/vr/ 6th gen

No. We do not need any more /v/ splinters.

I want it

>>679691
haha
i can't believe there are people who think even the fucking n64 and ps1 aren't retro
jesus christ talk about living in the past

>>679682
I'm in favor of a /v2k/ or adding GBA to /vr/.
Either way, something needs to change.

(I do lean towards /v2k/ slightly, because that would also allow DS to be discussed with the GBA)

>>679696
No to 2010 though

>>679698
>because that would also allow DS to be discussed with the GBA
this
i fucking love the ds, and the gba
i remember getting in trouble because the teachers saw bad words on my pictochat
and i remember playing the nsmb multiplayer more than the singleplayer
good times

>>679704
A rolling upper limit would be good.
Like, either make it 2 gens prior to the current one, or some number of years, like 8 or something.

>>679707
NSMB multi was the shit!
Bob-om trampoline was my friend and I's go to.

>>679715
Fuck yeah dude!
Me and my friend liked the ice level the most. Sad they got rid of that mode in the newer ones. It was so fun and chaotic.

The Game Boy Micro was a truly retarded idea.

>>679693
/v/ is one of the biggest boards on the site. I really don't see why not.

>>679707
>>679715
>>679719
>talking about the DS as if it's from your childhood

Are you two underage?

>>679758
Nope. Check your math son. DS was released in 2004 and got popular in 2006.

>>679765
Meaning that if you've been playing the DS since childhood you are now approximately 16 years old.

>>679758
YOU CAN ONLY ENJOY THINGS AS A CHILD! DUR UNDERAGES!

Besides, if you had a DS when you were 12, you're 24 now. That's hardly underage.

Read this anon's post.
>>>/vr/3504378

and my responses here
>>>/vr/3504441
>>>/vr/3504445

Given what I said to the other anon, I really don't think we need to allow 6th gen into /vr/. At the very most let in GBA if that's what people want, but even that I'm a bit apprehensive about. Especially with it being released after the PS2, could open up that whole can of worms.

There has been some discussion about creating a /v2k/ for gens that are not allowed per /vr/'s rules, or are of no interest to /v/. Ideas have been thrown around such as having it cover 5th/6th gen, or 6th/7th gen, or having it be 5th/6th/7th. Including 5th/7th gen on this board will not eliminate those discussions on /vr/ or /v/, since 5th gen is still discussed often at /vr/ and 7th still at /v/. However some anons have posted that they want to be able to have the kind of in depth discussions we have about our games (Gens 1-5) with their 6th/7th gen games, but have no place to do so because they fall off /v/ due to high traffic. At the very least I feel that there should be at least 2 generations covered on this new board if it ever comes to fruition. It just having 6th gen would make it be even slower than /vr/ was at creation, even considering the PC gaming explosion that occured right around 2000 providing all of those topics.

So I guess in summation I'm in favor of giving a board like this a trial run and not screwing around with the rules / userbase that we have right now.

>>679771
If I was playing the DS since I was 4 or 6, yes. But I wasn't even playing video games then. Are you retarded?

>>679682
>/v2k/
NO this is getting fucking ridiculous

yes anon, lets created a new /v/ every 5 years or so.

>>679791
Let's be real here, /v/ is fucking useless. We need these spinoffs so we can have actual discussion.

>>679777
You weren't playing video games at 6 years old? Are YOU retarded?

>>679791
5 years is a long fucking time. I don't see the problem.

>>679797
I mean, I had my Mom's old Gameboy that I played Dr. Mario on from time to time. I never really got into video games until I was like 10.

>>679774
>However some anons have posted that they want to be able to have the kind of in depth discussions we have about our games (Gens 1-5) with their 6th/7th gen games, but have no place to do so because they fall off /v/ due to high traffic. At the very least I feel that there should be at least 2 generations covered on this new board if it ever comes to fruition.
>So I guess in summation I'm in favor of giving a board like this a trial run and not screwing around with the rules / userbase that we have right now.
Agreed. I really want /v2k/ to happen.

>>679791
I picture /v2k/ developing into a flexible bridge. In 5 or 10 years, maybe 8th gen could be added. I don't anticipate any other splits becoming necessary if we do this right. /v2k/ would fix a lot of fighting on /vr/ and would take some burden off of /v/. You'll still be able to talk about whatever gen you want on /v/ just like it is now, if that's where you want to post.

Neutral's opinion, for what it's worth:

I don't think we need yet another board, but as time goes on more and more equipment can qualify as "retro".

Seems kind of obvious, but I don't /vr/.

>>679849
>maybe 8th gen could be added

no

>>679850
That's what people in /vr/ don't want and why a /v2k/ board is necessary.
/vr/ posters are kind of stuck in the past. They were even hesitant to let 5th gen in.

>>679850
If you were a regular on /vr/, you'd realize that 6th gen systems like PS2 and Xbox would fit in very poorly there and could ruin the atmosphere. /vr/ was made for a very specific set of game generations, not just whatever is considered "old" at future points.

>>679852
>In 5 or 10 years
>maybe
Or maybe not. We'll see how we feel in 5 years and what the game landscape is then.

>>679857
Why wouldn't they fit in?

>>679859
no

>>679868
Large leap in technology between 5th and 6th gen, 3D became ubiquitous in the 6th gen, online play became commonplace, DLC became a thing, "cinematic experiences" became a selling point, etc.

>>679850
We have over 10 boards for porn. Why would 5 for videogames be bad?

/vr/ for gens 1-4 (or 1-5). Board sticky states nothing after dec 31st 1999, most agree it should stay this way except for maybe the GBA.

/v2k/ for gens 5-7 (or 6-7). There would be plenty of discussion with at least 2 gens here, especially with the PC gaming explosion starting around 2000

/v/ for the latest 2 (with plenty of meme posting to keep things rolling as always)

/vp/ for their stuff, and /vg/ for theirs.


>I don't think we need yet another board, but as time goes on more and more equipment can qualify as "retro".

I don't think /vr/ needs to change and let in anything 6th gen or later, other than maybe a name change so people don't get hung up on the word "retro". 6th gen was already considered ancient back in 2013 when this board was created, yet it was still excluded. An anon mentioned that the last /v/ serious 6th gen discussions were back around 08-09, 4-5 years before /vr/'s creation. That to me that solidifies the argument that it does not belong. I think whoever made this board had a clear vision as to what they wanted, that vision being discussion about Gens 1-4, and shortly after Gen 5 after some debate.

>>679868
The stories and cinematics of games are much more prevalent. Games are no longer pure gameplay, and they are now more serious, trying to be art. Not saying that's bad, but it's not similar to what /vr/ discusses. Some games would be good, like Katamari Damacy, but most games released during that time wouldn't.

>>679682

/v2k/ - Video Games 2000 to 2010

This board is for the discussion of all forms of video games on platforms launched from the start of the 6th console generation until 2010, beginning with the Dreamcast and including all arcade and computer games released during those years. Discussion of games released in the later years of the 5th generation is also acceptable.


Feel free to propose any changes to this draft of a potential sticky for /v2k/.

>>679917
Just calling it "Video Games 2000" makes it sound cooler

>>679917
I'd include something saying that the upper limit may move forward in the future to prevent another fiasco like what's going on in /vr/ now.

Something to allow games 2 gens behind the current gen.

>>679917
>2010

no

>>679939
If it's just 6th gen it will be slow as shit, fuck off and let me talk about the DS

>>679942
How will not adding 2010 stop you from talking about the ds?

>>679955
what you you think the cutoff date should be?
2010 is good for now because that's as far as /v/ goes. as time passes by we can push the date further forward.

>>679968
2009

>>679978
oh woopdeedoo big difference
december 31st 2009? would that make you happy?

>>679982
I thought the board was suppose to be about 6th gen gaming?

>>679984
late 5th, all of 6th, and early 7th. Just anything 2000s really. having only one gen would be way too slow

>>679925
>>679929
>>679939
I'll consider all feedback and will make another draft tomorrow.

>>680008
dont consider >>679939>>679978 please

>>679698
>Either way, something needs to change.

How about hipster cucks leaving the board? How does that sound for a change.

>>680019
>cucks
opinion discarded, fucking kill yourself faggot.

>>679693
/thread

>>680019
how does liking the gba make you a hipster

>>680019
How's it feel being an insufferable rulefag who can't stand people enjoying things you don't like?

>>680025
Well something need to happen or the shitposting will continue.

>>680019
>>680032
Can we keep this crap out of this thread? We are trying to not only clean up and improve our own board, but we're even trying to get a new board going for the people who currently have nowhere to discuss the things they want to talk about. In the /vr/ meta thread there were almost 0 suggestions aside from mostly thick headed opposition from both sides.

Examples
>REEEEEEE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT 6TH GEN HERE YOU GUYS ARE AUTISTIC
and
>REEEEEEE I DON'T WANT 6TH GEN HERE YOU GUYS ARE AUTISTIC

The only real idea that came out of that thread was a new board to make people happy. A board where topics that are drowned out of /v/ and are against the global in /vr/ can have a home.

>>679693
>10+ porn boards, totally cool
>5 video game boards, what the fuck are you guys thinking.

File: Harmony.png (569KB, 795x392px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 795x392px

Separate but equal.

File: 1446209170721.jpg (59KB, 681x506px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 681x506px

>>679682
I'd be all up for /vr/. But you should cut the limit down to 2005 or 2006.

2000-2006, if you ask me, was undoubtedly still part of the golden age of creative and fun gaming that started in the 90s. 2004 is widely considered one of the all-time best years for gaming, along with 1998.

However, 2006-2009 is when we started seeing DLC, micro transactions, floaty garbage physics, "gritty realism", reboots up the ass, grey and brown color palettes, etc. start to take hold and turn the gaming industry into cancer.

>>680189
>floaty garbage physics

Examples?

>>679682
That's just stupid.
>>679693
/v/ is not relevant.

>>680199
>That's just stupid.

Why do you say that? Because the current situation is not satisfactory.

/vr/ needs a rules update, or there needs to be somewhere to talk about games that /v/ doesn't care about anymore and are still too new for /vr/.

>>680190
The only time I've heard of this is Brawl.

>>679682
6th gen was the last gen of consoles pre-HD and is made for CRTs. As such, it has the same exact issues of obsolescence, upscaling, etc. as, say, NES does. As such it has far more in common with what we currently call "retro" than anything.

Plus, the NX is fast apporaching so it's time to go up a generation anyway. Time is moving forward.

For fuck's sake, these games are 15 years old. The kids who grew up with them are grown now.

Though ideally, I'd like /vr/ to just be the new /v/ where people can actually talk about games and /v/ can just be /pol2/ like it currently is.

>>680203
Honestly think somewhere to talk about games that /v/ doesn't care about and are still too new for /vr/ is the better option. Having a little crossover content allowed like 5th and 7th gen from /vr/ and /v/ would be just fine, and give it a chance to grow into its own. It's not like crossover doesn't happen anywhere else on the site. Several boards have topics that could go on 2-3 boards. Take the Pokemon anime for example, could either go on /a/ or /vp/.

>>680215
6th gen was the first gen of consoles with a high capacity medium such as dvd's that allowed them to focus more on a cinematic experience rather than a gameplay experience As such it has far more in common with what we currently consider modern gaming than anything.

>>680222
that's a mixture of 4th and 5th gen. Did you forget all the 3-4 disc Ps1 games that were 90% fmvs? Or just almost the entire Sega CD library?

File: Final-Fantasy-IX-Sony-PlayStation-1-4-Disc.jpg (200KB, 1384x940px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1384x940px

>>680222
>6th gen was the first gen of consoles with a high capacity medium such as dvd's that allowed them to focus more on a cinematic experience rather than a gameplay experience

sup

File: 1461445080094.jpg (622KB, 1280x1773px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 1280x1773px

>>680232
howsit

>>680189
I don't remember dlcs

>>680251
DLC actually started in the 6th gen, although not in the same way we know & dislike it now. Download-only skins and face paints for MGS3, map packs for Halo 2 that became free after a couple months, that sort of thing.

>>680229
>>680232
Oh so we're going to focus on 4 CD Playstation rpgs where fmv's were a poor design choice given the relatively low storage space of a standard cd? How about the rest of the non rpg library where fmv's were rare outside of the opening cutscene before the game started? Where the focus of the games was the gameplay itself and not packing in 2 hours of summoning a dragon to nuke a squirrel from orbit? Or how about the N64 which had no room for such shit, where sure there was focus on the graphics but it was still gameplay first and flashy shit 2nd?

