Have you made a conscious decision to only play retro games (roughly the ones that are defined reto by the rules of this board)? If so, why?
Do you just happen to only/mostly play retro games, with some modern games occasionally thrown in? For people who only play retro games, is there anything that modern games could do differently that would make you check them out? Has any modern game ever tempted you?
I mostly play retro games because I see no reason to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars with new games when I can play thousands of old ones for free or cheap money with just as much quality or even more to offer.
Yes. Because there are very few games made for consoles later than psx that are worth any attention. Most game series went to trash when the full 3D generation started.
Resident Evil is the best example, went from the best survival horror series (1-3) to mediocre fps. I remember first time I saw Ps2, and my reaction was "its sucks, that's just the old playstation with higher resolution, longer loading times and bad remakes."
After that it has just gotten worse, all games are stream lined 3D that feel like fps even when it isn't.
Only modern games I play are p2w browser games. In 2D.
I play mostly retro games, with 6th gen mixed in too. I enjoyed GTA V and I heard that Mass Effect is really good, but other than that I haven't really been interested by post-2006 games in quite a while. Like >>2891435 said, they all seem to blend together nowadays. Almost every game I see my friends playing is some variant on an FPS. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but have there been any truly groundbreaking games to come out on the newest consoles?
Retro games are great, even fantastic, but I still feel like games I played in 2015 were fucking excellent experiences. People always associate modern games with AAA stuff like AC, CoD, and the such, but I played a lot of games last year and going into this year that have given me a lot of fun.
Helps that Satellite Reign and Endless Legend are addicting.
i'm a poor college student and retro games can be emulated or bought on steam for very little money. i can't afford to drop hundreds of dollars on a new console, i don't own a tv, i can't afford $60 games. i would play some modern games if i could afford to, but there are a lot of really fun retro games
>Have you made a conscious decision to only play retro games (roughly the ones that are defined reto by the rules of this board)? If so, why?
I don't buy shitty games, or purchase games with shit DRM such as steam, and that means for the most part all modern games. Nor do I buy systems for a single game if there ever happens to be a good one. So no modern systems outside of PC, barring a Wii I was unfortunately gifted which I really did not want bought, Nintendo is on my outright blacklist with one exception the only good they even sell the WCP controller. I'm not 'trying' to avoid modern games, they're trying to avoid me by being awful. If a friend has a shitty game I might try it out possibly. I sure as fuck won't purchase it. So a large amount of games that I play are older. But I'll still use things I end up with.
That's not to say all retro games are good either, a significant portion of retro gaming is definitely bad. But they're small and easy to get going and with emulation I already have them. So I give everything at least a shot and the retro era has great games and good games and significantly more mediocre games. Whereas modern gaming really has at best mediocre games and then largely fucking terrible games.
PC gaming started on that slope and dying between 16-20 years ago as well. Along with some of the best games made in the initial stages of dying, most developers went to shit. It was extremely easy to miss due to the handful of great and good games as well as multiplayer blowing up to spend your time on while the industry went to shit. But revisiting the era, you see it was going to shit during that time and it hasn't recovered.
So largely, while I would never toss retro away anyway, it's something I'm just kind of stuck with anyway whether I want to or not, and really I'd rather not. I wouldn't mind visiting but I would love if people still made good games and people still liked good games.
I want to get into playing only retro vidya, but I can't get a setup that I feel comfortable with. Emulation I don't like because Windows takes too long to boot up even with a solid state, and I need to put some money into consoles, like I'd need a CRT or a Framemeister.
I pretty much only play retro games and 6th gen because they don't actively try to stop me from playing them
>pop in a game on a modern console
>firmware updates, patches, installations, long system boot times, etc
>not even interested in playing by the time it's finally started
>practically every game has a slow start with tutorials and cutscenes that will bore you away from pretty much anything that makes it past the above stuff
I've played too many video games to want to put up with stupid shit
no, I occasionally play modern games
But when it comes down to it, the kind of games I want to play aren't really made anymore, I look at lists of shit on Steam and don't really want to play any of it.
most of the modern games I play are pretty similar to stuff from 15 or 20 years ago though (fighting games, arcade racers, shoot-em-ups, rhythm games)
People do this because of the style of the period's influence on works from that time. 1991-era techno is different from 1995-era techno is different from 1999-era techno (like, really damn different), movies from the 70s are pretty different from those of the 80s which are different from that of the 90s, etc, etc.
if someone's completely unwilling to even make the attempt to leave your preferred period though, they're a complete faggot
>not even interested in playing by the time it's finally started
this has happened to me a lot
>you can run windows for more than a few days without rebooting
If you're running a windows version made in the last 10 years? Sure. I think I've ended up rebooting every couple months (and more than half of the things I rebooted for could probably have been solved by logging out and back in).
I do remember the Win95 days where you literally could not leave the machine running for a few days because the system leaked memory heavily, you'd close programs and resources weren't properly returned to the system pool, any program crash had a chance of affecting the stability of all programs run until the next reboot (something that doesn't happen on any remotely modern OS), etc.
How stubborn would you have to be?
I understand preferring simple quick games.
I understand not wanting to buy new hardware.
But if you actively make an effort to avoid modern games then I think you take this board way too seriously.
>I think I've ended up rebooting every couple months
So you're either running an old version on old hardware that don't get updates or not installing the updates that come out on an almost weekly basis? Or you're bullshitting.
I mostly play retro because my brain doesn't understand "modern games". The brain of a kid is much more flexible, so i had no problems getting into new games when i was younger. Sometimes the extra effort/time is worth it though, when the game is really well made.
I just don't like the majority of current (see 6th gen and later) games I've tried for various reasons, the most base of which is "I don't find them nearly as fun."
