Should 6th generation consoles be allowed on /vr/?

No. You'll just bring all the shitposters from /v/ to the board, and janitors never fucking touch /vr/ to begin with.

Since last October /vr/ has already experienced a downward spiral from what it once was partly because of people just not wanting to accept that GBA/GCN/Xbox/PS2/PSP/DS.

They'll be accepted naturally in time. Stop trying to rush things.

I'm of the former group. I'm too old fashion for /v/, but too new for /vr/.

I just want to talk about video games that aren't so old that they're practically ancient technology, but also aren't the latest DRM-filled commercial and meme games of today.

>>423785
Why does /vr/ have to be a dump for old tech?

Why can't it just be "Early games(ing)".

>>423785

Probably should have added that to the anti 6th gen side.

>the mods and janitors rarely browse /vr/, but more moderation will be needed if the board doubles in traffic overnight

>>423781
If /vr/ was to extend the 1999 cutoff for retro consoles what would be the point of even having a retro board? It needs to have rules and a cutoff. If kids want to talk about old games they still can on /v/. They just need to go back to /v/.

>If only /vr/ actually was chill and cool like /vr/-tan portrays them to be..

>>423786
>I just want to talk about video games that aren't so old that they're practically ancient technology
what a great poster you're going to be

>>423802
Well it's true.. at least in most people's opinions.

>>423803
That's why we need /vr/ to stay free of "most people" in the first place

http://strawpoll.me/6643936

Let's get the obligatory poll out of the way.

>tfw you keep going to the fake strawpoll screamer site by mistake

>>423797
It used to be a laid back board with what I imagine was an older demographic (upper 20s+), many of whom were old enough to have been on 4chan back when it was new. Now we have people demanding the board change to cater to their whims.

>>423802
Exactly. That's a good point, too. How many new users brought in by 6th gen would mock actual /vr users for playing stuff that is "too old?" And, similarly, how many true /vr posters are going to want to deal with teenagers who were freshly redirected to their board from /v? It isn't /vr's responsibility to be a dumping ground for things /v won't discuss.

>>423803
Maybe if you are a teenager. If you legitimately consider any videogame to be ancient, you can't be very old.

>>423808
I'm sure people isn't going to reset their router 99999999 times to affect the results, it's not like both sides are being overly autistic about all of this.

>>423810
You are living in some fantasy world where /v/ is 9fag talking about Call of Duty and Fallout 4 in a good way.

We just want to talk about games that would otherwise fit in the retro board just fine. Like Icewind Dale for example, or Morrowind. Or the first two Gothic games. Or Neverwinter Nights.

/v/ is not very good with these threads because the board is too fast and not a lot of people catch up on them. But no one wants to talk about HURR HALO 2 WAS THE BEST. No one "praises" Halo in the first place on /v/ either. Stop treating your sister board as a boogeyman, if it wasn't for /v/ you wouldn't even exist in the first place.

>>423814

Not him, but it's not those games I'm worried about. It's Melee, Halo (mostly for what it'll do to the Doom threads), and Kingdom Hearts.

>>423814
You should go to /vr for what it does discuss, not what you want it to discuss.

Also, I never said anything about Halo or CoD. I was referring to a poster in this very thread who disdainfully referred to topics of /vr discussion as "ancient technology" and questioned how many other like-minded youths would be redirected to /vr. I've been on 4chan long enough to see that influxes of new posters results in a decline of both quality and usability.

>>423820
No one's asking you to stop discussing about the things you already discuss, or that we won't talk about them either.

We just want updated rules because:

1. It's mostly a technicality that a few autists enforce. Look at the Doom general, people talk about nuDoom from 2016 like it's nothing. /vr/ is totally fine with discussing about modern games or 6th generation games, you just have to trick them into it because LE RULEZ bullshit.

2. People who care about posting in a "retro" board in the first place won't care about subpar shit like Halo or SSB. These people stick to their generals in /vg/ most of the time and whoever makes threads about Halo or some shit like that, it's very easy to dismiss as troll and ignore.