I'm not trying to argue that 5th gen had absolutely nothing to do with getting the ball rolling towards the "moviegames" that we see today. For sure 5th gen nudged that ball towards that hill, but the 6th gen is where it really picked up momentum and started hurdling down. Mostly thanks to the aforementioned DVD's, where if you wanted to have 2-3 hours of cutscenes you could cram it all on one disc. AND it wasn't limited to just rpgs in general anymore.

Not to mention the hyper casualization (widespread quick time events say hi) and becoming truly mainstream that mostly has it's roots in the 6th gen and onwards. Gaming was a niche hobby for the 1st-4th gens, and kind of the 5th. Not everyone played nintendo, or genesis, or playstation. However 6th gen and beyond it started becoming more and more common for people to own a ps2 and some games and have a nifty little dvd player to go with the package.

>Yo bro I have Madden 02-05 and Fifa 04-05. I'm a huge gamer.

Just update the rules for /vr/ to allow consoles released up to dec 31st 2004. This would allow the talk of games that are too old for the /v/ community to be talked about on /vr/ which is what the board was for in the first place.

File: Madden_Football_64_Coverart.png (61KB, 256x187px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 256x187px

>>680268
Actually, plenty of PS1 games sold themselves on FMVs. Aside from the massive library of JRPGs, there were also things like "D", which was three discs long for something that took about an hour to beat. And of course like the other anon mentioned, half the library of the Sega CD.

>QTEs
don't pretend shallow gameplay didn't exist. Dragon Slayer was basically nothing but QTEs and people ate that shit up.

>niche hobby
not true. PS1 and Gameboy both did over 100m worldwide. 60M nes, 40M snes, etc.

>madden & fifa
shitty yearly sports games existed on snes, genesis, ps1, n64. Pic related, what a classic, games sure were better back then


Anyway I don't know why I made such a long reply because I don't disagree with your original statement - 6th gen games play more like what we have today than what we had back then. We need /v2k/

>>680297
6th gen was already "too old" for much discussion on /v/ when /vr/ was created in 2013. 8th gen was already out with the Wii U in 2012, and later on the PS3 and XBox360 in 2013. There was a deliberate decision by the board creator or the people he acted on behalf of to not include 6th gen. 5th gen wasn't even allowed at first until people discussed it and decided that enough old school focus on gameplay remained to be paired up with the 1st-4th gens. So no, the board was not created to be the dumping ground for everything falling off of /v/ until the end of time. It was created to discuss 1st-4th Gens first, and shortly after creation 5th gen.

>>680314
Ahh i see it was amended to allow 5th as there was a demand for it. Now we can amended it again as there is a demand for 6th gen. Thanks for the help. 6th gen had more in common with the 4-5th gens then it does with the 7th anyway.

>>679682
>ultra on wakeup
>still no /v2k/

>>679682
solution:

>/v2k/ gets a tryout
>all parties are happy

>>680190
Sonic 06

>>680215
No. Reeeee.
This is not what vr wants. They don't want all 'old games' lumped in there. They want to talk about a few specific generations of games and those games only, some remakes, and romhacks.

They don't want al lold game systems.

You wouldn't start playing led zeppelin rock n roll on a big band/jazz radio station just because led zeppelin got older would you? No. They are different genres, very different things.

>>680328
"I speak for everyone on /vr/" - one guy from /vr/

>>680321
5th was allowed shortly after the board was created. It was not a long debate to let it in and it was almost a landslide. Sure 6th has a little in common with the 5th gen in that it's a continuation of 3D graphics (and a strong emphasis on the graphics part because here is where gameplay in general starts to decline), but to say it has much in common with the 4th gen is fucking laughable. And if you had paid any attention in the last thread, with or without looking at the polls, a vast majority of people do not want 6th gen in /vr/ aside from the GBA. So no, 6th gen will not be in /vr/ any time soon. That's why there's been a /v2k/ discussion that you've apparently missed out on somehow.

>>680331
Hey speaks for more than a few of this though

t. another guy from /vr/

>>680338
*this = us

fuck me I'm going to bed.

>>679682
2000-2003 is "early 2000s", not 2000-2010 you stupid fuck

>>680337
Ive been in both threads just as many people want 6th gen in and have better arguments for it. Most people just want gba. Stop talking shit. Polls where stupid i didnt even check em.

File: trashcanman.png (219KB, 464x665px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 464x665px

>>680353
Why do people just lie through their fucking teeth on the internet? What do you hope to accomplish by spewing such monumental bullshit? People wanting 6th gen have been outnumbered easily 4 or 5 to 1 by people who don't want it, the single exception being the GBA.

Oh wait

>6th gen had more in common with the 4-5th gens then it does with the 7th anyway.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

video games were a mistake

Vote you fags

http://www.strawpoll.me/11249233

>>679682
>>>680353
>Why do people just lie through their fucking teeth on the internet? What do you hope to accomplish by spewing such monumental bullshit? People wanting 6th gen have been outnumbered easily 4 or 5 to 1 by people who don't want it, the single exception being the GBA.

Pot kettle black.
>
>Oh wait
>
>>6th gen had more in common with the 4-5th gens then it does with the 7th anyway.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No.
Yes. And some guy just posted great argument for it in the /vr/ thread. Just saying no isn't a proper argument.

File: 1432635740904.gif (153KB, 740x224px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 740x224px

>/vr/
As it is now, minus Dreamcast
>/v2k/
Dreamcast, GBA, and all other 6th and 7th Gen discussion
>/v/
Current gen, general video game culture, e-celeb cocksucking, current events

/v/ is one of the biggest boards on the site and too fast for any actual Gen 6 or more obscure Gen 7 game discussion to survive as it is. It would not suffer from losing those threads whatsoever. /vr/ would suffer from allowing Gen 6.

>>680447
This
But also we need to make it clear the upper limit can change so this shit doesn't happen again

I think 2004 is a good limit. DS and PSP are definitely not talked about on /v/ and imo are more interesting than the rest of the 7th gen. That would leave out the Wii though... for now at least.

>>679691
This is the only thing so far that's not subjective. Change the labels if you want, but ISA doesn't lie.

>>680662
You can't be objective when discussing this.

>>680667
The technology doesn't care what our opinions are. You can't run Daggerfall on a 32-bit system without a compatibility layer (which MS abandoned) or an emulator.

/v2k/ - millennial gaming

for discussion of video game consoles released between 1984 and 2004, and related games. let vr talk about atari since it loves it so much

>>680447
In no way should the ps3/xbox 360 be included in either a new board or /vr/. they still are actively talked about on /v/.

>>679682
Wouldn't it be easy to simply bump up the generation limit by a single console generation each time a new generation is released? I mean, they release every, what, four/five/six years or so, don't they?

>>680737
>let vr talk about atari since it loves it so much
River Raid was a good game.

>>679682

Do something about the shit moderation on /vr/ before you go changing any of the board's rules.

Even when DC was codified as retro, the mods / janitors kept deleting DC threads anyway. And at least one of them is literally a /pol/tard and shuts down anything that could be remotely socially liberal in nature. No, I'm not making this shit up.

>"Hey guiz, what gaems let me kill trannies, kikes and niggers?!"
Thread gets reported dozens of times and never deleted (in fact, I believe there is currently such a thread active on /vr/ now)

>"Hey guiz, what are some early examples of LGBT characters in retro games?"
Nuked within minutes, and banned / warned

>>680236
>Rob Schneider
Jesus, some things should remain in the past.

File: ronald_reagan_by_angel1985-d5o6nde.jpg (187KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x600px

>>680749
>socially liberal
Not retro.

>>680737
>video game consoles released between 1984 and 2004
For /v2k/? I don't think that would work at all, and I think that would adversely affect /vr/.

>>679939
>until 2010
Maybe through 2009 would be better wording. And the date could move forward at some relatively distant point in the future like >>679929 says.

>>680737
jesus christ what are you doing

File: hot pockets.jpg (8KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 224x225px

>>680749
Yeah the moderation is garbage on that board. Rule infringing threads don't get deleted but telling the OP of said thread he's going against the rules nets you a warning/ban. Sometimes it makes me wonder if mods themselves aren't millenial 6th genners themselves.
Good thing /vr/ self-moderates itself for the most part because with such inept janitors and mods it would become /v2.0/ in no time.

>>680918
t. Buthurt ">NOT RETRO" poster from the gameboy general.

File: jacques-chirac.jpg (103KB, 360x391px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 360x391px

>>680982
>implying
I have not posted in this thread a single time, even though I don't think it belongs in /vr/. I mean what's next, a playstation general where people talk about PS3 and PS4?

For the love of god make /v2k/ hiro.
The shitposting in /vr/ has reached critical mass, and I cannot take it anymore. Change /vr/ to 20th century gaming instead of retro gaming so there's a hardline stance on it. People keep using retro as a moveable goalpost term and it's killing that board. Change it to a clear cut definition so it cannot be argued. Make the /v2k/ board so the people that are flooding into /vr/ who have never played a pre-5th gen game leave. It's unbearable with them there, and they act like we are the ones in the wrong when they can't obey a simple rule. It needs to be fixed.

>>679850
It's supposed to be 20th century gaming. Not "retro" gaming. They fucked up hard making it named /vr/

>>680331
He's speaking for me.

>>681028
Now that is reasonable.

>>681024
>they act like we are the ones in the wrong
You are in the wrong. /vr/ isn't "20th century gaming". It's "retro games". Retro condtrued in the sense of things from the past. NES wasn't "retro" in 1988; time passing made it retro today. Likewise, in the future, things like PS2 will definitely be seen as retro because unlike what you REEEEE autists seem to think, time will always pass.

>when they can't obey a simple rule.
The rule has been changed twice. Rules can change. It changed first to include the fifth generation and console, and after DCfags asking for it, it changed again to the current cut off date so that the Dreamcast can be included. A couple of years have passed since then, and it seems reasonable to be able to include the GBA which is what, 15 years old and sprite based. Unlike say, the Dreamcast which has even online gaming.

I think cutting things down by generation is not useful because it excludes PC games. Right now we can't even talk about the Sims 1 on /vr/ because of the cut off date, ffs. I think the rules should specify that x many years must have passed for a console or game to be considered retro. You know, like normal people conceive of "retro" when they hear the term.

Also the current rules imply they will change. "With the release of the xth generation of consoles, x will be considered retro"... Seems to clearly say that as more generations roll over more things will be considered retro. It's not unreasonable at all to ask for the rules to change after some years.

I don't think a new board would be a bad idea, but it just seems unnecessary. Retro is retro. If you make /v2k/ you'll need to rename /vr/. Or, you know, you could stop being an autist stuck in 1999 and realize that time goes by and more and more things will undoubtedly become retro as it does.

>>681109
Not him but I browse /vr/ because I love vidya from the 3rd to the 5th generation and because I think the hobby went to shit after the 6th gen. My opinions and personal taste aren't going to change just because the systems I despise are getting older.

The DC was included in /vr/ because it made sense. It was released before the end of the century, much earlier than the rest of the 6th gen, got quickly abandoned by Sega (no more official game releases) and is technically behind. It didn't become okay because "lol time goes on xDDD".

>>681159
>I browse /vr/ because I love vidya from the 3rd to the 5th generation and because I think the hobby went to shit after the 6th gen. My opinions and personal taste aren't going to change just because the systems I despise are getting older.
Seconded. I have no interest in an inclusive board. If 6th gen is added to /vr/, I simply won't post there anymore.

>>681159
The hobby going to shit after the 6th generation is subjective. Though I agree. But the fact is that time makes things retro. The Dreamcast was especifically excluded in the first rules of /vr/. And it doesn't make sense. It's sixth gen, full 3D, online connectivity console. The "quickly dropped out" argument is hollow when PC games released in 2000 that are self contained are magically not retro, and the port argument can be made for the GBA just as easily.

And yes, the Dreamcast was included in /vr/ because people complained until the rules changed. Just like now.

>>681175
I have no interest in the doom general, I have no interest in the PS1 discussion, I have no interest in the endless Chrono Trigger threads. I post on threads I like. Wanting a board to cater to your specific subjective interests is childish, and if people posting things you're not interested in other threads is enough for anyone to leave, good riddance.

>>681192
>Wanting a board to cater to your specific subjective interests is childish
He says on a website with furry and pokemon boards.