I don't actively avoid them. In fact, I'd have to actively go out to get them if I wanted to play any.
Some exceptions exist, of course, but because I've never actually owned any console (save handhelds, which I own mostly for emulation anyway) newer than DC, I don't have much access to them in the first place.
There are some semi-contemporary games I like. Friends have explained that by saying they "feel retro" but I don't know if I quite agree. Maybe they do. I can't say. I can say only that I like them and I don't put too much thought into it.
That Pacman rolling game.
That game with the Sackboy thing.
The DS Castlevanias.
The Bloodlines remake.
The Lufia reboot.
That rotating MC-Escher-like PSP puzzle game.
DS 7th Dragon.
That Wild Arms strategy game.
That Yoshi game with the clouds.
The Patapon series.
The Pikmin series.
That's about it that I can think of, really. I tried NSMB Wii and DS and felt strongly let down by the both of them and I detest every post MD Sonic game, though I've never played Chaotix.
Not him, but I'm still running Win 7 and Opera 10.62 (current version is Opera 34.something) because I really, really, REALLY dislike all the changes made in the subsequent releases. I use more contemporary things when I have to, but I like everything as it is. Especially Opera.
>Have you made a conscious decision to only play retro games (roughly the ones that are defined reto by the rules of this board)?
No. I play video games from various eras.
>Do you just happen to only/mostly play retro games, with some modern games occasionally thrown in?
I play what I wish.
I made the conscious decision to not support any game that features downloadable content, games that are is nothing more than map packs posing as standalone titles and sports titles.
I've been obsessed with games almost my whole life, from the 70s when I was still a kid right through to today and I love games from every era.
With older games, there are some that were just so well made that even after all these years there's still new interesting fun to be had. (Street Fighter, early roguelikes, puzzlers like Tetris and Panel De pon etc etc etc) as well as still a bunch I've never even really played so there's always new stuff.
I think every era of gaming has had some truly incredible games and honestly feel bad for guys like this >>2891585 who either don't like games enough to try new things or are just turned off by the stuff they don't like. In my opinion this is a golden age of gaming, with more games or more types being made now than ever before. 99% of it doesn't interest me, but even at that the 1% is more than I have time to tackle.
My favourite genre is racing, and as I haven't see no huge improvement in modern games aside graphics I rarely bother playing modern games. From the top of my head the only "modern" titles I spent considerably a great time were the original NFS MW and rFactor, I'd give a chance to Ridge Racer 6 and 7 if I had the consoles as they're exclusives.
Tried it, but it's been so long ago now that I don't remember if I liked it any or not. I'm leaning towards not, though.
I just don't like how other browsers work, look and feel. Newer versions of Opera are, for lack of a better term, bulkier in comparison to 10.62. I don't mean that they take more space or memory (they actually take FAR less memory), just that the whole thing looks bulky to me. Couple that with the key controls getting inexplicably changed (I don't use a mouse), and that makes me rather dislike it. Chrome is a somewhat close second, but I still prefer Opera 10.62 over all others.
>My favourite genre is racing, and as I haven't see no huge improvement in modern games aside graphics
In other words you stopped paying attention to your favorite genre. Physics programming has been improved massively over the last 10 years. Maybe what you're talking about is true for just arcade style ones, but real racing games like Forza blow retro racers completely out of the water in terms of realistic driving.
I completely agree with you on Opera. It was my favorite browser for many years, then Google bought them out and now it's a reskin of Chrome with virtually all the customization taken out.
I still use an old version, but a lot of stuff doesn't work right in it. Google Image Search for example produces completely different results in old Opera than it does any other browser I've tried. It's super weird.
Now I use Firefox mostly which I don't like, but is at least better than new Opera and more functional than the old one. Shit's sad.
Psychics wise I don't see a huge improvement in games before GPL or rFactor, which isn't retro but I said in my post, it's a game I like. Haven't tried the italian hotlap simulator yet because I have a toaster and only got a wheel a few months ago. And even though I think Forza is a pretty solid racer it haven't done nothing more than, let's see, TOCA series except for having more vehicles and tracks.
If you're into racing games and not into improved physics then I guess none of that would matter. For me I always wanted racers to feel more realistic and that's what the Italian hotlap simulator is perfect for.
If you're content with the older style ones, there's nothing wrong with that at all. But if you get curious in the next couple years, 360's are already only about $100 and still in the phase when they're dropping. It will let you play some really excellent (semi) modern physics based racers.
I use pogo super access a lot. It's 9.99/mo and they give you a new game to access every day. Some of them suck but most of them are the adventure, hidden object, puzzle games that surprised me in their quality. You have access to 2000 of the previously loaded games.
>Have you made a conscious decision to only play retro games
No, because I'm not a raging autist who arbitrarily limits himself on a retarded principle. Are all new games good? No, but neither are old games, look at the 2600 library, NO quality control, thousands and thousands of awful and worthless games.
While over half of the games I play are old, I still check out modern titles that interest me.
Sort of this. Not all new games have something to offer.
The only First Person RE game is Survivor, which is retro.
4 was great in my opinion, but it feels like the series tried to copy it without understanding why it was great, 5 and 6 are just not good.
So how's Sattelite Reign? I always loved Syndicate Wars. Is there a console release? My PC is kind of shit.
This however is an important aspect, retro gaming can be VERY cheap.
Lost my shit.
I do this. I also have a cooling plate on my laptop to help keep temperatures level, and I make it a point to occasionally turn it off to clear caches and memories (killing and restarting explorer.exe every now and then helps keep memory in check).
>/v/'s board culture is really bad.
Absolutely, it is one of the worst on the web, almost as bad as Reddit.
At least I can talk about games I like here without a torrent of autism and shitposting.