3. Most people are retro fans in general but feel it's important to discuss retro games in a larger context. I played all sorts of old games all my life, I was a moderator a regular poster on abandonia a few years ago.

I just hate the vague separation bullshit done mostly by home-console faggots. Retro PC RPGs and adventure games were still done for a few years, so were games on handhelds. Denying access to those because of the mythical newbie who doesn't respect old technology or wants to talk about Call of Duty is just insanity.

>>423825
You blame console games for the separation. Arcades were dead post 99.

>>423825
1. Mostly a technicality? The board is for discussing games released before 2000. That's just the rules.

2. I never referred to a series. I'm sure there are good posters who like gen 6, just like there are shitty ones. But why should they be herded into /vr?

3. "feel it's important to discuss retro games in a larger context." Huh? Of course they can be discussed in isolation. The only benefit of discussing them in a larger context would be bringing in people who don't like them, or creating "modern vs retro" shitthreads.

>I just hate the vague separation bullshit done mostly by home-console faggots.
>home-console faggots

And there you go. Just the kind of shitposting I'd expect.

>>423825
>3. Most people are retro fans in general but feel it's important to discuss retro games in a larger context. I played all sorts of old games all my life, I was a moderator a regular poster on abandonia a few years ago.
But that's already happening. We briefly mention non retro iterations of old series when they're relevant to a particular /vr/ discussion or proving a point. But that and actually focusing on them are two completely different matters.

File: sideeye.gif (1MB, 336x328px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 336x328px

>>423834
> 1. Mostly a technicality? The board is for discussing games released before 2000. That's just the rules.

Hence a technicality. You're the only board where "rules are enforced". No one gives a shit if /co/ is filled with live-action bullshit instead of comic books or no one seems to give a fuck that /a/ turned into waifu-generals and porn-sharing threads most of the time.

> And there you go. Just the kind of shitposting I'd expect.
But it's true. Look how we phrase the entire discussion around "gen 6" as if the PC gaming world ever had "generations" in the first place.

The fact that Wizardry 8 threads are not allowed because LOL2001 but garbage like Final Fantasy 7 is cause it was released a year or two older, shows the heavy console bias and the shitty attitude of people who grew up with watching AVGN/Jontron videos instead of actually playing old-school video games.


Look at your own posts sometimes and see who's the shitposter. You who dismisses games that would totally fit with the style of the board because MUH RULES (which you created in the first place and you also modified so it can fit dreamcast). What I'm saying is that we should change MUH RULES so we can talk about good games that happened to released a year or two later, not just stick to some arbitrary cut-off point for no fucking explainable reason.

>>423843
>Hence a technicality. You're the only board where "rules are enforced". No one gives a shit if /co/ is filled with live-action bullshit instead of comic books or no one seems to give a fuck that /a/ turned into waifu-generals and porn-sharing threads most of the time.

I think you're incredibly new to /vr/ and trying to force shit that doesn't belong.

80s/90s anime threads have been a thing since the beginning for example.

CRT thread.

Early 70s-90s computer tech thread.

Repair/Mod thread

/gccxg/


If anything you have just proven how new you are and how much you're trying to force modern games into a retro board.

>>423843
>Hence a technicality. You're the only board where "rules are enforced". No one gives a shit if /co/ is filled with live-action bullshit instead of comic books or no one seems to give a fuck that /a/ turned into waifu-generals and porn-sharing threads most of the time.

Good god. You're actually arguing that boards SHOULD be a random mishmash of bullshit. Just go to /b.

>>423848
This anon knows. Respect your elders.

File: 1452838448768.png (71KB, 353x352px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 353x352px

>>423848
> I found out you're new! That means you're not allowed to talk about things!

The only thing you found out is that I was constantly disgusted by the autism enforced by shitposters like you who think 80s/90s anime threads deserve more space in /vr/ than threads about cRPGs made in 2001/2002. You only found out that I don't like double standard bullshit and cretins forcing their own imaginary idea of what "retro" is in everyone's throats.