>>681202
/vp/ is for pokémon. It's not for gens III to VI, it's not for the first three seasons of the anime, it's not for the second edition of the trading card game. It's for everything pokémon related.

Likewise /vr/ isn't for games you like. It's for retro games. That's what the "r" means. And if the DC is retro, the GBA can be considered retro too. It will definitely be retro in a couple years anyhow.

Do we even have a furry board? Even if we do, I'm sure you can post wolves, dragons and whatever the fuck you want, and not just raccoons or whatever animal you like.

You're asking for a new board, with all the effort and costs that entails, just because you don't want to face the reality of how things become retro. Or, even worse, because you don't want to see things you specifically don't like on "your" board, even if the things in question should go there.

>>681225
>the things in question should go there
If they belonged there, people wouldn't be fighting you on this so vehemently. The Dreamcast should never have been included. 5th gen is questionable. Retro was the wrong word to use, and it was probably sloppiness/laziness on moot's part.

>>681192
Except most of /vr/'s viewer base seems to share that sentiment that video games were much better before the 2000s.

And like >>681202 said, every single board on this website is about talking to people who share the same specific interests as you.

/vr/ was created for this purpose. It allows us to talk about the video games that existed when the industry was still good, i.e. before the 2000s. The people who cry out loud to allow 6th gen in don't share that opinion and thus don't belong on /vr/. I do think they deserve a dedicated place to talk about their own hobby though.

>>681237
Retro is the word that was used. It should encompass retro games. The rules have changed and are even worded in such a way that hints that the more generations that pass the more things will be considered retro in the board.

What you want goes beyond allowing GBA or not. You want the board to change its name and rules to cater to your taste and exclude all things you don't deem... Likable? Because fifth generation is by all accounts retro considering how much time has passed. What others want is to change the rules to reflect the reality of what most normal (in b4 fucking normies reeeee) people consider retro. Thinking x will NEVER be retro is daft and wanting to rename /vr/ and create a bunch of other boards just because you can't deal with change is entitled and just a little bit autistic.

>>681239
Is that why the poll on /vr/ is overwhelmingly pro-GBA?

If you want to talk about history, /vr/ wasn't created on some utopic nostalgiafag ideal about how games where so much better before an arbitrary cut off date (anything released in 2000 is somehow abhorrent just because?). It was created because people interested in older games had no place to discuss them due to /v/'s traffic. Retro was used as a term because of this.

That's it. And retro is already an specific interest. And retro will forever keep on including more and more things, usually things that modern gamers won't discuss nearly as much as they do today.

Also you don't have boards for "movies from 1920-1940", "self help books", or "90's romcoms". Those are subsets of interests defined in subjective and random ways. Demanding ten thousands of boards for every single interest subcategory is stupid. And demanding them because you FEEL gaming was only good from a certain year to another random date is entitled.

>>681250
As I've said, anyone will agree that the term retro was ambiguous and invited problems. You believe the intention of the board, when it was created, meant "old games" and obviously other people believe it meant a fixed periodization.

The user base of /vr/ seems to take the historical perspective, that the board refers to a time frame ranging from the birth of the arcade to the entrance of either Sony or Microsoft in the industry.

>>681269
This is just pedantry.

>>681264
I use /vr/ and like many other /vr/ users I think retro is a fine term and that things that become old should be allowed on a board for OLD THINGS. Like I would assume most normal people do, my feelings on what's good or not shouldn't dictate the rules.

If we go by the polls, most people on /vr/ think something similar, too.

You're asking /vr/ to be the only board ever on this site that won't have anything new to talk about unless the board becomes romhacks, and you're also using your personal thoughts on what time frame is the "golden age" or whatever to dictate rules and new boards. Personal thoughts that I bet would be hard to quantify, and that I'm sure you would have trouble getting others to 100% agree with them. Entitlement to the max.

>>681277
>polls
Meaningless.
>hard to quantify
People have quantified them already, in terms of objective technological differences.

File: FireShot Capture 27 - _vr_ User Base Survey - Fall 2016 - Go_ - https___docs.google.com_forms_d_e_.png (129KB, 818x1356px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 818x1356px

>>681263
>Is that why the poll on /vr/ is overwhelmingly pro-GBA?
What about pic related then? It was posted a few days ago in the middle of all the "muh GBA" threads and the results still differ.

And before you argue about the validity of that survey, I can do the same with your strawpoll.

>>681281
Exclude the DC then. Also any polygonal game. Should /vr/ be sprite based games only? SD only? No online gameplay only? It's too anal to have a board for a specific style of old games and is just a fancy way of excluding what you personally don't like, even if what you personally don't like should by all means be part of the board as it's called and defined right now.

Also, if polls are meaningless, your unfounded claims about "the userbase of /vr/" conveniently thinking the exact same thing you do is even more meaningless. Especially when said userbase voted and the pro-GBA camp won.

>>681288
>Exclude the DC then.
This is fine.
>Also any polygonal game.
3D games don't require hardware acceleration.
>Should /vr/ be sprite based games only?
You don't understand much, do you.

>>681286
Unless I'm missing something the only thing that differs is people not wanting the whole of gen 6 allowed. Most people there want the GBA included too.

>>681291
If you seriously intend the mods to modify and create new boards because you want a board exclusive to your autistic definitions, good luck.

Fine job on replying to all the other points I've been making, by the way.

File: 1424568762445.png (387KB, 900x1100px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 900x1100px

>>679682
>Thoughts?
Really not sure. My first thoughts are that this could easily change the entire face of /vr/. It's remarkable how there's still space to talk about old PC ASCII RPGs, arcade cabinets, CRT tvs, etc The quality of /vr/ and it's posters are why I often argue in favor of an /ar/ or similar board. But I have no doubts at all that the interest and knowledge base for gen 6 hardware and software is an order of magnitude greater than the combined interest and knowledge of everything prior combined. This is evidenced and supported by the fact that many franchises and practices we consider mainstream (or cancerous) today began in gen 6. And with that in mind I could see /vr/ becoming 90% gen 6 and 10% gen 1-5 overnight, easily.

On the other hand, most people that use /vr/ don't have interest exclusively in old games and hardware, and it's not as if all of /v/ will move to /vr/ either. The best case scenario is that the old fogies of /vr/ will stay but just discuss a few other things.

But between the best and worst case scenarios described, I think the most likely result is towards worse: niche content supported by people with a shared interest and know-how for old hardware/software being second place to more accessible and well known newer material: a death blow to /vr/ in whatever capacity it is.

>>679788
I'm not so sure it is. Videogames are one of the most popular topics on 4chan, /v/ and /vg/ combined making up almost half the site's PPH, plus /vr/ and /vp/, and a large percent of the traffic of /jp/. A board is due to be split when it reaches critical mass, if /v/ isn't at that stage no board is or ever was. I think a new board for 2000s era stuff might be a good idea. Consider it another sister board in the /v/ family. That is to say it's distinct but not wholly separate in culture or topic either. There is overlap of topic, but also focus on certain topics. I'd give it my support as an experiment at the very least.

>>681297
>you seriously intend the mods to modify and create new boards because you want a board exclusive to your autistic definitions
Well ultimately it's not up to us. If they choose, they'll hear both sides and deliberate according to their conclusions. They could maintain the status quo, expand the scope of /vr/, institute a two board solution, or come up with something we haven't even thought of.

>>681335
>I could see /vr/ becoming 90% gen 6 and 10% gen 1-5 overnight, easily.
This is my fear.

>>681293
It's nowhere near "overwhelmingly pro-GBA".

>>681335
>And with that in mind I could see /vr/ becoming 90% gen 6 and 10% gen 1-5 overnight, easily
I don't fear this that much. In most retro boards outside of 4chan, discussion is pretty even. SNES and PS1 are probably the most predominant topics when it comes to retro boards. People who are "gamers" in the /v/ sense forget and are not interested in anything that's remotely older besides maybe going "yeah that's cool".

I wouldn't argue for the immediate inclusion of gen 6 thought. I'm very pro GBA though. But I can't emphasize this enough: using generations as the limit is useless for PC and arcade games. If we focused on years (like the word "retro" does) and not platforms, we could have reasonable rules that are fair to all games and actually follow the term "retro".

My query is why wouldn't people be in favor of /v2k/?
/vr/'s traffic wouldn't change, and a lot of worthless shitposting threads would dissipate. Individuals desiring to talk about 6th and some 7th generation would now have a place. Also, there wouldn't be a further burying of generations in /vr/, allowing the discussion to stay In a way where many facets of games are able to be discussed. Take example the gunparade March thread, which is maybe the first time I've seen it discussed so much and attract attention. In a board where an entire other gen is allowed, such topics might just be glossed over. As is now, people are forced to look into new threads and actual discover more. I believe that nature would be upset with the inclusion of 6th gen, which would hurt the appreciation of other generations as well as opening up people to games they haven't seen. Likewise, dedicating the large library of a huge variety of games of 2000-~2010 would do wonders for the people interested in them to discover more. This way, both eras are able to appreciated in a proper manner. Also, I would suggest as others have, change /vr/ to something indicating 20th century gaming.

>>681344
32 over 26 isn't that huge a difference, but still significant though. I was referring to the last poll on /vr/ that shows 65% support in one way or another towards including the GBA.

>>681358
It's not cohesive. For example, if I want to talk about what everyone considers the retro Monkey Island games I suddenly can't discuss Escape from Monkey Island because it was released in 2000. Same if I want to discuss Broken Sword 3 or something. Sorry about the graphic adventures example, but it's the one thing I can think of right now.

Besides it would entail changing /vr/'s name and purpose just so people won't get paranoid about "them kids" talking about not so old things. It's silly and unlike people going "sixth gen is a slippery slope" (when retro by itself always entailed progressive inclusion), splitting boards just because you can't cope with change will indeed lead to having a board for every single decade. Messy at its best and senseless at its worst.

Not to mention /vr/ would grow even more stagnant. It, alongside /v2k/, would be the only boards in which there would never be anything new to talk about unless you really think the scarce retro news and the mostly half assed SNES romhacks we get can keep a board alive.

>>681378
But it isn't stagnant? I don't know if you spend time there, but people enjoy talking about those generations of games, and they constantly find new things about their favorite games. Especially if you play imports, there's always something new. Most users there will openly admit they haven't tried/known of nearly all the games available to them and find new games to play there. I know I do, because I'm open to trying new older games. It isn't stagnated at all.
Also, why do you bring up the certain games not being able to be discussed? Sequels that aren't retro are just that? Just because it's in a line of a series released at different points doesn't make it work around it magically. I mean that'd be like saying RE2 and RE5 are the same just through series and subject matter.
And what's wrong with changing a name and better defining things? Making the new board and better defining the current board would just solve issues. I don't see why it's such a hard issue to grasp, it allows for a separation of subject matter while allowing both to have a home. Is it really that hard to have two tabs open? Is it really that difficult to not disturb something that clearly was fine while fixing the neglect of generations which is not fine? Is it really not obvious that the differences between 6th gen and systems like 3rd gen are glaring, resulting in the loss of the purpose of the boards initial goal of expounding upon a specific period of gaming? Is it really so heinous to provide a new place of belonging to an under-conversed about collection of games on site that clearly has the user base to support its creation?

I just don't get why you wouldn't want a v2k. It satisfies everyone. It's not like vr stops existing, you can still go there. And when you want to talk about newer stuff than vr, you go over to v2k with a simple addition of a new tab. It's seriously such an easy fix, so I don't get where you're coming from.

>>679693
Fucking retard

>>679788
There are like 8 different anime porn boards, and weebshit is less popular than ever. Meanwhile video games are getting more popular.

>>681378
>if I want to talk about what everyone considers the retro Monkey Island games I suddenly can't discuss Escape from Monkey Island because it was released in 2000.
Which is exactly why /vg/ was created.

>>681350
>using generations as the limit is useless for PC and arcade games
Years are fuzzy too, hence the idea of basing the inclusion on instruction sets. The CPS-2 arcade platform had a game released in 2003, but the software is 16-bit. Similar situation with the MVS. Limitation breeds creativity, as they say. That's the spirit we want to protect from encroachment. Do we really want to muddle it with Gran Turismo 4, pushing 1080i. Anyway, that would open the board for the discussion of modern development on old hardware. There are publishers like Super Fighter Team who are releasing new games for the Sega Genesis today. And that, in my opinion, is entirely more representative of /vr/ than just dumping in generations on a rolling basis.