>>firmware updates, patches, installations, long system boot times, etc
How seldom do you play games? Like I only rarely have updates, very rarely, of any kind, my PS3 boots within half a minute, maybe half a minute to boot up a game as well, it's really not that slow or obtrusive, I'm playing Far Cry 3 in a minute after turning the system on.
As a kid I always wanted to play the best SNES and Genesis and playstation games I couldn't afford, or were too dumb to acquire when they were available. Like, I just didn't fucking do my homework on "Pick up this game ASAP YOU DUMB SHIT."
It's like, actually painful looking back, but I was a dumb kid/ teenager.
Now that I have the freedom and cash I'm kind of burnt out on some retro mechanics; The older I get the worse it will be. If I wait too long, will games become unplayable? Just look at the fucking waiting that games like Grandia 1 makes you do, or Ogre Battle. Some old "classics" with beautiful sprite art now have primitive mechanics that are hard to trudge through.
A good game is always a good game, but modern gaming's made us soft. So I've given up on new games until I play all the old retros I want.
I play mostly retro games for many reasons, but mostly its just because i enjoy them the best and they remind me of my childhood. I still do play some newer games. I bought a gamecube years ago for metroid. And my friends all have playstation 4 etc. which i play when i visit them. These newer games just simply don't interest me at all. Its all cinematics really, it doesn't even feel like playing through a game. These games today are all the same recycled garbage.
>None of the people who complain about DLC and patches actually play modern games at all. you can tell from the way they talk about them.
I figured as such.
The modern industry isn't perfect (neither was the old industry) and there's certainly bad business practices, but good games are still made, there is good DLC (it's like they have no idea there exists DLC that is basically full fledged expansion packs).
The opposition to patches is irrational, being able to fix a problem is never a bad thing, don't let shitty devs or publishers ruin something useful.
I like having both. Consoles have advantages such as not having to spend money on upgrading hardware to play a new game (though naturally you wont get quite as full of an experience as you could on PC).
I also use my PS3 as a Netflix and Youtube machine, it goes well with my decently sized TV. My PC can run that too, but the screen is smaller and the sound isn't even close to as impressive.
I do miss that. I mean, don't you just miss silly shooters like Duke Nukem 3D? It was comedic, yet it was also so cool and a little dark.
Duke Nukem Forever fell so flat on it's face, it tried to be a good game like Duke 3D, yet it ended up being one of the worst shooters in years.
I like serious stuff, but at the same time, I wish there was more goofy shooters with balls.
I like all of them desu
The great thing with modern consoles is that internet connectivity allows you to publish a port of a classic game for free.
Because /v/ is a maelstrom of underage autism.
I don't like modern games, consoles, controllers or playing online.
Also, new games all seem very similar. They remind me of a time when most games were side-scrollers, hoping to emulate the success of Mario games.
I don't like big-budget modern games. Half-hour tutorials, season passes, installation times, trophies/achievements, shoed-in multi-player... and all that money to make stunningly cookie-cutter, predictable games. I've played tons of current-gen games and they generally leave me with a sense of satisfaction but they never leave a lasting impression. It seems like the industry now makes their games with the conscious desire that you will play them, discard them, and immediately buy their next game.
It's probably a good business model but fuck that. I like to sit down with an immersive game and sink real hours into it, fall in love with places and characters. I understand I'm mostly a bitter neo-Luddite but fuck if that doesn't make me happier. The only modern games I still play are handheld ones, which often respect the design philosophy I appreciate.
So new games are all too similar because it reminds you of how old games are too similar? What?
Some games have this problem, but better games allow you to skip or disable tutorials.
Never bought them, I only pick up DLC if it looks good.
One time thing, play some retro game while you wait. Typically I go for Tetris or something.
Don't play multiplayer so it doesn't affect me.
I'm a dinosaur but not by choice.
I simply don't enjoy newer games... in fact I can't even enjoy too much in the 5th generation mostly just Saturn and some N64 stuff...
The only new games I play are stuff like Shovel Knight or Dark Souls.
I feel like my dad that I used to not understand any music after 1975... my dad worked as a manager for Toys R' Us and I got an NES for Christmas close to launch (although consoles didn't really launch, they trickled in)...
And I remember having an Intellivision at home.
I wish I could enjoy new games sometimes........
>Some games have this problem, but better games allow you to skip or disable tutorials
Old games didn't need tutorials most of the time since the level design taught you what you needed to know and the manual (do new games even have instruction booklets?) gave you the back story that you needed. You simply pressed start or enter and just fucking played.
Most of the time I play modern games mostly out of convenience though there are only like 3 that I play. The layout of my living room puts too much distance between the seats and tv so I have to sit on the floor to use any wired controller. I suppose I'll get extension cables eventually
yes and yes. they do not interes me. although there are a few rare exceptions. I play retro games because they are reliable and little to no bugs and glitches on snes or sega genises. they also have challenging gameplay.
overall I play for nostalgia purposes and aalso look for replay value. also, the retro art form is so appealing. I can't tell u how many times Ive bought a modern game and beaten it in 2 or 3 days which leads to utter disappointment and a waste of fucking $60, when an array of retro games that I have, have taken me weeks or a whole month to beat. even the short ones have replay value. I love the gameplay/challenge in them. modern ones only concentrte on pretty graphics and sound which isa a boner kill
>who either don't like games enough
Literally been gaming my entire life as well. I've been playing video games since they were essentially a thing. They're the defining thing in my life. You'd be lucky to find a single week I have managed to not play video games and they take up a considerable portion of basically all my free time. Gaming is effectively what I do. There is no "don't like games enough". I fucking love games, which is why I don't like awful as fuck games. Because they're bad and the developers who make them are bad. Also you're an asshole for suggesting it. I'd actually suggest the same of you given the statement that we're in the golden age.