The only thing you have just proven is that there is no point arguing with you anymore and that we will keep shitposting in /vr/ until it either dies and you fuck off from 4chan forever or you change the rules. Thank you for listening :^)

>>423853
>This place isn't for me, so... make it for me! Otherwise you're a big meanie!

>>423825
>It's mostly a technicality that a few autists enforce. Look at the Doom general, people talk about nuDoom from 2016 like it's nothing.

It's not that hard to understand. A Doom wad made or updated in 2016 is still very much directly on topic about the 1993 game. That applies to any level editing discussion. I'm not a participant in Doom threads, but it all makes logical sense. Just because there are custom content made for a 1993 game today does not invalidate it or make it become a 2016 game.

I also think it's perfectly valid to have a thread about a /vr/ game but discuss whether the Xbox 360 or Steam port is badly or well done. I know the logic here takes a very slightly bend but I hope you can understand it.

As for Rollercoaster Tycoon threads, it is a 1999 game but because the sequel is basically a refined version released in 2002, that would be an actual case of gray area. It would be fine if you wanted to debate about that.

As for Diablo II, you can go ahead and whine about this, it's much more valid than bitching about 2010s Doom levels.

I'd love to talk about PS2 on a slower board too, but I'm not retarded so even I won't let PS2, Xbox and Gamecube take their place in /vr/. You're limited to speaking about /vr/ ports.

>>423853
Why can't you and your meme reaction images just stay in /v/?

>>423853
You sound like you want to fix the rules for the better, but at the same time you're basically saying fuck any sense of order?

You also speak about deserving things but you also just laid out your plans to run a section of this site into the ground, kick people out and just generally act like a bully.

Are you supposed to be good or bad?

File: 1452910236714.png (611KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 900x900px

>>423855
No one was talking Doom wads made in 2016. I'm talking about the new Doom 4 from bethesda, /vr/ is talking about it in the general.

>>423855
>I'd love to talk about PS2 on a slower board too, but I'm not retarded so even I won't let PS2, Xbox and Gamecube take their place in /vr/. You're limited to speaking about /vr/ ports.
You also make no argument why. It only makes sense inside the tiny sick heads of the 20/30 people who still regularly shitpost in /vr/.


>>423858
I like the complete lack of self-awareness morons like you get who always shit on /v/. You do know what happened to /a/ after shitting too much about /v/, right?

>>423858
Because he wants to be able to post about what he wants on /vr.

I guarantee you that if gen 6 discussion became widespread, half the posts on the board would become generation wars between older posters and newer posters. And no, I'm not excluding people who like pre-2000 games from being potential shitflingers, but at least we were there first and the board was made for us.

>>423860
>You do know what happened to /a/ after shitting too much about /v/, right?

I'm not him, but no. I have no fucking clue.

>>423860
>I like the complete lack of self-awareness morons like you get who always shit on /v/. You do know what happened to /a/ after shitting too much about /v/, right?

I don't post dank reaction images so.

>>423862
It'll be worse than that. The amount of PC vs console shit will be out of control.

Talking about huge FPSes like Halo and 2k4 in that time period. CS also.

>>423781
>2012 was supposed to be the end of the world and here you are complaining about a dead board

>>423859
I just want to talk about 2000-2004 PC games and I've been civil about it for over a year.

But it's obvious that as long as autists will stay in there and be completely conservative and not concede on any points about what counts as retro in their eyes, the board is not going to get better. AT this point it's nothing more than half a dozen general circlejerk that would've just as well be posted in /vg/.

It's a complete antithesis to everything 4chan stands for. No board should be enforced by a couple of idiots screaming about rules which they themselves created out of nowhere and which they themselves changed so they could fit in the dreamcast faggotry (great, more console bias).