>>681358
Autistic people legitimately hate change for one, and adding boards makes things change. They also constantly flip their shit because something something Reddit. (I guess because Reddit has separate boards for talking about things so rather than shoving things into a big fucking mess like some boards here are, so if Reddit has functioning boards we need to make sure our boards are all garbage so that we can be different.)

Plus, weaboos (mostly those same autistics) get triggered by the creation of new boards because the more non-weeb boards there are the more they are pushed into a minority, which makes it harder and harder for them to cling to the notion that 4chan is only for anime (it isn't.)

But the biggest reason is that people want more boards, and contrarian fuckheads on this site will always demand the exact opposite of what the consensus asks for.

>>681414
How are years fuzzy? It's clear and it literally follows the definition of "retro".

Plus if you think anyone but the most dedicated hardware geeks would know the instruction and architecture set of all games they play, boy have I news for you. It's too convoluted a standard to realistically apply.

>>681405
I spend time there, and while I think it's among the best boards in terms of quality for certain things, it's entirely too repetitive unless you're turning a blind eye on console wars, CT/FF generals with the same content every time, "first time playing (popular game) what am I in for", etc. Ten more years of the exact same content and what more do you seriously think you'll be talking about?

A new board would imply bandwidth, janitors, mods, and a rebrand of an already existing board where nothing's wrong. All because people can't adjust to a change that has already been executed in said board before. It doesn't make any sense. If it happens it certainly wouldn't be a terrible thing, just extremely arbitrary and useless as a division.

>>681427
>Autistic people legitimately hate change for one, and adding boards makes things change.
Do you suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance or something? People opposed or indifferent to /v2k/ are certainly not the ones asking this site to invest all kinds of resources on an arbitrary, nonsensical board JUST to avoid having "our" board change. If anything we want change. Stop projecting.

>>681378
>when retro by itself always entailed progressive inclusion
This kinda bunch of bullshit. Each generation saw increasingly large and noticeable advances in graphical power and systems processing. Between '95-97 double the amount of polygons you could render on screen meant double the amount of polygons you saw and noticed. It was a marked upgrade Between 09-10 not so much, we have entered into an era where games are increasingly similar than they were several years ago, something that can't be said of older hardware. Diminishing returns in graphical fidelity and increasing consolidation of publishers and developers means we're entering into an era increasingly stagnant. Unless VR really isn't a gimmick, the games made this year won't be noticeably distinguishable from the games made 5 or 10 years from now, they're already difficult to distinguish from games made 5 years ago.

Between gen 5 to gen 6 is arguably the largest leap in graphics and processing power, gen 6-7 was where diminishing returns became apparent and 7-8 where they became obvious and undeniable. That's why gen 5 is considered the cut-off point for retro,, it's the last gen to have aged in a way beyond some bulbous models and blurred textures.

Even on PC, this is still the case. Games continue to look better, the margins by which it's an improvement are increasingly small.

This is why "retro" is not going to continue to grow. Because after a certain point what is "old" and what is "current" will still be the same thing. Skyrim will not become a retro game until VR or holograms and direct mental links become the norm.

>>681428
>A new board would imply bandwidth
Not a concern
>Janitors
Can be moved around
>Mods
Mods are global

>>681435
>This kinda bunch of bullshit.
Retro means in the style of, or from, the recent past. Usually comprising 15 to 20 years.

Super Mario Bros wasn't retro when it came now. Time passing made it retro. This is not a difficult concept.

I do think that unless virtual reality takes off, games won't change that much from now. But even then that may just be me and the fact that I don't play modern games that much to notice anything different. Many modern gamers do. And at any rate I'm not an astrologist to know if games today will or will not be considered retro in the future, although it stands to reason that they most likely will. But I'm glad you raised this point: games made in 2001 and games made in 2010 are completely different. And most people would and do consider 2001 games as retro.

Which by its very nature is a moving category.

>>681442
All three things mean you're taking away resources from other boards just because you can't cope with your own "safe space" changing. Even when your safe space by its very nature was always bound to do so and in fact it already did once before.

>>681458
>always bound to
Opinion.
>already did once before
Should never have happened.

>>681428
You honestly sound like you don't spend much time there, you yourself don't play a variety of games, or you play the exact same things so you can't include yourself in different threads. Also, if I am by some chance wrong, and you still feel like that, why not create threads on the items that you feel aren't discussed within the bounds? There is a damn near endless amount of games in the currently allowed time period on vr. The issue is that most of you aren't open to trying different games within those bounds and don't experience/discuss new games. Seriously, there are so many options on games to discuss and there generally are a variety of threads available if you actually fully view the catalog. It's not a stagnated place, and if you were to read into your own words, realizing that people making threads stating its the first time they're playing a specific game, the board is fostering their enjoyment of those generations. That's a GOOD thing. There's nothing wrong with vr as it is now, and is serving its purpose properly.

Addition of v2k would allow it to continue to serve its purpose, while allow the generations currently under discussed to have a home. It isn't an unnecessary division, because it is dividing unlike items just like vr did from v at the time of its creation. As time has progressed and as user base has changed, a further division's necessity has become apparent. There isn't anything unnecessary about this, moreso it is logical. Furthermore, when there's so many varying boards for porn, I believe the manpower and width issues are not relevant argument points. Especially considering the snail pace of such boards, the stagnation argument becomes even less useful since prior action clearly hasn't ever considered that; note though, stagnation doesn't occur in the video game realm unless you're extremely closed minded in your selection of games and genre. I sincerely doubt you've even scratched the surface of completing vr games.

File: 1340643080598.gif (49KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x250px

>>681452
>Time passing made it retro.
Again, this is your fallacy. If we still dressed in the way we did in the 70s would we consider 70s fashion retro? No. Why? Because there's no change or progress made. Mario is a retro game because of the progress made after, and because of it. The current and last gens will still only differ in marginal aspects 10 years down the line, they won't become retro because they'll still be basically the same thing we'll have 10 years down the line. We have reached a mathematical limit in how much time and resources improves graphical fidelity. Pushing for photo-real graphics ensures this.

>>681458
>All three things mean you're taking away resources from other boards
Posters don't increase because new boards are made, 4chan doesn't become the size of reddit if it adds 100 new boards. Posters are also taken away from other boards as things are split. The aggregate number of posts/posters stays about the same, the site wide resources are the same, therefor no resources are being taken from anything.
You are really stupid and cannot into numbers, critical thinking, or common sense.
>waaaaah safe-space
Buzzwords

>>681461
>Opinion
Retro means of the recent past. This very second will be retro in 15 years. Sorry you don't like that fact.

>Should never have happened.
Now that's an opinion.

>>681464
>There's nothing wrong with vr as it is now, and is serving its purpose properly.
Not quite. You're asking /vr/ to CHANGE its purpose (retro games) to conform to what you want and never have to change. Even when it's done so before already. Most normal people would agree the Sims is retro, and yet it's banned per the current rules: /vr/ is thus not fulfilling its purpose. It's just doing what you want it to do and that's why you don't want it to change. I just think having two boards just to cater to people afraid of normal, even foretold change is redundant and dumb. But like I said if it were to happen it wouldn't be a huge cataclysm, just inconvenient.

>>681466
>We have reached a mathematical limit in how much time and resources improves graphical fidelity.
To put it another way once games do achieve consistent playable full resolution photo real graphics they won't age at all. They're as high fidelity and real looking as they'll ever be. They'll never become retro because they'll become ageless.

>>681466
>Again, this is your fallacy. If we still dressed in the way we did in the 70s would we consider 70s fashion retro? No. Why? Because there's no change or progress made.
Agreed.

I don't think you're blind enough to suggest that games of all kinds haven't changed since 2000 to 2010 and beyond. And that's why the earlier batch of those are considered retro by virtually everyone.

Again, unless we have psychic powers we can't know if there will be more progress or not. But given how things have been moving on a larger scale it's likely that there will and games today will indeed be seen as retro at some point in the future.

>the site wide resources are the same,
A new board requires new janitors to monitor the board and mods' attention for that board. Is this so hard to understand?

And you can call it buzzword all you want, but every single pro split poster has said that they don't want /vr/ to ever change (again) because it's fine FOR THEM the way it is and should stay that way forever. And that including more games would be threatening. That's the definition of safe space in many ways.

You can call me stupid but I'm not the one throwing a tantrum or threatening to leave unless the site redefines the board I frequent to forever exclude what I personally dislike instead of having the site follow the guidelines and terms it set forth for the board to begin with.

>>681473
No, you're the one asking it to change. It's cutoff date for discussion is pre 2000 games, and you're interpreting it's name as to be one that slides to incorporate new games over time. This was never stated in its creation not its rules. You're the one that's enforcing implications based off the terminology used to name it as opposed to abiding by the given rules from its creation. Even moreso, all you're doing is running in circles.
A new board would require minimal effort for the site to do, and supply what you want. At this point I have to believe that somewhere in your intentions is to agitate some of vr's user base because there's a simple option available that allows both two exist and you are denying its plausibility at every turn with poorly founded conclusions and ideals on what you believe to be correct. It's being hard headed when a side offers the peaceful and non-intrusive alternative of allowing a home to exist for your desires and you deny it. If you actually enjoyed all of vr in its entirety, there is zero reason for your opposition. Since you'd have both boards to venture into with no downside. I cannot begin to grasp how you are performing these mental gymnastics.

>>681491
>And that including more games would be threatening.
Nothing wrong with Pier Solar, the huge 2600 homebrew scene, the NES port of Retro City Rampage, etc. They're all built within the hard limits that past developers faced. I'm completely fine with adding stuff like that to /vr/.

>>681494
Retro means of the recent past and the recent past changes. It's unrealistic to think nothing will ever become retro in the future, and in fact whenever someone mentions things like the GBA they'll think it's retro. Some people even do that with the PS2 already, and that's perfectly normal because that's what retro means.

The rules were changed to state:
>With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro",

Meaning that the release of a new gen made things be considered retro. Meaning it's in evolution. If you can't see that this is quite clearly what it means, implies and applied to the rules, I don't know what to tell you.

The only reason you want to split the boards is because you don't want to face the fact that things like the GBA, GameCube and PS2 are considered retro by many people. And it's fine if you don't want to face it, but it's immature to ask for a split and a board redefinition/renaming just to accommodate to what YOU like.

>>681504
But the gen logic is flawed because it puts an artificial, arbitrary and nonsensical barrier on PC games. 1999 and 2000 games are not entirely that different on PC, and yet.

>>681512
>But the gen logic is flawed
I agree with you. I'm not talking about gens, I'm talking about platforms. The NES as a platform is within the definition of /vr/ (whatever that is or might become) so any game that you can pop into an NES and play I think should be up for discussion. The PC ecosystem was a bit more diverse early on, so it's easy to identify things as definitely belonging, the C64 for example. As for the upper bounds, that's something worth talking about.

>>681507
Under your logic, it makes sense to continually add consoles to a board and let it be inundated with generations over time. That completely defeats the purpose of the board, which is to discuss retro games. And the reasoning with the DC is it is a pre 2000 console, thus abiding the rules. The issue was it was in the 6th gen but still allowed since it obeyed the rule. Your ideal of discussing apples and oranges on the same board is not conducive to a healthy board, and if you actually spent time there on vr, you'd know that the sliding scale of retro that you propose would do nothing to help. You state it's selfishness, but anyone with eyes can tell the complete disconnect between the generations of gaming pre sixth and post sixth. It's not the same experience, and not pertinent to one another. I seriously just don't get how you believe it's healthy at all for the change to occur. It's not being stubborn, it's what works best.

Anyone who enjoys games should understand sixth gen discussions don't benefit 4th gen discussions, which is why they should be placed elsewhere. It's not a radical idea that a third division should be inputted just like the initial was to divide vr and v. With your wide branding logic, why divide v at all to begin with. I don't get you.

>>681522
>Under your logic, it makes sense to continually add consoles to a board and let it be inundated with generations over time
It does make sense because it's a retro games board. In 40 years the PS2 will universally be considered retro. As time goes by more things become retro, especially if there's been advances. Which there have been. That's what retro means and that's how it's been handled by the board rules.

By your logic we should just split boards by game gens already, right? Look at /vr/: fourth and fifth gen dominate everything and first gen can't catch a break.

>>681473
Retro means in the style of recent past. Like undertale. Mario on the nes is not retro.