That's not being turned off by stuff I don't like, granted there are games genres I like less and will avoid. That's not what modern games are, they're often right in the genres I do like. Modern games just do those genres badly, very badly.
>with more games or more types being made now than ever before.
Well not game types, but yes more shovelware than ever before in history is being created, by the boatloads. No point in gaming history has the output of poorly designed, poorly implemented, and just pure drivel crapped out as right now in history.
The great thing is there is access to all the retro games, that is amazing and awesome. But gaming, game development and the industry itself, innovation are in the fucking dark ages.
>No point in gaming history has the output of poorly designed, poorly implemented, and just pure drivel crapped out as right now in history.
If you mean sheer amount, maybe, but there are still more than a few diamonds in the rough. And it's not like the ratio of bad:good has never been worse. The video game crash in the '80s happened because of saturation of the market with mostly awful games.
>But gaming, game development and the industry itself, innovation are in the fucking dark ages.
Either you're high or really aren't looking hard at all. Not only are most of the old developers who made the games you love still around and making new stuff (sometimes with the same IP, sometimes unrelated) but there are a lot of new game devs making awful games.
I mean, if you only buy what you see advertised on TV, sure, you'll get 99% garbage, but let's not pretend indie games don't exist.
>but there are still more than a few diamonds in the rough.
>And it's not like the ratio of bad:good has never been worse.
>The video game crash in the '80s happened because of saturation of the market with mostly awful games.
Fuck off retard.
>Either you're high or really aren't looking hard at all.
Or you're just fucking retarded, which is really looking like an extremely strong argument since you're blurbing marketing garbage and finding all the everything that is modern gaming even close to as great as what the industry used to even attempt to produce. Shit, the only they really bother with is graphics anymore and not even really that as well.
>Not only are most of the old developers who made the games you love still around and making new stuff (sometimes with the same IP, sometimes unrelated) but there are a lot of new game devs making awful games.
Oh yeah, I love bigfish adventure click #506 or neuterized Doom the movie.
>I mean, if you only buy what you see advertised on TV, sure, you'll get 99% garbage,
Do they even advertise on TV anymore outside of shitty phone games?
>but let's not pretend indie games don't exist.
No, let's. Because it's shit barring really like once in a decade shit like Cave Story. No, a billion half assed cave story knock offs that are barely completed and poorly done is not "great". The best you get out of indie these days at best is a barely working demo for a singular innovative concept. For the most part it's all hipster-retro-pixelized versions of modern garbage created in 2D with all the awful you can fit crunch in or not even a fucking game but some concept art that gets shilled around and the circle-of-indie-wankers give it's yearly jerk off award before it vanishes faster than the Phantom console never to be brought up again.
>yet it ended up being one of the worst shooters in years.
No it didn't. It was one of the best shooters in years. But still an awful shooter overall. FPS games have been dogshit for ages.
>It was one of the best shooters in years.
No it wasn't, it was an atrocity by modern standards.
It's like it tried to combine elements of classic shooters and modern shooters but ended up doing it really horribly, from a classic point of view it was terrible, and from a modern point of view, it was terrible as well.
There were several shooters released in the same year that were a million times better, Crysis, Deus Ex, Serious Sam, etc. It was NOT a good game by any existing standards, 14 years in development yet it felt like a rushed cookie cutter cash-in on the Duke Nukem license.
>Fuck off retard.
Is he wrong? Was the market then not bad? Was there not more terrible and worthless games than there were good ones? There were several thousands of games released in that generation and only a couple hundred of them were ever worth your time.
Chase The Chuck Wagon is a textbook example of the kind of worthless rubbish that came to flood the market.
>and finding all the everything that is modern gaming even close to as great as what the industry used to even attempt to produce
So to you the concept of videogames peaked with sidescrollers or what?
The modern industry is hardly as bad as you put it, look beyond Call Of Battlefield and Ass Screed (as if there wasn't abysmal top budget titles in the olden days).
I play mostly old games because most modern stuff I try bore me to death, but it's not a conscious decision obviously. It's just that gaming changed a lot and I only seem to enjoy a particular approach to it, japanese hack and slash titles and modern arcades being the most notorious exceptions.
Nah, but I will only play new games holding on to old values. Where gameplay is the focus, challenge is a must and bosses exist to highlight the finer qualities of the battle system.
I don't see how you could ONLY play retro games when several amazing retraux games are constantly being made, such as La Mulana, Mega Man 9 and arguably XCOM.
Oh yeah, I play this too. Some are legit awesome and not pretentious hipster bullshit who don't resemble what they're trying to imitate at all or just modern games with a 2D dress up.
>No it wasn't, it was an atrocity by modern standards.
Modern standards are dogshit.
>Crysis, Deus Ex
No. Not even.
>Is he wrong?
>Was the market then not bad?
No. Were their company failings, yes.
>Was there not more terrible and worthless games than there were good ones?
There always was so that question is ridiculous.
>There were several thousands of games released in that generation and only a couple hundred of them were ever worth your time.
That's also the same "generation" as the it's high point. But no, quality of games didn't cause it. A multitude of factors including absurdly heavy competition with computers and other consoles, Atari losing employees, bad business practices by Atari, heavy reliance by third parties on Atari, flooding the market in general, the beginnings of wealth disparity blow out and economic volatility, etc...
Ask your friends how many of their parents bought them a fucking console and every computer each year. Almost none of them will because not every was rich as fuck, quite the opposite and actually getting worse at the turn at the 80s.
To suggest that it was simply caused by low quality output of games is nothing short of fucking retarded and simply ignores the scope and complexity of reality. So yes, I reiterate, he is fucking wrong and so are you. Stop sucking the dicks of cash-in retro books and marketers.
>The modern industry is hardly as bad as you put it
Yes it is, if anything it's worse.