I just came in here because I thought you wanted an actual conversation, not deflect everything I say with "THE CONSENSUS MADE OUT OF 5 PEOPLE SPOKE AGAINST IT!". Guess I'll just return to my shitposting tactic, at least that one would hopefully kill the board for good and return some decent /vr/ posters back to /v/.

>>423860
>I'm talking about the new Doom 4 from bethesda, /vr/ is talking about it in the general.
It is a Classic Doom thread bitching specifically about how Doom 4 will suck and it does not resemble anything like the 90s games like it was supposed to be. Do you really think they're trying to have a "discussions" about it? I'd expect the same thing about the new RCT. They're more outburst remarks than actual discussions. People spoiler text on /vr/ for this very reason.

>You also make no argument why
It's not supposed to be "retro" in the sense that they're trying to reinvent the word with their own beliefs. It's not a board for what the world judges as retro, it is very specifically about Xth and earlier generation consoles, PC games before 2000, plus Dreamcast and pinball machines. "/vr/ retro" is just what the board is referred to. People like you get offended because you think the retro term is the one used anywhere else in the world but that board is nitpicking and playing favorites. I don't know if you remember but there was that one time when Gamestop randomly declared PS2, Xbox and Gamecube "retro" and "officially collectible". It's supposed to be an arbitrary definition that only applies to their own business, or in this case, to the /vr/ board. They're not being assholes trying to change the world's definition of "retro gaming", it's just a bunch of rules to set a certain scope that would otherwise overlap too much with /v/.

>>423871
Why on earth would anyone want Halo 2 or Half-Life 2 to be a retro gaming topic?

>>423871
Yes, boards have rules as a means to limit the topics of discussion. 4chan has had topic boards since the beginning. I remember getting a thread deleted on /h back, like, over a decade ago because it was done by a western artist. That's how rules work.

Also, your insistence on trying to do some sort of PC vs console shit isn't helping your argument that you should be included on the board. If you aren't talking about whatever PC game from 2002 that you want to discuss, I'm sure you'd be trying to start shit in console threads. You can't even drop it when it is 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand (not to mention having been called on it).

I'm sure you'll say you're just shitposting, but whatever.

File: 1405558009725.png (100KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 700x400px

People are getting upset that the inclusive "retro" term used on /vr/ is very arbitrary and feels cherry picked. Yes, it is arbitrary in the same way as anniversaries. Why do people celebrate shit at 15 years? 18 years? 20 years? 21 years? No one knows. They are just festivities for an opportune time for whatever purpose. The arbitrary, inclusive use of the word "retro" and its accompanying cut off year, was chosen just to limit the scope of the board to make sure it doesn't overlap too much over the main board, /v/.

That's literally it. No one is trying to change your real world opinion on what "retro gaming" is really defined as. "/vr/" and its picked out rules are just criterias to ensure that it's not /v/ 1.5.

Please understand.

>>423874
There's a difference between sensible rules (like, post hentai in the hentai board) and completely obnoxious bullshit peddled by a few faggots for no reason.

I'm not hiding my intention to shitpost in /vr/ as much as possible. Like I said, either you fuck off from 4chan and go to reddit where you belong with your circlejerking, or you change the rules and let a few more years of gaming allowed in there.

>>423882
>please extend the year to whenever my favorite game was released or else go to reddit

>>423880
But it was cherry picked to such extent that it runs to the opposite direction of /v/ now. /v/ is now games from the last 2/3 years and gaming-related drama.

That's why people want to talk early 00s games in /vr/. Because it's separated from all the bullshit about drama and graphics and shit like that. But it has its own set of random bullshit in itself that just kills it.

I'm sure hiro will understand my points while I press him enough :)

File: fhfsh.gif (1003KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 220x220px

>>423883
Guess what, for every shitty snark one-liner you throw in here I'm going to shitpost one of your threads in /vr/ tonight. I would've done it now but I'm not at home so I can reset my router yet.

>>423884
Not our problem. Push for /v/ to talk about older stuff instead.