>>681544
>By your logic we should just split boards by game gens already, right? Look at /vr/: fourth and fifth gen dominate everything and first gen can't catch a break.

You literally acknowledge that there's an issue of larger userbases attached to newer generations and clouding older generations, and then conclude to add more generations to further cloud the earliest games and begin to cloud the slightly older generations?
Seriously, your logic is not even flawed, it's absent. Your debate skills to acknowledge flaws and benefits, absent. Your refusal to accept optional pathways that uphold the integrity of multiple parties; clearly present. I don't understand you at all nor how you rationalize your arguments. I've presented everything in an easily digestible manner as well as offering counter points only to be met with a stalwart defense of refusal supported by non-issues. Therefore, I am taking my leave of this for it is clear you are unable to accept any position but the one that infringes. I have no desire to discuss sixth gen, yet I was fervently trying to supply reasons for others for the creation of a board to assist in your desire to speak on such games. Instead I am met with a firm stiff arm of rejection along with the desire to transform a board that is currently fine. Truly, I have zero desire to continue this as well as to attempt to help beyond these final words.

Mods/Hiro, whoever reads these posts, If anyone reads these posts, make a board for the large amount of people who want to discuss the increasing amount of games that are in the gap between modern and 20th century games. As time passes, a bridge needs to be made to allow proper discussion for this gap period without affecting the integrity of other eras.

File: slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif (787KB, 480x360px)

787KB, 480x360px

>>681565

>>681565
das it mane

To everyone in this thread who are using the BUT 6th GEN IS SO OLD LET IT IN GUYS "argument". Are you just conveniently ignoring that 6th gen was already old when /vr/ was created? Whoever made the board or listened to those who wanted it made specifically CHOSE to leave out 6th gen. That confirms that the board was made to talk about a specific era of gaming. Not for it to be a dumping ground for everything that isn't popular on /v/.

>>681565
You can take the high moral ground all you want, but these are the facts:

1. /vr/ is a RETRO GAMES board.
2. From its inception, its concept of retro was "recent past".
3. It has already changed its rules to include a new console/batch of games after an event deemed them "retro" enough.

Changing /vr/ into /v9x/ and have a /v2k/ is hypocritical, because when DC was allowed nobody wanted to split boards. We let it happen because it was fair to what "retro" is. Now that for YEARS people have been talking about GBA being included, suddenly we should abritrarily split just because you're not okay with it?

I mentioned gens 1 and 2 because think about this: if we had /v2k/, what do you think would happen to the games that EVERYONE considers retro like The Sims 1, Diablo II, No One Lives Forever, etc? You're lumping clearly RETRO GAMES with the likes of Left For Dead, Dragon Age and Mass Effect, games that are STILL relevant on /v/, just because you can't accept change on a board that has already changed and that by its very definition will continue to do so. Discussion on RETRO GAMES would be mixed with currently modern games on the new board and their discussion all but silenced. All for the sake of keeping things the way you, and two other posters here, want.

Splitting the boards lets "you" win. By "you" I mean people opposed to keeping /vr/ the way it has been and allowing rules to include "future" games at a slow, reasonable pace. But people who actually want to discuss RETRO GAMES lose, because /vr/ is suddenly an autistic 90's shrine and /v2k/ lumps everything together for no good reason.

It's weird to see people so selfish and hellbent on having a board be the way THEY like that they demand arbitrary splits, instead of accepting reasonable changes like most sane people would.

Seeing them pretend they're being reasonable is just sad.

>>681658
Are you just conveniently ignoring that the rules have changed to include new games after a certain period of time and worded in such a way that imply that new events may deem new things retro?

Are you just conveniently ignored that the only reason DC was allowed is because people complained about it for a long time, just like people who want GBA included?

Are you just conveniently ignoring the fact that time has passed since the creation of /vr/?

And I know for a fact you are indeed conveniently ignoring that yes dude, /vr/ was pretty much a dumping ground for things /v/ ignored because they were too old and got no hits. I like to ignore this too because it demeans the board, but if we get real that's exactly what happened and the only rationale behind its creation.

>>679682
>another new board
Disregarded. Not everything needs to be neat and segmented for you fucking internet 3.oh babbies.

File: 1424833777908.gif (432KB, 495x227px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 495x227px

>>681491
Firstly
>we need psychic powers to predict the future
Okay.jpg
See >>681477. Is "slightly less detailed than photoreal" going to become retro when held up to photoreal by comparison in the way 8 and 16-bit are compared to 32 and 64 bit? No, it's not. Again, not magic, not psychic, common sense that comes from understanding universal standards.

Secondly
>early 2000s are retro (with weasel words)
I had a picture of a retarded roastie grrrl gmrrr blogging about how she was playing her Gamecube on "retro game day". I can't find it right now but if I could instead of this explanation I'd just be writing "pic related, it's (You)".

Thirdly
>A new board requires new janitors to monitor the board and mods' attention for that board.
Again, the ratio of moderation power to the work required of moderation stays the same. Why is this so hard to understand? So a few moderators and jannies have to get shuffled around along with posters? This is a trivial issue, it is grasping at straws in the extreme. It is the same sort of thing that'd concern someone looking for whatever justification they can take to support their points when they start worrying about things that are obvious non-issues like "bandwidth". Yes that is a sign of being stupid, it is a sign you have no idea what you're talking about. Hurricane comes blowing through, biggest problem is slipper roads, that is what I'm hearing. I can tell you for a fact the potential shitstorm caused by a major alteration to /vr/ will eat up mod resources far more than making a new board for dated game hardware.

Lastly
>throwing a tantrum
Projecting.

File: 55cc18a017d5f.jpg (85KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 600x300px

>>681697
>/vr/ is suddenly an autistic 90's shrine
It was always an 80s-90s getaway.

>>681728
We don't know if virtual reality will take off, we don't know if there will be other advancements, we don't know if the tech or approach to delivering games and so forth we change. We simply don't. And trust me, many normies do think PS2 is retro.

>early 2000s are retro
GBA is virtually a portable SNES and therefore more retro than the 3D online Dreamcast unless you love grasping at straws.

>Again, the ratio of moderation power to the work required of moderation stays the same
This implies /v/irgins won't come running to a board that allows 2010 games discussion.

>I can tell you for a fact the potential shitstorm caused by a major alteration to /vr/ will eat up mod resources
Yeah, this sure happened when we allowed Dreamcast discussion, right?

>throwing a tantrum
>Projecting.
See posts like
>>681175

>>681697
>>681708
So basically you just want to force /vr/ to change even though no other board has been forced to change it's rules to accommodate a user base that showed up years after its creation.

5th gen was voted in by the original population (and the mod apparently agreed) who decided that it still had enough of what we enjoyed from gens 1-4. Dreamcast was let in due to the technicality of release date and the extremely short life span, and once again by the original userbase and mod.

What makes /vr/ so fucking special in that we HAVE to bend over for the new crowd that has showed up within the last year? Hmm?

>Changing /vr/ into /v9x/ and have a /v2k/ is hypocritical, because when DC was allowed nobody wanted to split boards.

Fucking lol. DC was let in out of pity and a technicality of release date.

And once again people are getting hung up on the aesthetic name of the forum and not considering that it was created to talk about a specific era of gaming. And no, /vr/ is not /v/'s fucking dumping ground. Anyone who has this opinion of the board has no right to be talking about the state of the board or what needs to happen with it.

>>681697
This guy gets it.

>>681762
This guy does not.

The real problem with /vr/ seems to be a segmented interpretation of what the board inherently is. The /vr/ sticky says the board is for pre-2000 games. That is the very core that /vr/ is built upon, and is intertwined with the identity of the board, as well as the conversations on it. This ruleset allows for in-depth, relatively slow-paced discussion about games in a specialized way which works.

There is another sect that sees the term /vr/ and assumes that "retro games" means any dead system will be included on the board. That is a wholly different interpretation of the board, which radically changes the purpose, meaning, and identity of the board.

Video games changed radically enough after 2000 that it's not an exaggeration to say that the medium became completely different. What used to be a focus on a mixture of words, music, and gameplay to create an experience, became more like an interactive movie with a focus on 3D and voice-acted cutscenes. Of course there are exceptions to that generalization, but when looking at the big genres as well as heavy-hitting titles, the change can be clearly seen.

In a way, asking /vr/ to accept sixth gen is akin to asking /lit/ to accept discussion about movies. The medium has changed that much.

That's why I'm a fan of /v2k/. I don't hate 6th gen, but the idea that the current userbase of /vr/ which has been able to discuss old games freely could coexist peacefully with Kingdom Hearts and Halo is insane.

>>681762
>So basically you just want to force /vr/ to change even though no other board has been forced to change it's rules to accommodate a user base that showed up years after its creation.
No other board is about old things. New things become old with time, and therefore they should be allowed. Why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me.

I want /vr/ to keep doing what its rules already did once and what they imply will do in the future.

Also what you want is to force /vr/ to change its name, define a nebulous era of games based on what amounts to "muh feels", a create a new board just so /vr/, or whatever it will be called after your autism and fear of change is done with it, stays forever the same and becomes the sole board on 4chan to only get new content once every blue moon.

And sorry to burst your bubble but /vr/ wasn't created because a council of highly educated video game cognoscenti wanted to have a board about the objectively best era of videogames. It was made so people could talk about games that had no chance of surviving on /v/. And I have every right to talk about that because it's the fucking truth.

Every /v/ splinter so far has been fucking amazing. I say go for it.

Can we ban /v/shitter shitposts from /vr/ too? Those fucking idiots are obnoxious.

>>681778
I feel the same but rather than being a fan of /v2k/ I'm a fan of increasing the year cutoff date. /v2k/ hinges too much on generations as a limiting factor. You'd be dumping retro PC games with modern games. /v2k/ is too radical an idea with too insignificant a payoff for people who wish to discuss old games. And if people seriously think stuff like Escape from Monkey Island is "modern gaming" and belongs to a board like /v2k/ they're just out of it.

>>681770
>>681777
Yeah, the guy implying that only 3 people want to keep the board as is and is in the minority "totally gets it". None of the polls and more importantly none of the threads have shown any indication that the "Allow 6th gen crowd" is anywhere near as large as the "Do not allow 6th gen crowd". But hey let's post in the board where the admins might see it and create a false narrative to try and sneak one by.

>>681778
>the idea that the current userbase of /vr/ which has been able to discuss old games freely could coexist peacefully with Kingdom Hearts and Halo is insane
Exactly. 6th gen is antithetical to the spirit of the board.

>>681778
>The people who adhere to the one rule and actual spirit of the board

vs.

>The people who assume "retro" means everything not popular on /v/ should be allowed.

Gee I wonder which crowd was first and which showed up years later.

>>681789
Every poll mentioned here shows there's a majority of people who want to include the GBA in some capacity (a subset of which wish to include more sixth gen stuff). 65% is pro-GBA in a poll currently up on /vr/. That's sixty-five.

You're the ones creating a false narrative and the very same polls you mention outline your manipulation. /vr/ users have been wanting GBA discussion for years. I realize this topic is about the whole sixth gen, but we all know that's part of your false narrative because AS OF NOW nobody wants PS2 and Xbox to be included. The sixth gen boogeyman is put in place to make everyone afraid that /vr/ will become /v/ when we've already had a sixth gen console for ages.

Truth is discussion about rule changing on /vr/ is almost exclusive to allowing GBA, and that's why the polls someone (you?) posted here have GBA-specific answers. You're trying to spin the majority support towards GBA inclusion into something that you're not so "your" board will not change in a way you don't like.

>>681791
Why are /v2k/fags always using subjective things to justify their position? You turned his factual, reasonable post into some sort of metaphysical discussion.

Retro means old things, the sticky was updated once already, the language hints at time making more stuff be considered retro. If mods didn't want people to interpret retro as what it is in every other corner of the internet they wouldn't have done any of that, but they did.

might as well post this here as well.

What other board has been forced to change its rules/guidelines/range of topics to accommodate a population that appeared 1-3 years after the initial userbase/rules were established?

People who started posting western cartoon porno on /d/ which was for eastern cartoon porno got /aco/.

People who started posting whatever /qst/ content is on whatever board they were split from got their own thing.

People constantly talking about wrastlin'/skateboarding/xgames/mma in /sp/ got /asp/.

People constantly talking about bitcoin exchange rates on /g/ eventually got /biz/, which grew into its own thing discussing stocks and such.