I mostly play modern games, but I mainly stick to RPGs or games with RPG-style features.
I always keep emulators handy for when I want to play something older, though.
Most people are busy pitching a fit about the AAA bogeyman, but there are legit good games on the market, nowadays. You just have to crawl through the crap to find them. It's always been that way, as far as games are concerned.
>My PC can run that too, but the screen is smaller and the sound isn't even close to as impressive.
ah yes, im sute the stereo sound system and the flattv are components of your PS3
you cant even call monitor and TVs differently anymore, they are the same
A lot of them are underage and didn't play /vr/ games when they were new, or they did play those games and just plain didn't like them. So they assume that anyone who does talk about how they liked those games is just posing for attention. This is somewhat justified, as there's plenty of autism among /vr/ fans as well. You can only take so many "does anyone remember this le forgotten gem, SMB3?" threads before it gets on your nerves.
>Deus Ex Human Revolution was not good
>Duke Nukem Forever was better
Yeah you're not a real person, nobody is that brain damaged for real. You got me bro, you got me got, I took your bait.
>To suggest that it was simply caused by low quality output of games is nothing short of fucking retarded and simply ignores the scope and complexity of reality.
I don't think anyone ever said it was market saturation alone, of course there was more to it, the simplification is implicit.
>if anything it's worse.
Oh is that so? Do we have publishers like LJN and Acclaim pushing out shovelware tier license titles by the shipload?
License games, particularly movie license games, were not always good, but they were at their worst during 3rd gen.
Did Konami not always treat their employees like dirt, did companies not have shitty and scummy business practices?
Were Atari not as big thugs as EA are today? Were they not in fact worse in some ways? Were there not shelves and shelves of ripoff products back then?
Did people not get senselessly exploited and given little to no thanks for their hard work?
Did companies and franchises not get bought out and ruined?
Were there not political activists, scam artisys and scummy lobbyists who were trying to worm their way into the industry before?
Were there not bad ports, bad excuses and bad PR back in the day?
Nothing of the bad shit that happens today is new or significantly worse than 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
I'm half-and-half for the most part. Most of my favorite modern games tend to be action RPGs, fightan games, or DMC-style hack and slashes because there's still a large focus on gameplay.
I can't speak for what people on /v/ think, but I wrote that. It doesn't make me angry, but I do personally have a very low opinion of nostalgia and people who seek it out. Not that that should matter to anyone at all. It's your life, if you like your nostalgia then do whatever.
However, it's the people heavily invested in nostalgia who make statements like there are no good modern games. Those people are not gamers, they're not really interested in video games specifically, they're interested in the one time period of games they feel nostalgia for.
And again, if that's what they're interested in and what they want to spend their time on that's fine. But they're opinions on modern gaming are completely worthless to anyone who is actually actively into gaming as a hobby.
It's exactly the same as if you were really into music, books, movies or TV. If someone started trying to honestly say that there hadn't been anything good at all in the last 15 years people would look at you like you're crazy. They would be a walking joke, like Homer Simpson saying "everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact."
That's what the people on here who say there are no modern games sound like. Simply utterly ridiculous. Yet they don't understand that and think their opinions are valid and knowledgeable despite burying their head in the sand in the face of anything new.
And again, not saying you have to like or play new games. But don't try to pass yourself off as someone who knows what they're talking about.
>I fucking love games, which is why I don't like awful as fuck games.
I totally agree with you. I'm an incredibly picky gamer myself who's also been gaming avidly since the late 70's. I dislike or am not interested enough in at least 98% of all the games ever made, but I still don't have enough time to fully play everything I really like.
I honestly think that if you can't look around at the insane volume and diversity of games being made now and not find ANYTHING that really grabs you, then you've moved on in some way and games don't interest you the same way they did your younger self.
>Well not game types,
And yes game types, new genres are evolving all the time and old ones are thriving. Roguelikes which for years and years were super niche are finally gaining real recognition and some incredible ones are being made. That's happening in many, many genres.
I think it's amazing that these days there are games coming out both by massive game developers and tiny teams of a few passionate people. If most of it either bad or not great? Sure. But who has the time to play everything anyways? All that matters is the gems that float to the surface.
And remember, don't let those rose tinted goggles cloud your vision. There was a ton of absolute trash in the Atari days as well. Did that stop you from loving the shit out of Galaga, Pitfall, Dig Dug etc etc? Of course not? So don't let the E.T.'s of today do the same.
I agree with you that that asshole ranting about how there are LITERALLY no good games from the past few years has their head up their ass, but it seems a bit ridiculous to think lowly of literally everyone who ever seek things out based on nostalgia.
Things I've done in the past year based on nostalgia
>replayed Pokemon Red
>replayed Secret of Mana and Secret of Evermore
>listened to an album I liked in high school
None of these things prevent me from liking modern things in the least, and I'm not sure how they convey to you that I'm someone of whom you ought to have a low opinion.
I do understand the complaint about people who live their lives in the past, constantly thinking due to nostalgia that there's nothing valuable in the present, but are you going to tell me you've never turned on a song you and a friend used to sing as kids or a game you used to play just to enjoy the memory? Come on.
I just think there's no real joy in nostalgia. It's trying to relive a past joy. Which isn't to say that replaying old games isn't fun, I've been obsessed with Ecco the Dolphin since it came out. It's still one of my favorite games that I nearly always have a play through going at one time or another. But that's because it's always been fun. There's a difference between enjoying things despite them being old and enjoying them because they're old.
But also like I say, that's just my personal opinion. And if someone enjoys they're nostalgia then good for them, and there's no reason they should give half a shit what I think of them.
But by the same token, someone who thinks everything modern is crap is literally a walking joke. And anyone who honestly can't find any modern games they think are great, are not fans of video games. They're fans of nostalgia for video games.
