It's a calculated move to take advantage of the nostalgia for
older games, and that just leaves me sour: not only is it crassly
commercial, it also prevents resources from being used to create new,
equally interesting properties. I loved the old games... but I want
new ones too.

Doubtlessly "Flashback 2" will make money; the gaming market is large
enough (and the production costs of a retro-platformer low enough)
that even if only a tiny percentage of gamers buy this title, Microids
will make its money back. And I have to admit, my love of the original
is enough that even I am tempted to get it (although I'll try to
resist that urge out of principle ;-). I just wish the industry wasn't
so... openly obvious with its scummy tactics sometimes.

I remember that game, but wasn't into it that much.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anybody else remember "Flashback", that early 90s action/platformer
> created by the same devs beyond the (much better known) "Another
> World" (a.k.a. "Out of This World"). It isn't as well remembered as
> its forebear - largely because it lacked the novelty and innovation of
> the early games, instead following in their well-tread footsteps - but
> it was a solid experience nonetheless. Sure, its gameplay was just
> 'more of the same', but "Flashback" offered solid platforming,
> colorful visuals and an interesting universe. It wasn't a game that
> was going to change the industry, but you could have a lot of fun
> playing it.

> "Flashback" has largely been relegated to history, though. There was a
> sequel ("Fade to Black") released in 1995 that had an awful control
> scheme and was plagued by that era's primitive 3D graphics, and a
> remake of the original was released in 2013 that - while a bit too
> excessive in upscaling the graphics - still wasn't so bad as to
> overwhelm that nostalgic itch, but on the whole the world moved on.
> "Flashback" wasn't a game that needed a sequel; it was fun for its
> time, but it was otherwise a flash-in-the-pan production.

> (You know where I'm going with this, right?)

> So of course they've gone and made a sequel.

> There's a trailer here if you're interested:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XIkFb86zQ but it doesn't really show
> much (which is itself rather telling, I think). Its developers -as far
> as I can tell- have nothing to do with the original team; this is just
> another game designed to milk older gamers of their hard-earned cash
> (and you know how I feel about THAT ;-). Otherwise it doesn't seem to
> have any reason for existing (it also invalidates "Fade to Black" as a
> sequel, which is a shame because that game /was/ made by the original
> devs). From the little in-game gameplay we could see, it seems to
> mimic the original's fairly well, which is good (the original, as
> mentioned, was a pretty good game); it's just that it doesn't do
> anything more with it. "Flashback" wasn't a game that was crying out
> for a continuation.

> (And yes, I say this well knowing the original ended on a cliffhanger
> with the hero drifting through space in an escape pod).

> I'm just not a fan of publishers mining old IPs simply to make money.
> Microids (which incidentally has little to do with the company of the
> same name from the 80s and 90s, other than owning their IP and using
> their name) has - as far as I can tell - had claim to the "Flashback"
> license for close to a decade and haven't done anything with it until
> now; this wasn't a developer that eagerly wanted to make a new
> "Flashback" game just because the original had been so influential on
> them. It's a calculated move to take advantage of the nostalgia for
> older games, and that just leaves me sour: not only is it crassly
> commercial, it also prevents resources from being used to create new,
> equally interesting properties. I loved the old games... but I want
> new ones too.

> Doubtlessly "Flashback 2" will make money; the gaming market is large
> enough (and the production costs of a retro-platformer low enough)
> that even if only a tiny percentage of gamers buy this title, Microids
> will make its money back. And I have to admit, my love of the original
> is enough that even I am tempted to get it (although I'll try to
> resist that urge out of principle ;-). I just wish the industry wasn't
> so... openly obvious with its scummy tactics sometimes.

--
Incoming heat wave. It's already warm enough especially with triple masks. :( As a L.A. Lakers fan, Boston Celtics must lose to GS Warriors. Bad hump day, and things keep getting worse. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 10/06/2022 01:08, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> Anybody else remember "Flashback", that early 90s action/platformer
> created by the same devs beyond the (much better known) "Another
> World" (a.k.a. "Out of This World"). It isn't as well remembered as
> its forebear - largely because it lacked the novelty and innovation of
> the early games, instead following in their well-tread footsteps - but
> it was a solid experience nonetheless. Sure, its gameplay was just
> 'more of the same', but "Flashback" offered solid platforming,
> colorful visuals and an interesting universe. It wasn't a game that
> was going to change the industry, but you could have a lot of fun
> playing it.
>
> "Flashback" has largely been relegated to history, though. There was a
> sequel ("Fade to Black") released in 1995 that had an awful control
> scheme and was plagued by that era's primitive 3D graphics, and a
> remake of the original was released in 2013 that - while a bit too
> excessive in upscaling the graphics - still wasn't so bad as to
> overwhelm that nostalgic itch, but on the whole the world moved on.
> "Flashback" wasn't a game that needed a sequel; it was fun for its
> time, but it was otherwise a flash-in-the-pan production.
>
> (You know where I'm going with this, right?)
>
> So of course they've gone and made a sequel.
>
> There's a trailer here if you're interested:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XIkFb86zQ but it doesn't really show
> much (which is itself rather telling, I think). Its developers -as far
> as I can tell- have nothing to do with the original team; this is just
> another game designed to milk older gamers of their hard-earned cash
> (and you know how I feel about THAT ;-). Otherwise it doesn't seem to
> have any reason for existing (it also invalidates "Fade to Black" as a
> sequel, which is a shame because that game /was/ made by the original
> devs). From the little in-game gameplay we could see, it seems to
> mimic the original's fairly well, which is good (the original, as
> mentioned, was a pretty good game); it's just that it doesn't do
> anything more with it. "Flashback" wasn't a game that was crying out
> for a continuation.
>
> (And yes, I say this well knowing the original ended on a cliffhanger
> with the hero drifting through space in an escape pod).
>
> I'm just not a fan of publishers mining old IPs simply to make money.
> Microids (which incidentally has little to do with the company of the
> same name from the 80s and 90s, other than owning their IP and using
> their name) has - as far as I can tell - had claim to the "Flashback"
> license for close to a decade and haven't done anything with it until
> now; this wasn't a developer that eagerly wanted to make a new
> "Flashback" game just because the original had been so influential on
> them. It's a calculated move to take advantage of the nostalgia for
> older games, and that just leaves me sour: not only is it crassly
> commercial, it also prevents resources from being used to create new,
> equally interesting properties. I loved the old games... but I want
> new ones too.
>
> Doubtlessly "Flashback 2" will make money; the gaming market is large
> enough (and the production costs of a retro-platformer low enough)
> that even if only a tiny percentage of gamers buy this title, Microids
> will make its money back. And I have to admit, my love of the original
> is enough that even I am tempted to get it (although I'll try to
> resist that urge out of principle ;-). I just wish the industry wasn't
> so... openly obvious with its scummy tactics sometimes.
>

Can't say I've heard of the original, let alone played it. On the
subject of bringing back old IP, well like you say it depends. I have no
problem if it's a labour of love to bring a game to a new audience or if
the core gameplay has stood the test of time. This I don't fits into
either category.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> Anybody else remember "Flashback", that early 90s action/platformer
> created by the same devs beyond the (much better known) "Another
> World" (a.k.a. "Out of This World").

Vaguely. It's been 30 years after all... I remember the 2D action and
shooting and fluid animations but as to what it was actually about
(other than shooting), nothing. Well, I do remember I liked it but it
was a single and fairly short game.

Oh well, looks like a Christmas release or later. Wouldn't mind playing
it now.