Pony fags posting their bs everywhere were put in /mlp/. /pol/ fags doing their thing got /pol/. (Note that I am not equating people who browse these specific boards to people who want 6th gen here. This is just an example of a like minded userbase getting their own board)

I'm sure there are more examples but I've only ever really browsed here since it's creation, and these should be enough to get my point across. Any time a group started posting things that were just barely out of the guidelines of the most relevant board they could find, after the board was established and userbase/rules were in place, they were eventually given their own board. What makes us different in that we need to change our rules to allow more shit in? Why should we be forced to accommodate a new userbase when, as far as I know, no other board has had to? There is no precedent for it that I'm aware of.

6th gen is old is not an argument. Stating the name of the board is not an argument. Telling us that the board "is for anything not popular on /v/" is kind of an argument, but its completely wrong.

>>681793
People have not been wanting the GBA in /vr/ for years. This has been a within the last year development that has only gained ground because of a rogue janitor who decided upon himself to allow GBA topics in generals, when they used to be tossed out with the rest of the trash.

Personally, I don't give a fuck what they do about the GBA because the vast majority of what will be discussed are things that are already talked about. That being ports / remakes from popular franchises that were on the NES/SNES (and as far as I know, ports have always been fair game... remakes/reimaginings not so much but whatever). The main issue for me are the people arguing for letting in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube, and that /vr/ is nothing but a dumping ground for /v/.

>>681793
If you allow the GBA, what about the GC and the GC/GBA interconnectivity? Allowing the GBA is even more of a slippery slope than previous endeavors and slippery slope arguments were brought up back during the Dreamcast debates.

>>681797
The sticky was updated but the 'nothing after 1999' portion has been constant.

>>681799
This brings up a point, look at /asp/ now after wwe was moved there. Before, there was much more variety in threads. /vr/ fears this will happen to them.

>>681780
>New things become old with time
And still, the 1st-5th gen enthusiasts will remain 1st-5th gen enthusiasts. If we allow 6th gen, how much room will be left to them given the limited amount of simultaneous threads allowed? And by your logic, in 10 years the 7th and 8th gen will be considered ''''''''''retro'''''''''' which means they'll be allowed in /vr/ as well. That's even less room to talk about pre-2000 systems which is retarded because that's why this board was created in the first place.

And there isn't going to be any split. You're asking /vr/ to welcome massive amount of new posters which is going to kill the board but instead we offer them their own board. The DC posters can decide which board they want to post on since they would fit both /vr/ and /v2k/'s criteria.

>>681797
>Retro means old things, the sticky was updated once already.

Within months of the boards creation when they were still hashing out what they wanted it to be. Oh and there's the "retro means old so everything /v/ doesn't want belongs here" thing again. Just fantastic.

>>681814
Seems like the people for allowing 6th gen merely see /vr/ as an extension of /v/ that hasn't developed their own culture / persona over the last 3 years. Like we shouldn't have a say on what the board covers.

>>681813
We should just allow 6th and eventually 7th/8th gen on /vr/ as soon as possible. That way when all the 1-5th gen games are being pushed off /vr/ like they were on /v/ we can petition to have a new board and actually make it right this time.

File: 20160918_191815.jpg (781KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 2048x1152px

oh man the thought of /v2k/ is making me comfy already
this is my game collection, most things here i bought when i was a kid
missing is legendary starfy, super mario 64 ds, warioware diy and nsmb, i don't know where they are. too bad since starfy was one of my favorites. there was this one treasure i could never get, my friend had it but i could never find it. i remember getting REALLY good at D.I.Y while my friend could only make super simple touch the screen games.

>>679682
>>679917
I'm back with a new draft of a potential title and sticky for /v2k/. Reply with more feedback if you think that anything should be changed.


/v2k/ - Video Games 2000

This board is for the discussion of all forms of video games on platforms launched from the start of the 6th console generation through 2009, beginning with the Dreamcast. This includes all console games released during the lifespans of platforms launched during those years and all arcade and computer games released during those same years. Discussion of games released in the later years of the 5th generation is also acceptable. The date of the upper limit for what is allowed on /v2k/ may move forward as the console generations advance.

>>681893
very good
i want it

>I don't want to play with the kids on the playground (/v/, /vr/)
>build me a new playground!
No, learn to get along you supreme autists

>>681900
This a thousand times.

Also lol @ >>681893, it's basically "modern games and also retro games, but not including the ones I like because that should get its own special section just because I say so".

>>681893
I like this
>The date of the upper limit for what is allowed on /v2k/ may move forward as the console generations advance.

dont know about this though

File: retard.jpg (62KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 300x300px

>>681900
You know what? Let's remove all the boards and replace them with a gigantic /b/ ! All these people with different ages, personalities, tastes and hobbies should learn to coexist in a single community! What could go wrong?

How is having a new board even remotely bad? Why is there such blowback against it? It gives us 3 defined boards for 3 eras of gaming. Oldschool, the transition period from oldschool to modern gaming, and modern gaming.

If clutter is the reason, there's room on the main page column where Video Games are placed. Also it's been brought up that 10+ porn boards is just dandy, but 5 having video game boards is "LOL AUTISM". "We do not need another board" is not an argument, and it is demonstrably false because we clearly do. The alternative is forcing change on a board that does not want it.

If bandwidth/costs are the issue, it would not create more consumption of bandwidth or higher costs for the website. New users would not flock in from outside the website to the new board to increase either. Existing users here would just have a place to talk about the things they want to talk about.

If the board being slow is the reason... being slow is one of the huge reasons that made /vr/ so great. You could actually have in depth discussions about whatever oldschool topic you wanted provided you put in more effort than "What are some good games for X" or "What do you think of X game".

There is 0 downside to this idea. Why are you people that oppose this so adamant about it?
People accusing /vr/ of being afraid of change appear to be afraid of the same exact thing.

>>681926
Moving the date may or may not end up happening that way, but I think leaving in the possibility of some flexibility is a good idea if we want /v2k/ to stay as both a bridge and a buffer between /vr/ and /v/. Any kind of change would be several years down the line at the earliest.

>>681951
>There is 0 downside to this idea
See >>681697
>if we had /v2k/, what do you think would happen to the games that EVERYONE considers retro like The Sims 1, Diablo II, No One Lives Forever, etc? You're lumping clearly RETRO GAMES with the likes of Left For Dead, Dragon Age and Mass Effect, games that are STILL relevant on /v/, just because you can't accept change on a board that has already changed and that by its very definition will continue to do so. Discussion on RETRO GAMES would be mixed with currently modern games on the new board and their discussion all but silenced. All for the sake of keeping things the way you, and two other posters here, want.

Also porn boards are by porn genre (or rather gender since that makes a big fucking difference). You don't see /lit16/ for sixteenth century literature or /anrep/ for reptiles because dividing further and further already niche categories is useless. And rather childish if the rationale is "but I don't wanna play with the other kids moooom".

>>682010
>Also porn boards are by porn genre (or rather gender since that makes a big fucking difference). You don't see /lit16/ for sixteenth century literature or /anrep/ for reptiles because dividing further and further already niche categories is useless. And rather childish if the rationale is "but I don't wanna play with the other kids moooom".
There aren't several /lit/ boards because, believe it or not, reading books isn't very popular on 4chins whereas porn and video games are.

>>682010
But it would make everyone happy. /vr/ doesn't want 6th gen. In fact, I don't want 6th gen in /vr/. And /v/ is fucking useless. /v2k/ is a good idea with no downsides. So what if I "don't want to play with the other kids", why does that matter?

File: make-it-so-captain.jpg (136KB, 615x434px)

136KB, 615x434px

>>682010
>/lit16/ for sixteenth century literature
Henry V is baller though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Crispin%27s_Day_Speech#Text

>>681951
This.
It's seriously beyond my comprehension how anyone could not want the new board. It literally preserves the integrity of the status quo while providing a brand new board to give respect to games that are currently under discussed. The rationale of forcing change where it has opposition and unnecessary is silly when it can be entirely avoided. I honestly believe there's some weird grudge where they not only want to discuss the games somewhere but to piss people off in the process. especially when people are trying to assist them and they still refuse.

>>682023
>>682040
Do you not understand that 2000-2003 games would get the literal shaft if /v2k/ becomes a thing? Therefore solving absolutely nothing when it comes to the issue of retro games not being able to be discussed on a retro board.

>>682010
So, you say that 6th gen will be silenced by 7th gen discussion? What do you think will happen to gens 1-5 on /vr/? It's like you can't see the contradiction sitting right in front of you, dear lord.

>>682049
I was about to say pretty much this exact same thing.

File: Kew7jqr.png (307KB, 1112x1000px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1112x1000px

>>682040
>I honestly believe there's some weird grudge
They want the /vr/ brand, and they want the /vr/ user base. They're pulling an EA on us.

Merge it with /vp/, they have large periods of drought anyway.

>>682045
What? No they wouldn't. Explain yourself fool. btw it would be 2000-2004 at least we need the ds and psp in there

>>682010
You bring up the lumping older non /vr/ games in with L4D, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect. Well that's exactly what people who are trying to ram 6th gen down our throats are trying to do.

Don't know if you're in the 6th gen on /vr/ group or if you're just a contrarian. Either way it doesn't matter because you're just going to scream "CHILDISH AUTISTIC SPERGS" at anyone who doesn't agree with you.

>>682045
How would it get the shaft? It would literally be akin to have gens 4 and 5 on the same board. A very similar userbase with a very similar amount of games outputted in each gen. They wouldn't get the shaft since the userbase that's being catered to is the ones that want to discuss games from such periods. You're literally implying an entire board couldn't encompass two generations of games. Furthermore, that allowance of MORE material on vr will cause other gens to get shafted.

>>682045
The rules / cutoff years / whether there will be a rolling cut off date is still up in the air because this is the preliminary discussion. A board only having 2 or so gens being discussed is pretty much a reality because /vr/ mostly talks about gens 3-5. It's probably 60-70% gens 3-4 discussion with the remainder being gen 5.

>>682067
Not to mention there's nothing stopping 5th gen from being on /v2k/, or even some 7th gen. It could be a board where some 5th, but mainly 6th and possibly 7th gen games could get some in depth discussion going outside of the fast paced meme posting shit show of /v/. But to insure that this can happen, if /v2k/ becomes a thing, we need to get some mods/janitors who actually do their fucking jobs according to board rules. You know, actually do something about bait/shit posting instead of letting it run rampant.

While I agree that the main 6th gen home consoles aren't retro, I do think it's a bit ridiculous to exclude the GBA. It always felt like the last gasp of the 16-bit era to me.

>>679755
>The Game Boy Micro was a truly retarded idea.

I actually liked it. Had both an SP and a Micro, the SP was for when I was at home or wanted to play an RPG that benefited from a bigger screen, and the Micro was for when I was riding the subway or on break at work.

>>681893
Sounds awesome.

Now I just wish the board will be made.

>>681900
If you paid any attention to the thread you'd know that we want to share "the playground" with /vr/, but /vr/ will have none of that.

>>682309
And if you paid attention to the thread you'd know /vr/ doesn't want you there.

>>682316
you'd know why*

>>682309
But that's wrong, you fucking retard.
We don't want to share and neither does /vr/. It's a mutual thing. We both want a board for 6th/7th gen. Read the fucking thread closer next time.

>>682056
how does that make any sense

>>682334
That wadn't the idea originally.

It only turned into v2k after vr kept throwing hissy fits.

>>682382
Not him, but /v2k/ is a good compromise that we've been working on all week. It's getting a lot of support.

>>682382
6th gen would not mesh well with /vr/. And I want to talk about the DS anyway. /v2k/ is the best solution.

>>682382
Oh we were throwing hissy fits? And you guys were being totally civil and not calling us autists and man children in every other post, right? Get outta here with that bullshit.

>>682334
6th gen fits well with /vr/. 7th is when things went to shit with hd and online. A lot of people dont want to lump them together, as a lot of people dont want to lump 6th gen with /vr/. Imo, as a compromise v2k should be 5th-6th gen, between 1993-2004. Revert vr back to its original rules and leave it alone.

>>682554
>7th is when things went to shit with hd and online
go 2 bed grandpa

>>680268
>moviegames
Why not let games from ALL time periods and console generations on /vr/ but exclude those that aren't retroish in gameplay/feel (not just pixel graphics and chiptunes)?