>However, it's the people heavily invested in nostalgia who make statements like there are no good modern games.
I state that and I'm basically a murderer or nostalgia. I go out of my way to shit on it and be as objective as possible when playing older games even ones I love or have loved and always keeping a critical eye. In fact that's ones of the reasons I even make that claim, because that's how I play games, even modern games. I'm never blinded by novelty to overall application of a game or the like.
> Those people are not gamers
Followed up with a no true scotsman? Glorious.
>But they're opinions on modern gaming are completely worthless to anyone who is actually actively into gaming as a hobby.
Dismissing people based on multiple logical fallacies.
>It's exactly the same as if you were really into music, books, movies or TV.
You are fucking troll and you know it.
Like I say, I'm extremely critical and picky of games and I still find so much new stuff that I constantly have a backlog.
In the same way that someone who says they don't listen to modern music, watch modern TV, movies etc wouldn't be considered a fan of music, TV or movies respectively; someone who has that attitude towards gaming is equally not truly a fan of the hobby. I'm sorry, but that's not trolling that's just logic.
Also, how on earth do you think this is a bad analogy?
>>Those people are not gamers, they're not really interested in video games specifically, they're interested in the one time period of games they feel nostalgia for.
People who feel the need to classify themselves as "gamers" and classify others as "gamers" or "not gamers" by their taste in games are usually faggots.
While I'm in agreement with you in regards to people discrediting modern games as a whole, quit acting as if you're super duper tolerant of other people's opinions while shitting on people who choose to play games for whatever reasons they have, no matter how retarded they may seem to you. This is why the stigma attached to "gamers" and "gaming" is nonsensical, as the definition bends depending on who you're talking to.
I play video games. I love to play video games. There are modern games that I have an interest in, and I can acknowledge their quality, but I simply don't have the same drive to play newer games than old ones. This decision isn't fueled by nostalgia, but simply because I haven't encountered a game that's made me excited enough to buy a next-gen console or build a supercharged PC. I've got an old laptop that can emulate efficiently enough and a sizable physical collection, and that's really all I need.
Again, I can recognize the quality in some new games, but for one reason or another, I just don't really play them.
>People who feel the need to classify themselves as "gamers" and classify others as "gamers" or "not gamers" by their taste in games are usually faggots.
The only reason I make this distinction is because of people here who claim to be deeply interested in gaming and then go around saying things like everything new is shit.
In the exact same way that someone who said that in relation to another medium like movies or music. If someone told you all new movies were garbage you wouldn't put much weight on their opinion.
This is just the same thing. If someone doesn't like any modern games, then that's fine. Just don't then think you can talk knowledgeably about them.
This is the third time you've made the exact same argument and it still has zero weight to it!
>>The only reason I make this distinction is because of people here who claim to be deeply interested in gaming and then go around saying things like everything new is shit.
Once again, the mentality that you have jurisdiction over who's a true "gamer" and who isn't is just as unreasonable as calling all new games terrible.
>>In the exact same way that someone who said that in relation to another medium like movies or music. If someone told you all new movies were garbage you wouldn't put much weight on their opinion.
No, I wouldn't. Just in the same way as I wouldn't place much weight in the opinion of someone who's desperately trying to prove that if you don't like new games, you aren't as "gamer" as the other "gamers."
>>If someone doesn't like any modern games, then that's fine.
Could you just drop the tolerant act already? Please? If you really didn't care about what games other people played then you wouldn't be having this fucking discussion.
>>Just don't then think you can talk knowledgeably about them.
This is pretty different from your previous argument, "If you dislike new games, you don't like games." This argument is much more reasonable, but I think you changed it after you realized you fucked up.
I don't claim to have jurisdiction over anything. All I'm really saying is that someone who's not "into" modern gaming shouldn't think their opinion is as knowledgeable as someone who is.
>No, I wouldn't.
Really? So you're saying that if someone told you unironically that "everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact." You would then listen give the same weight to their opinion on modern music as someone who is actively into, invested and knowledgeable about the music scene?
If yes, then we're clearly just very different.
>Could you just drop the tolerant act already?
It's not an act. In any way. If you only ever want to play games from 1992 then be my guest. I honestly have no problem with that. All I'm saying is don't then try to say you know what you're talking about when it comes to new ones.
>This is pretty different from your previous argument, "If you dislike new games, you don't like games."
No, I'm still making that argument. If you only like games of one era then I don't think you're really a fan of games in general. If you were, you would be able to find plenty that interests you even with all the stuff you think looks shitty.
Again, it's the same as other media. If someone told you there was no good modern music, you would come to the conclusion that they're just not much into music in general. Because saying there's literally no good modern music is completely crazy.
Games are exactly the same. You show me someone who thinks all modern games are garbage and I'll show you someone who I don't think actually likes video games much at all. If you can't find anything new that's good given the insane number of games in all different genres being made these days, then I'm sorry but you're either not trying or don't like gaming.
Which genuinely, is FINE. Just don't expect me to respect your opinion on a hobby you don't like.
I don't mostly play retro games, i'm evenly split between retro/modern. I visit /vr/ because /v/ is shit. Would rather visit a decent board about half of the games I play instead of a shit board about all the games I play.
The state of the current gen has forced me to turn back on the history of gaming and see what I missed.
