Game looks intriguing to me. Not saying it will be a classic, but keep in mind that there are some amazing games that use randomized levels and permadeath (the ones I have in mind are prior to the indie gaming boom). I do have to agree with the sentiment that retro graphics are getting old. It's high time we see some indie games with Saturn/PS1/N64/Dreamcast/PS2-level retro graphics.

Ditto. Also, it is to be remembered that in old games the main restriction for the graphics was the available technology, and, at least the main publishers, they compensated it with human work, namely, an artistic effort to make the most of the canvas at their disposal.

Nowadays, on the contrary, the main restriction is not technology, but said human work. The art is not pushed to the limit via the effort of the artists, but instead artificially limited to low resolutions in order to dissimulate and cover for the low effort made on the graphics, that would be more blatant with higher resolutions.

This is why most of these modern efforts do not really feature retro looks. For retro looks you need more than low resolutions. You need talent and effort measured in work hours of artists. There are exceptions (Wadjet Eye games, arguably, for one) but most look like most shareware titles made by a single developer.

On the other hand, just to be fair, there are modern games made by a single developer that look terrifically, so it is possible, even if not feasible for every game maker.

ouch ... Unity again ?
having bad experience with Unity games i avoid them like the plague , cpu bashing is the worst part of Unity, i have nothing against Unity or similar tools but of every 5 games i bought or played a demo of 75% had too many FPS, 90% of all the games seem to have set the FPS either too high or unlimited.
Pc gets hot because the CPU is working overtime , maybe systems with 4 to 6 fans and the latest hardware won't even notice it but reading the system req. it should run well on my old system ( 1 cpu fan) and 1 normal fan like any average PC)

Developers should add they made it with Unity : 'Build with Unity' this way i can avoid the games and prevent having to ask refunds or have to beg the developers if they can fix a ( usually) FPS problem.

Anyway its gonna cost me some money but maybe after a few months i might be able to have a new pc build, with luck 4 to 6 fans, better case and better hardware but it will cost some , only to run unity games (●*∩_∩*●)

okay thanks for the reply (°⌣°)

I wanted to reply to both of you below me.

I'm glad it's not just me and I actually expected to get some flame over this, but it really does seem like a way to cheap out of making a truly great game. It really is just a gimmick. What made those retro games such classics that we can go back and play and have just as much fun with was exactly the effort put into them. They didn't look like that because it looked cool at the time, they looked like that because that was the cutting edge technology at the time and the pushed the hardware to the limits. I'm sure the same is with all consoles and PC games, but Nintendo is my favorite company and I am pretty familiar with their history. They pushed the cartridges to the absolute limit with each system and that's where the N64 DD and the similar SNES hardware came from. There were even cartridges (Zelda did it a lot) that had a specific chip in it that allowed the game to surpass the actual hardware limits.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of games with enormous budgets that look fantastic, but are complete shit. I'm specifically referring to EA games and the like. It's again about the effort and ingenuity put into the product. There are games that may be fine using the retro graphics, but nearly any title would be made much better using modern graphics. X-Com is a perfect example. The recent X-Com titles were not only great, but they appealed to a wider audience than the initial run. They put a lot of thought into game design and the games looked great for the time they were released. I have X-Com on my PS3, Steam, GoG, and Android and was willing to pay for it each time because of how bad ass it is. I'm not saying graphics are everything, but these smaller and indie Devs could easily use technology of a generation or two ago and still make a great product that's fairly modern looking.

Unfortunately, a lot of gamers seem to disagree with you.
For example, I enjoyed the fact that indie-game Halfway had hand-constructed levels but for the second game out of that studio, they're dropping the hand-crafted levels for proc-gen instead, apparently to satisfy player requests.

As someone who likes to play a game, finish it, and move on I don't really get the appeal. Whenever I play these games I just do a bunch of runs, get bored of seeing the same content, and ditch the game without any real sense of satisfaction.

3D graphics are super expensive. You're more likely to see an asset-store filled game than a game with old-school 3D.

Also 100% disagree with the notion that EA games are "complete shit". Had lots of fun playing games like Titanfall 2, Battlefront 2, Dead Space, the Battlefield series or the new Syndicate. They're not the greatest games I've ever played but I certainly enjoyed them.

Meanwhile I ditched Xcom early on because of nonsensical mission design.