>>683063
Because that's a ridiculously general way to view it and would be incredibly hard to determine what belongs and what doesn't.

>>682554
See >>>/vr/3506990
>5th gen started in 1993
Having the /v2k/ border roughly around 2000 is simple and clear and easy to understand. It can have late 5th gen to start and maybe more if people really want it. 6th gen fits a lot better with 7th gen than with the earlier gens.

This is the way I see the flexibility of the boards:
/v/ is constantly changing its interests and adding things to talk about.
/v2k/ will have a specific time period in mind but could have some flexibility going forward.
/vr/ works well covering the defined era of game consoles before 2000 and shouldn't change.

>>683514
Great, I just wish the board would be made now so we can stop this shitfight.

>>683514
That would mean 2000 PC games, even 2001 GBA games are now being grouped with X360 and PS3. How is that simple, clear, or fair?

>>683643
Its not. They are just using the 7th gen to make a new board for just one gen sound less retarded.

>>683643
You guys literally can't see irony in front of your eyes. How is it fair to have 6th gen on a board with the NES? 6th gen shares a lot more in common with 7th gen than the 4th and under gens. If you actually played any games at all you'd understand that.

>>683755
Absolutely not. 6th gen was the last generation before gaming became overrun with online, DRM, shovelware, interactive movies and general non-games. These are all products of the 7th gen making them far more than just prettier 6th gen games.

There is far more in common between the PS2 and the SNES than the PS3 and the PS1 (a one generation skip).
It IS simple as that, either let in the last good gen of gaming on /vr/ or make a new board with the cut off as 2004.

>>683882
Okay, you are delusional. I don't know why I keep coming back in here and trying to deal with you people.

>>683891
No, you know what's fucking delusional? Trump supporters.

>>683755
PC games don't have "gens". Arcade games don't (exactly) have "gens". Even within gen 6 DC is seen as /vr/. What most users on /vr/ want is GBA allowed, not all of gen 6. The Sims is not gen 6.

>>683900
aaaaaand you just lost all credibilty by politicalposting in a non-/pol/ thread. fucking kill yourself.

>>682045
>Do you not understand that 2000-2003 games would get the literal shaft if /v2k/ becomes a thing?
Considering shit like Warcraft 3 and Diablo II still command threads and playerbases that is a load of bullshit. Not to mention the entire early GBA catalog which /v2k/ would be all over.

>>680203
It's stupid idea and you never read 4chan's FAQ. New boards are added only if it has a high demand, a videogame board for such a small niche is not necessary.

>>684008
then why does /po/ and /n/ exist

>>683891
Learn to argue instead of just throwing insults and you might get somewhere.

>>684008
>a videogame board for such a small niche
Video games are one of the most popular subjects on all of 4chan, and 2+ generations of relatively recent games currently suffering from discussion limbo at the moment would be more than enough to make a new board with the same activity level as /vr/ has right now.

>>>/vr/3508270
1. Almost all of 7th gen is actively sold and supported, so this limiting suggestion wouldn't work out.
2. I don't think the average poster is going to bother to do an accurate check on if a PC game is still sold and supported before posting, so that also wouldn't work well.

I think the line about future proofing in the proposed sticky is adequate as it is.

>>684076
DS and PSP definitely aren't, which is why I think 2004 is a good limit for now.

>>684087
I think 2000 through 2004 would be too narrow a focus for the new board.

>>684087
>>684227
Or are you suggesting that the new board be 1993 through 2004? I'd also be worried about how that change would affect /vr/.

>>684235
Why not simply allow 5th gen on both? That way everyone's happy. Anyway, if gen 6 was indeed such a huge change as some are suggesting, most of the 5th gen games discussed on /v2k/ will be like gen 6 games, such as Metal Gear Solid, while the 5th gen games discussed on /vr/ will be like games from gen 4, such as Rayman or Crash Bandicoot..

>>683900
>6th gen having more in common with gens 1-5 than 7th gen.
>Not being delusional.

Pick one.

Online started with 6th gen.
I'll give you the DRM point.
Shovelware has existed on all gens, are at least became big by the 3rd gen. (Game with Dominos mascot the Noid as the main char on the NES, etcetcetc)
Interactive movies became much more prominent in 6th gen, 5th gen had a little but no where near in scope.
General non-games existed in all gens, mostly by 3rd gen just like the shovelware.

So you have 1 point in favor of how 6th gen has something in common with 1-5, DRM. Whoopty fucking do.

>>684276
Some of 5th gen would definitely overlap on both boards, but then that doesn't leave enough unique for /v2k/. I don't think 1.5 gens is enough for a board, but 2.5 gens (late 5th through 7th) would be plenty for /v2k/.

>>684335
>So you have 1 point in favor of how 6th gen has something in common with 1-5, DRM.

I'm assuming you mean *not having DRM.

>>683882
>shovelware
>a 7th gen thing
m8 take a good long look at the ps1 for me

>>684227
keep in mind it would be like /vr/, where n64 games can still be discussed even if they go outside 2000. there are ds games all the way to 2011.

>>684509
PS1? The best fucking gaming console? What the FUCK are you on about?

>>684753
It's great but it had loads of shovelware

>>684764
Name every single one.

>>684792
dude look at the redump set
you don't remember the shovelware because it's not memorable

>>684335
Online started with 4th gen.

And 1 point in our favour is still better than your 0.

>still no /v2k/

>>685813
If it's not in the next round of trial boards, it might take a couple years, unless demand shoots through the roof.

I wish they would just amend the rules for /vr/. If the post count gets a significant increase they can always change it back.

>>686573
Allowing 6th gen on /vr/ would kill at least 1st and 2nd gen on /vr/ forever. It wouldn't go well.

>>686710
At least the GBA though.

>>686710
Here's how it would go:
>Posts about 6th gen fill up catalogue for about a week as people take advantage of the fact that they can post 6th gen now
>It dies down to about the same amount of posting as every other gen

>>686918
You're forgetting that both the pro 6th gen and anti 6th gen camps are very vocal and that shitposting will skyrocket and might not die down any time soon. It would be bad for the board and a pain for the mods no matter how it's implemented.

>>685168
>Unironically thinks 6th gen has more in common with 1-5th gen than 7th gen
>Hasn't read threads to see multiple good points as to why 6th gen shouldn't be on /vr/
>Expects people to take them seriously.

Good stuff anon.

>>679682
>Unironically thinks 6th gen has less in common with 1-5th gen than 7th gen
>Hasn't read threads to see multiple good points as to why 6th gen should be on /vr/
>Expects people to take them seriously.

Good stuff anon.

File: 1448314375260.jpg (103KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1920x1080px

>>679682
I'm against /vr/ allowing 6th Gen, not out of hate for those consoles, but because allowing the Dreamcast (which I do personally consider to be retro) negatively impacted the board due to the shitstorm it brought. Allowing the consoles that introduced Halo and Call of Duty would create 10x the shitstorm, and I don't want that to happen. Keeping the status quo would be the best course for /vr/, in my opinion.

I'm indifferent to the /v2k/ idea. On one hand I can see the appeal to some, but I'm not sure if it would be fast enough. You can talk about 20+ years of gaming on /vr/ if you go early enough, and it's comfortably chill, but I'm not sure if /v2k/ would attract as large a crowd as /vr/, and creating a board that would be dead-on-arrival seems like a waste.

>>681507
The Dreamcast was ambiguous at the board's creation. A mod eventually decided to ban Dreamcast discussion (causing a shitstorm), but then unbanned it (causing a second shitstorm). The exact rules have not changed:

>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier.

>>680189
When you allow a console, you allow all games made for that console, you have to remember.

I've seen the argument made before that the PS2 should be allowed because it was released only a year after the Dreamcast. However, the Dreamcast was dead in the water by the end of 2001 (homebrew projects not being counted), while the PS2 was still receiving moderate support all the way into 2010, with its last AAA game being released in 2013. By allowing the PS2, you would allow EVERY game released for it to be discussed.

6th Gen is a floodgate, and /vr/ should be afraid of it.

>>679682
>/v/ getting split AGAIN
How much do you hate yourselves? Dear fuck

>>687323

Everyone has a PS2, a NDS and a Wii (Fully retrocompatible with the NGC). Most of /vr/ also have a PSP because emulators.

So obviously, almost everyone here has the material to play most of the 6th gen natively

Bring the board and there will be interest among the community, and then discussion.

Allow 7th gen but don't allow games after 2009.

File: 1471895733982.jpg (57KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x427px

>>687361
>Allow 7th gen

You people are already fighting an uphill battle trying to get 6th gen on /vr/, and you think it's a good idea to start pushing for 7th?

>>687369
I'm talking about /v2k/ it that wasn't clear.

I don't think 6th gen in /vr/ would be a good idea because it's full of autists.

I've seen that the posting quality has gone more /v/ like with the insults and petty argues, doesn't seem like the adult board it used to be before.

About allowing 7th gen (or part of it), some people say that only 6th gen would make /v2k/ a slow board. I think /v2k/ only with the 6th gen and PC games from 2000-2009 would be faster than /vr/ really, there's more variety and the games have more appeal to most of the /v/ base than older games.

>>687357
It's more of a /vr/ branch, covering something that wasn't covered there and doesn't recieve the needed attention in /v/.

Also, there's like /a/, /c/, /cm/, /m/, /jp/ and a bunch of cartoon porn boards, I really don't see the issue with another dated games board.

>>687213
There has been many good points brought against 6th gen and you've ignored them all.

kys

>>687463
There has been many good points brought for 6th gen and you've ignored them all.

Have a nice day.

Why even give the crybabies a choice. Allow it there, tell the crybabies to suck it up or eat a ban.

Or better yet, just delete /vr/ because pointless board splits are part of the reason /v/ is shit now, not enough vidya discussion to slide shitposts, ecelebs, THICC, barneyfag bait etc. off the board.

>>687545
>pointless board splits are part of the reason /v/ is shit now
No, it's shit because it's basically '/b/ plays video games'.

>>687545
Why even give the crybabies a choice. Don't allow it there, tell the crybabies to suck it up or eat a ban.

File: messy-activities-for-toddlers.jpg (487KB, 1000x667px)

487KB, 1000x667px

>>687813
That's the other option, but we know 4chan is autism central and /vr/ have the age thing going on also.

Consider the following:

You're a 45 year old turbovirgin on an anime website talking about ancient videogames and these fucking millennials come here ruining your fun with these flashy 3D blip blops and ruining your sikret club. You'r be pretty mad, don't you think.

>>684019
>/po/
I'd like to believe it was a joke board.
>/n/
You need to have a board for train discussion.

>>687545
/v/ is irrelevant. Not sure how many times this has to be said. /v/ is a containment for teenagers taking a break from social media, it's suppose to be a dump.

File: Genesisgenesis.png (276KB, 555x552px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 555x552px

VOTE MORE ON THIS POLL YOU FUCKERS

http://www.strawpoll.me/11249233

As I mentioned before, I think /v2k/ should cover games released from 2000 to 2005/6. 2007 was where everything changed

>>688124
>games
systems, like how /vr/ works. I should be able to discuss ALL DS games, for example.

>>688066
It's actually the slowest board, and even that one has no thread from last year. Considering how other chans work, that's actually excellent.

>>688124
2000-2009 m80, if you want we can pull out x360 and PS3 discussion but i'd let wii in.

Or just allow PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii games from 2005 to 2009

File: 1467781373628.jpg (23KB, 538x534px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 538x534px

>>679682
Hmm.

Hmmmmm....

It would have to come to a consensus vote.

Either: Allow (GBA, Gamecube, PS2 and XBOX)
or
Have a board meant for the discussion of videogames.

Its an inner culture thing that /vr/ needs to work out.

if the demand is truly that high for a new board, then use the feedback page to suggest it over and over again.


(No such thing exists right?)

>>679682
No fuck off. /v/ has been split too many times. this is absolutely pointless.

File: file.png (23KB, 280x289px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 280x289px

>>688236
It's not a /v/ split you sperg. It's more liek /vr/2, electric boogaloo


besides, look at the anime boards. /a/ is much slower than /v/ and there's like 6 anime boards, not including /co/ or /tv/ where animation, albeit western, is constantly discussed

There's 4 Vidya boards, one is a Pokémon containment board and the only decent one is /vr/. /v2k/ is perfect m80.

Why don't we add an option to create a board whenever we want and add a karma system and change the site's name to reddit while we're at it?