>>423887
>this is the kind of posters neo /vr/ woull attract
allowing gen 6 sure would be a fantastic idea

>>423888
The only thing I'm going to push /v/ is to raid /vr/ more often. It looks really fun seeing you autists squirm over your circlejerk getting invaded.

>>423884
Autists, shitposters, or otherwise, we all have that one game we want to talk about on /vr/ but we realize it's not qualified and follow the rules like anybody else. I don't know why that isn't the first instinct. Your thread about a 2004 game getting buried on /v/ is a bummer, but the blame shouldn't get put on /vr/ just because you couldn't take it there instead. I honestly think GBA is the most deserving of /vr/ status but so far nobody has been hostile about it unlike this guy >>423887. Instead it's always about Xbox or PS2 so people can start talking about Half-Life 2, which leads into Counter-Strike Source, and then CSGO and Titanfall because people will pick at these cracks, because they can like >>423887.

>>423888
I'm all for keeping post-2000 out of /vr, but goddamn, that guy really acts like he's false flagging or some shit. I mean holy shit, I've never seen such a perfect portrait of a post-2006 4chan user.

>>423891
I'm the both posts you quoted moron. Like I said before:

>I just want to talk about 2000-2004 PC games and I've been civil about it for over a year.

This isn't a new thing. I advocated for PC games during the "6th gen" being allowed forever, and everyone was completely dismissive of me.

The time for civility is over, this is 4chan afterall. You autists hijacked the retro board for your own circlejerking interests and now you will pay for it.

>>423892
>I've never seen such a perfect portrait of a post-2006 4chan user.
It explains why /vr/ faggots are so protective of their board. You're probably one of the worst cases of 4chan losers if you still post here for more than 10 years.

I've been here since 2007 by the way.

>>423895
Epic iceburn bro!

Even though PS2 is one of my favourite consoles and some post 2000 games are among my top 5 games ever we shouldn't allow 6th gen to be on /vr/. I lurk /v/ enough to know most of PS2, GC and Xbox are mostly console specs and sales' shitflinging, and as no mod or janitor seems to care about even our own shit (like CRT x LCD, Castlevania, "WHAT IS THE MOST OVERRATED SERIES AND WHY IT IS" and others) our board will only be worsened, I can't see a single improvement if we allow this kind of discussion. As said in OP's post, it's not /vr/ fault /v/ can't handle civil discussion.

File: FFLIII_Borgin_US_Artwork.jpg (24KB, 296x380px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 296x380px

>>423786
Why can't you people just assimilate to our board? You get five generations of video games to look up, often times having various competing home consoles and computers.

I went into /vr/ never touching the TG-16 or its add-on, and now I have played a small sample of its games and enjoyed them (Blazing Lasers, Splatterhouse, Legendary Ax, and Castlevania: Rondo of Blood), or other PC games like Heretic, or getting other Genesis recommendations that I didn't get to play when I was younger like Streets of Rage or Ristar. There are so many games that you can be exposed to if you try to assimilate to /vr/ but rather than trying to get into the board you want to force your way into the board just so you can discuss what you want to discuss rather than participating to what is already there.

It is possibly one of reasons as to why people don't want the rules to change, because you had no interest in the board in the first place and just want it as a safe haven from /v/ rather than having a genuine interest in retro video games. Why would we want to take in such people? We don't care how old you are, you can still enjoy these great games, and I am sure it would make many others happy that you do give these games a try.

Just make a new board:

/v2k/ for games made after 2000 and everyone is happy.

Make a board called /vmar2005/ for games made in March 2005 and then add the feature to upvote the posts and also make the moderators a bunch of personality cult circlejerkers and add in an IRC channel and neat little flairs we can put next to our mandatory handles

>>418129

I just want PC games from up to 2001 and the GBA unbanned

>>424509
Same.

The GBC, PS1, and N64 have commonly discussed games released in 2000 and later. Forcing PC games to stick behind 1999 isn't fair.