Growing up, I was a total Nintendo fag. I could often only own a single system each generation, being the only sibling among 3 that actually liked video games, it was hard to convince my mom to buy me more than one console every several years. This meant I missed out, largely, on nearly all PS1 and PS2 games. I saved up for a Dreamcast and was really bummed when Sega dropped support. It was the first time I saw enough games on another console to make me want to get it, but it was dead in a couple of years. Wii was a terrible disappointment, and I began looking into picking up a PS3 or 360, but by the time I was ready to pull the trigger, current gen was on the horizon. I waited and waited... and waited for one system to get enough exclusives for me to decide on it. Also based my decision on what my friends were getting, so I could play multiplayer with them. Ended up getting a PS4, and I'm just okay with it. Most of the games are pretty forgettable. DRM, DLC, and focus on cinema over gameplay really piss me off.
It's the general state of Nintendo that has made me turn to the past, though. I remain hopeful that the NX will be a return to form for the company, but if it isn't, I'm beginning to run through all the retro games I missed out on as a kid.
You're starting to sound like a broken record here, so I'm gonna try and wrap this up...
>I don't claim to have jurisdiction over anything. All I'm really saying is that someone who's not "into" modern gaming shouldn't think their opinion is as knowledgeable as someone who is.
Maybe jurisdiction wasn't the right word. Either way, I'm fine with the argument stated here.
...yeah? That's "No, I wouldn't agree with someone who thinks all new movies are shit, nor would I agree with someone who thinks people who prefer old games to new ones don't like games." Lrn2syntax.
>Blah blah Simpsons quote music movies blah
You're literally repeating yourself. Come up with a new point before you reply.
>No, I'm still making that argument.
Well then if that's the case, thanks for admitting your mental handicap to everyone.
Let's break this down: this argument is based entirely on people's prefrences and opinions on games. Your point is that if somebody, for one reason or another, even if said reason is backed by logical reasons as to why one dislikes new games, they simply aren't as big a "gamer" as you because they don't enjoy games that are new. Essentially, you're calling anyone whose tastes don't conform to yours lower than you. Just FYI, I stated in a previous post >>2895038 that I have no problems with modern games as a whole and can recognize when a new game has quality, but I simply don't play them. I just don't. I'm still informed about new games. I don't follow new releases and news nearly as much as modern "gamers," but I'm still informed, and if you think that I my opinion is invalid simply because I don't play them, then that's backwards.
If you play games, you play games.
If you like the games you play, you like them.
It's that fucking simple.
I'm sounding like a broken record because what I'm saying is true. I don't need to re-state it differently.
>If you play games, you play games.
>If you like the games you play, you like them.
>It's that fucking simple.
I agree with all these things. But if you only play old games, your opinion on modern games doesn't have much weight.
I'm not saying anyone has to agree with my tastes. I'm saying the volume and diversity of games coming out now is so huge that anyone who thinks absolutely all of it is garbage is either uninformed or not interested in gaming in general.
I agree with you that people who are stuck in the past and make up bullshit reasons to not play modern games of any kind are absolutely cancerous people and that they have no real understanding or reasonable regard for videogames as a whole, but I have some problems with other things you are saying.
While it's important to not be blinded by nostalgia, I don't think it's inherently awful.
Gunforce for the SNES is a completely dogshit game, it's a clumsy Contra rip-off that's awkward to play and clumsily put together, you're not missing out on anything at all by not playing it, I understand all of this perfectly fine, but I still have some feelings of nostalgia for it.
It's nostalgia for a bad game, but I know perfectly well that it is bad, and why it's bad, I am not deluding myself.
On the flipside, when I have nostalgia for a good game, I might be deluding myself on some parts, but I try to look at things objectively, or to take things at face value.
>people who are stuck in the past and make up bullshit reasons to not play modern games of any kind are absolutely cancerous
This bit I don't actually agree with necessarily. I don't think they're cancerous, or even that there's anything wrong with them. To keep the same music analogy, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who only listens to 70's era rock music. If all the new music they hear sounds like crap then that's their experience and their opinion.
All I'm saying is that what they have to say about modern music wouldn't be worth much to someone who is still very into and knowledgeable about it.
And as for nostalgia, I may have come off a little hard. It's not that all nostalgia is bad or anything like that. Like someone else mentioned, hearing a song you haven't heard in years and getting that tingle of nostalgia is neat at times.
But I don't think it's something that should be actively pursued for the sake of it. I think trying to relive past joys instead seeking out new ones is a sad way to spend one's life. But also like I say, that's just me. If someone else is content with it, then they should do whatever makes them happy. Fuck knows, I do a lot of shit people would find intolerably boring.
>I'm not saying anyone has to agree with my tastes.
>I'm sounding like a broken record because [my opinion] is true.
Motherfucker, that's a direct contradiction right there.
>I agree with all these things. But if you only play old games, your opinion on modern games doesn't have much weight.
Well golly, I already stated that I agreed with this argument MULTIPLE TIMES, but for some reason you refuse to bring up your other opinion that people who like exclusively old games don't like games as much as other gamers because you said so (but it's true, so don't question it lol), aka the opinion on which nearly this ENTIRE ARGUMENT was based.
I don't want you to keep bringing up the same point about the opinions of people who vilify new games yet never play them being null, because that's true. That's a solid point. That's fact. If you're totally uninformed and call all new games shit simply because of bias, then you shouldn't be taken seriously. We're in agreement. But the mentality that you dont have as much GAYMUR CRED simply because you DON'T play new games, no matter HOW good the reason, is rediculous. I refuse to entertain it.
Monster Hunter is possibly one of my favorite series ever and the latest one was the best so far.
I really like the Etrian Odyssey games as well as Etrian Mystery Dungeon which is the first really good MD game I think Chunsoft has made since SFC Shiren.
Just Cause 2 was amazingly fun
Many fighting games, especially Injustice which is currently duking with KoF '98 as my favorite fighter of all time.
Too many roguelikes to mention, but Powder developed a few years ago remains one of my favorite games of all time.
Batman Arkham Asylum. I was really disappointed in the sequels, but that game was great.