GBA is the last popular 2D console that's not allowed on /vr/ while much of it's library is similar to the SNES.

I don't think this is unreasonable. I still don't want PS2, Xbox or gamecube discussion. Some topics turn into pleasant discussions about PC and GBA games until NOT RETRO shows up.

>>423785
>and janitors never fucking touch /vr/ to begin with.
That is the biggest baldest most blatant lie I've heard since the beginning of this year.

I think it should be by 15 year intervals.

/vr/ was established 15 years after the period set and it should be another 15 years before those generations in that 15 years be considered retro.

>>424534
To follow myself up, that is to say that 4chan, let a lone /vr/ is still around then. But, I still stand by my idea.

It's fucking ridiculous that the Dreamcast is allowed but the PS2 and Gamecube aren't.

Change this immediately, Hiro.

>>423781
6th gen is the only reason I would have to visit the board. I'd love to post about pcsx2 and dolphin.

Just stupid board limbo like usual.

>>424749
Good to hear, more reasons not to add 6th gen.

I vote we allow PC games up to 2002 and all GBA games.

The former only makes sense as the same is done for gen 5 console's with releases up to that year, and the latter is the last dedicated 2D handheld and honestly fits in far more with the board than sixth gen consoles do at this point.

>>423922
>you had no interest in the board in the first place and just want it as a safe haven from /v/ rather than having a genuine interest in retro video games

Why can't I have both? I just want old /v/ back, but that doesn't mean I have no interest in discussing old games at all.

>>423888
>Push for /v/ to talk about older stuff instead.
Will never happen, any game older than 2006 outside of Halo and WoW is considered defacto shit and threads get shitposted to death by underageb& if they're not outright deleted by the mods. And /v/ is your problem just as much as /vg/ is a problem for /v/.

>>423895
>You're probably one of the worst cases of 4chan losers if you still post here for more than 10 years

( ._.)

>>424753
Since when is /vr/ anti emulation? Is it the board run by collectorfags?

>>424844
While I do like games from 6th generation there will be plenty of people who don't care about the current boards content right now. Why should we house them when they don't have an actual interest in the topic? They would just want their generation in the board, not additional games to talk about since they didn't have anything to talk about on the board in the first place because they are unwilling to try out a lot of games before the year 2000.

I'm glad /vr/ is more like /a/ in their self-moderation.

Fuck off, /v/ermin. No 6th gen, ever, and there's nothing you can do about it.

File: Burgerpants2.png (3KB, 124x184px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 124x184px

>>424844

Saying PS2 should go on /vr/ is like saying PS2 should go on /g/. It makes 0 sense, but some fags will try on technicalities and deliberate misunderstasndings aanyway.

Plus, /v/ leaks as hard as /pol/ nowdays, and since there's only mods on /a/, everyone just has to deal with it, I guess.

retro is 1999. 2000 is not retro. 2000 was the start of the modern era of everything shit that polluted the earth.
You want to "discuss" ps2, gamecube and xbox games? do it here >>>/trash/

No, with the exception of GBA and WSC maybe. I just don't think bringing sixth gen into the fold makes sense right now. It's only a couple of generations behind the current gen.

On the other hand, /v/ is a lost cause. I wouldn't mind serious discussions about sixth gen games on /vr/ as long as /v/irgins didn't invade the board and start whining about GooberGate and their SJW boogeyman. Unless the mods are going to step up their game to make sure that doesn't happen, then forget it.

Regardless, we're already allowed to discuss newer generations of consoles as long as it's within the context of retro gaming - e.g. We're discussing emulation of older systems on newer consoles, or modern remakes of retro games. Both topics have always been welcome, despite the occasional "NOT RETRO" shitposters.

>>425187
GBA makes the least sense in excluding it since it came out a year after the PS2. It is absurd to let that on while neglecting the PS2. A solid 1999 cut off date is better and doesn't play favorites as much as your suggestion.