Fez gets a lot of hate because it's creator was such a douche and people expected it to be a platformer, but I loved what it was. One of the only puzzle games that I ended up having a thick stack of hand written notes and junk in years and years.
Witcher 2 was great and half way through 3 right now I'm loving it just as much.
Animal Crossing New Leaf.
Galax-Z wasn't incredible, but I really enjoyed it.
Tomb Raider Underworld was amazing. The reboot makes me sad, but Underworld sold for shit.
the new X-Com was amazing. I could keep going, but that's a smattering at any rate.
>Motherfucker, that's a direct contradiction right there.
It's really not. Is someone who only likes 70's era rock music a fan of music in the same way that someone who enjoys and keeps up with all types of music? Of course not.
This is the same thing.
Fucking this. Truthfully, I'm not that into retro. I emulate every once in a while and I know my systems, at least. That said, going to /v/ to discuss video games is a pretty terrible idea. I come here, because while I don't play retro games that often, I can at least discuss them with a tolerable level of memes and shitposting.
I'm actually a /jp/sie
>To be a true fan of something, you must partake in every facet of the thing you are a fan of without question or influence by personal tastes
>To be a true fan of thing, you must do thing
>Even giving a shit about what makes someone superior in a subjective context in which being superior is meaningless
Nice job avoiding the point again, fuckface. Did you even read my whole post? Because you didn't seem to acknowledge anything past my first response.
Also, I'm not usually the guy to whip out his fallacies during an Internet argument, but I really think you should give this article a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Nah, I read the whole thing and I'm really not avoiding anything. We basically agree in a lot ways. All I really mean with the fan stuff is that someone who's not an active fan of something won't have much meaningful to say about whatever it is.
I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who doesn't like modern games. I just don't think someone who mostly ignores modern games can say anything very meaningful about them. That's really all it is.
To use this music analogy for hopefully one last time, our imaginary Homer Simpson type person who stopped listening to music in 1974 wouldn't have anything worthwhile to say about the 2010 hip hop scene. Sure he could go on about how it all sounds like crap to him, and his opinion is valid in the sense opinions are personal so they can't ever really be "wrong". But at the same time, any real criticism he tried to make would be hollow because he simply doesn't have the knowledge base to form a meaningful critique.
By the same token, there's nothing wrong with someone who only wants to play retro video games. But if they try to make a meaningful critique of modern games and it comes off as ridiculous as the music example, then I'm going to point that out.
If you weren't there when the NES was released, you never experienced such a "leap forward" that produced such excitement in the gaming world.
Maybe the Oculus Rift will be comparable, but that just means true /vr/s will have had two such experiences whereas others will just have had one.
>Also, I'm not usually the guy to whip out his fallacies during an Internet argument
But that's exactly what you did.
You are that guy. The guy who thinks that he's being revelatory by bringing up the basic, 1+1=2 argument lessons that I learned in middle school.
The fact that you can dimly recognize why that might not be a good idea is all the more astonishing.
It's not handy nomenclature, because nobody knows what any of the numbers refer to except for a small subsection of nerds on the internet.
Arbitrarily delineating hardware releases into numbered generations is stupid, for the same reason that delineating video games into "retro" and "modern" is stupid. It isn't actually meaningful. It doesn't actually reflect history. When Sony was making the Playstation, they weren't thinking "we're trying to win the 5th console generation". They were thinking "we're trying to launch a platform the can be successful, and a brand that can be profitable many years after the original platform is gone".
Incidentally, I had to look up the numbers to write that, because I don't keep worthless information in my brain.
>nobody knows what any of the numbers refer to except for a small subsection of nerds on the internet.
Yeah, but it's only that subsection of nerds who cares about it anyways so what's the big deal? You're complaining about nerdy message board terminology being used by nerds on a message board. Why?
Do you have an easier and more succinct way to refer to each generation when conversing?
Not nerd, geek. Also that guy is a fucking moron. The terminology is also in use in far more than just a small subset of gamers on the internet. It's a fairly widely understood concept that most people who aren't the most casual understand.
>because nobody knows what any of the numbers refer to except for a small subsection of nerds on the internet
But this board IS that subsection of nerds on the internet, so what's the problem with using reasonably descriptive nomenclature that these nerds understand?
I'm seeing this a lot on /vr/ lately. I have no idea what it's meant to be.
What the hell is it and where does it come from? A friend and I discussed /vr/ earlier today and he brought up the onslaught of 'AAA' lately. He guesses that it's something from /v/ that has trickled into /vr/.
I don't remember exactly when it started, but it was commonplace by the end of the 90's. Then a lot of talk about it in the mid 00's PS2/Gamecube era where there was a sense that there wasn't much room for non-AAA games because of the way the industry was going.
No, they went straight to AAA based on (depending who you ask) the American school grading system, the Canadian meat grading system, or (IMO) the bond credit rating system.
It was just supposed to be a catch-all for games that had been wildly successful since the industry was fairly surprised at how quickly video games went from being niche to being mainstream revenue generators, hence why there isn't an A- or AA- game; these terms don't exist.
Originally, you also couldn't define a game as being AAA until AFTER the game came out and did big business, whereas now it's just a term denoting that the publishers are throwing a substantial budget behind the production.
Nope, in fact I've been playing more newer games than older lately. It's just that I have more appreciation for older games, and the phases where I play more newer games like this are few and far between.
Nah. I play most things. I'll get on a retro kick every now and then, I enjoy playing them because they're pretty easy by and large. Just pick up and play and you can beat them in an hour or two.
My hands are fucked up with tendinitis from videogames and internet plus other serious health issues so I can't afford to get caught up with modern consoles and massive hype of new consoles. I just get cozy and play an older game for an hour or so. It's hard to go cold turkey from something even if it's unhealthy. Plus I love it so much.