>>680079
>10+ porn boards, totally cool

Porn isn't the same thing as video games so that's a dumb comparison and there wouldn't be a need for so many splits in /v/ to begin with if mods would just do their fucking job.

/vr/ should have GBA added for now. Down the road add in the rest of 6th Gen. GBA is comparable to the SNES in specs with quite a few SNES ports and shares a lot of gameplay similarities.

>>688313
The DS is similar in capabilities to the N64.

LET'S JUST NUKE /vr/ and force them out of the basement and into /v/.

Just talk about older games on /v/. It's that simple.

>>688332
/v/ is shit, worthless
/vr/ is comfy
as someone else said /v/ is basically "/b/ plays video games"

Just wait a few years. When the PS2 is 20 years old no one will be autistic enough to sperg about how unretro it is.

The reason that there's so much backlash against allowing 6th gen on /vr/ is that basically every conversation goes like this:
>Why won't you over the hill old farts let us post about gamecube here? You say it'll bring in annoying people? FUCK YOU I'M NOT ANNOYING AT ALL You just hate change you assholes! Why don't you all just leave this place you've all been enjoying, you faggots. Then we can have some real discussion about games that matter. Please let me stay in your house.
Doesn't really endear you to our potential new immigrants.

File: 1454796726804.jpg (65KB, 479x370px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 479x370px

>>681028
I sent a thing on the suggestion page over a year ago for them to change the board's name to that but they never listened.

a) Everything stays the same as it currently is. No /v2k/ and post-1999 systems and games from those systems are still banned.

b) /vr/ remains exactly the same. /v2k/ is created for 6th and 7th Gen consoles.

c) DreamCast is banned from /vr/. Cutoff date is 1998 / 5th Gen and under. No /v2k/.

d) DreamCast is banned from /vr/. Cutoff date is 1998 / 5th Gen and under. /v2k/ is made for 6th - 7th Gen (DreamCast, GBA, PS2, GameCube, XBox, PSP, PS3, 360, Wii, DS)

e) 5th Gen and up is banned from /vr/. 1991 (25 years ago)/4th Gen and under is the limit. /v2k/ is created with 5th, 6th, and 7th Gen consoles and games allowed.

f) Everything stays the same except GBA is allowed on /vr/ now.

g) All of 6th Gen is allowed on /vr/. 7th Gen and newer is still strictly prohibited.

someone keeps deleting posts with these options in them so I just made a strawpoll with all of them because that seems to be a good idea

http://www.strawpoll.me/11276265

>>688366
>DreamCast is banned from /vr/. Cutoff date is 1998 / 5th Gen and under. /v2k/ is made for 6th - 7th Gen (DreamCast, GBA, PS2, GameCube, XBox, PSP, PS3, 360, Wii, DS)
I like this one
I choose this one

>>680388
That poll isn't even related to the issue being discussed here.
It's whether or not /v2k/ should be created or not.
All your poll is doing is setting an arbitrary limit to a board that shouldn't even exist. Hell its not even solving the issue with /vr/, and all it's doing is setting the board up for this same situation to spring up at a later date.

Personally I think that /vr/ should allow discussion for sixth generation systems. What's considered retro shifts depending on how much time has passed and what the primary demographic has nostalgia for. To say that video games are retro due to some arbitrary aesthetic choices rather than date is disengenious, and if so than /vr/ better let games like Shovel Knight or Va11-Ha1a be discussed seeing as hey they're "retro".

>>688366
b
I like /vr/ as it is but 6th genners will never stop spamming their stuff there if they don't get their own board.
I'm tired of people who constantly try to force their own shit in other people's place and ignore any argument made against them.
Just make /v2k/ and silence the whines.

>>681893
THIS SOLVES NOTHING AND WILL JUST SET UP A PRECEDENT OF MAKING BOARDS FOR ANY NICHE SUBJECT.

4chan isn't like 2ch, futuba-channel or 8ch where boards are made on the fly or for petty reasons. All that does is splinter communities and create dead boards. /qst/ is a perfect example in that most quests there are dead and that the community is leaving for other alternatives.
/m/ had a similar issue with toku threads and whether they belonged and in the end the board just accepted them, and the board is no less diminished.
/vr/ won't die from having sixth gen consoles allowed. By creating something like /v2k/ all you'll do is make a dead board that barely anyone will use and set up a precedent to have /v/ boards for other decades.

>>688450
We've talked about giving some flexibility to /v2k/ down the road. That's what that last line is about. It would be at least like 5 or 10 years before anything would even need to be added to /v2k/. We've discussed this to death.

>>688450
>/vr/ won't die from having sixth gen consoles allowed.
/vr/ would change into something that it isn't now. Threads about the earliest gens would vanish.
>By creating something like /v2k/ all you'll do is make a dead board that barely anyone will use
6th and 7th gen are both still popular and could sustain a board with the speed of /vr/, especially with the PC gaming boom of the early 2000s. Allow some late 5th gen like we're saying and you've got a great board.

>>688465
Regardless making a board solely for 6th gen (because even though 7th gen can be discussed it's not the reason that the board is being made) is wasteful and all it'll be doing is making another containment board which more than likely won't have much traffic.

What really needs to be done allow 6th gen consoles and have moderation be vigilant for low quality threads such as "FIFA '06 thread" or any spamming.

As I've reiterated other boards such as /d/ and /m/ have had similar issues (futa spam and toku content respectively). They have managed to rectify the issues and have said threads on their boards without them destroying the board culture. I don't see why /vr/ can't do the same thing with or without the help of moderation.

>>688494
What do you consider to be "much traffic" and why do you think /v2k/ wouldn't have plenty of traffic?

>>688494
You can't really compare the issues of other boards when video games are so different a subject. See >>>/vr/3514207

>>688479
>/vr/ would change into something that it isn't now.
/vr/ was created to give consoles and games a space for discussion that they otherwise wouldn't have on /v/ or /vg/ due to their age, or because they're retro. To say that /vr/ was created specifically for games that fit a certain aesthetic is wrong given the diversity of threads and the fact that the board has made exceptions for 5th gen and dreamcast. Also the fact that modern "retro" games can't be discussed exemplifies how wrong that argument is.
>Threads about earliest gens would vanish
If space is an issue then just increase the amount of pages on the board and moderate against spam or "low quality" content. Adding 6th gen discussion to the mix won't stop people from being able to make threads about older gens.
>6th and 7th gen...could sustain a board with the speed of /vr/
I rarely see threads on /v/ about specific topics on those generations. Most of the time they're just based on general nostalgia. Also those that do are few (honestly MMBN is the only one that consistently gets 200+ replies), try making a psp thread or the like. Besides all that'll do is make another slow board and there's only so much that can be discussed about 2 gens compared to /vr/'s 4-5. Especially when a significant number of the games out in those generations were shovelware or yearly sequels.

>>688506
>Besides all that'll do is make another slow board
Are you saying that /vr/ is slow? Because it is nowhere near the slowest board. The pace of /vr/ is perfect. You can post in a thread before you go to sleep and know that you can continue the conversation the next day.

/v/ is the second fastest board. It's very difficult to have a lengthy and meaningful discussion about anything on /v/. I would love to talk about 6th gen games and probably some 7th gen too, but it's hard to get that done on /v/ and I feel very strongly that /vr/ isn't the right place for 6th or 7th gen.

If /v2k/ is made, I would be posting there and on /vr/ every day.

>>688503
I'm referring to boards being as active as /pol/, /o/ or /toy/. While slow discussions aren't bad I don't see a point in creating another /v/ board that'll be slower than /vr/ just because the board doesn't want to broaden what can be discussed.
As for why i think /v2k/ would be slower than /vr/, it's because the board won't have as much content to discuss. Compare 10 years to /vr/'s 20+ years.

>>688505
Speed of change doesn't differentiate video games from other media significantly enough to deserve a separate board. You don't see /tv/ clamoring for a board or throwing a shitfest because of the amount of discussion of black and white films, silent films, etc.
Also the reason that /m/ was mentioned was because they had a more valid reason to not want tokustatsu on their board given that it isn't mecha.
The point is that if /m/ didn't implode on itself by allowing tokusatsu then expanding the generations allowed on /vr/ should be a non issue.

>>688517
Whether or not /vr/ is slow isn't the issue. The issue is whether /v2k/ would have enough discussion to justify its existence given how many /v/ boards there already are.

>I feel very strongly that /vr/ isn't the right place for 6th or 7th gen
The original issue is whether or not 6th gen discussion should be allowed on /vr/. The reason that 7th gen is being brought up now is because people want to make it a part of /v2k/ to justify not allowing 6th gen discussion on /vr/. Otherwise the topic of 7th gen on /vr/ would be a non issue.
Anyways just because you don't feel as if though it belongs there doesn't justify preventing others from discussing 6th gen when in fact it's starting to get old enough to become retro. The point of /vr/ is to have a board where older (retro) generations can be discussed. Like it or not 6th gen will eventually be considered retro (it's already 10 years old) and it's already happening given how willing /vr/ is to allow the GBA.

File: 1264095063865.jpg (88KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x375px

>>688534
>retro

>>688528
>Compare 10 years to /vr/'s 20+ years.
Video games have steadily increased in popularity over the years. 10 years of recent games would easily generate as much discussion as 20+ years of older games.
>Speed of change doesn't differentiate video games from other media significantly enough to deserve a separate board.
Yes, it really does. There are stark technological jumps with video games every few years. Jumps in technology in other media have nowhere near the dramatic effect on what is actually produced in those forms of media. Compare a film from 1994 to one from 2004, then compare a video game from 1994 to one from 2004. You'll see what I mean.

>>688537
If we're going to use the word as it's meant then change the board name or rules to fucking "8-bit, 16-bit or indie sprite games and consoles" and create another bord to discuss older generations with a hard time limit on when generations can be allowed in, similar to /his/.

That way /vr/ drops all pretenses of being a place non-current generation discussion and can be nothing but nostalgia fellation. While the other hypothetical board (not /v2k/) can accommodate discussion for old-gens without having to have a need for the discussion we're currently having.

You can have your nostalgia board and at the same time have a board for old-generation discussion without having the need for stupid shit like /v2k/.

>>688534
>it's already happening given how willing /vr/ is to allow the GBA.
If you're talking about polls, it's far too easy introduce bias, either subconscious or intentional, into polls like that. They're also very easy to manipulate and would never be considered by the moderating staff in any decision. I would be saying this even if a poll were to favor my opinion. If you like, I can discuss the many ways that this type of polling is deeply flawed.

File: retro.png (352B, 106x44px) Image search: [Google]

352B, 106x44px

>>688551
>If we're going to use the word as it's meant
The sticky itself redefines the word.

>>688545
Video games in the 80s and 90s were as popular, difference is that the market was growing and triple-a titles weren't as prevalent. Also before you say otherwise pacman Fever was a thing and the vidya gaem crash was because there were too many vidya gaems.

>Jumps in technology in other media have nowhere near the dramatic egged on what is actually produced in those forms of media
You're right the advent of DVRs and streaming services definitely didn't affect the shift of episodic to serielized television. Certainly the prevailance of satellite feeds didn't affect how news coverage of the Vietnam war differed from that of WWII or other earlier wars. Those advances in technology certainly haven't changed how content is being produced in those fora of media.

>>688554
Then if we're basing retro off of dates wouldn't it make sense to expand the definition or simply introduce a rule like /his/ so we can cover all generations as they become "retro". That way we won't have to constantly have discussions about creating new boards for a specific generation?!

>>688562
We've had a busy week. We're not going to "constantly" have discussions about creating new boards. We're trying to make one new board with some future proofing.

>>688552
It's strawpoll, of course there'll be shenanigans.
The overall point of that was that what's retro to you isn't universal and as we get older the definition of retro will change. For a board that calls itself Retro Games it should be willing to adapt its definition to fit the changing trends. Even outside of the games the hardware itself can certainly start to be considered retro, especially the PS2, given how prevalent High capacity storage online connectivity and HD-media is.

>>688559
>Those advances in technology certainly haven't changed how content is being produced in those fora of media.
But how often do those advances occur, and are the chronological and technological lines between pre and post as clear as they are between video game console generations?

>>688564
Then refer to >>688551 for something better than /v2k/. You get a future proof board that is /vr/+6gen and you get a board to discuss non 32-bit games and hardware, along with shit that's inspired by 8 and 16-bit games like shovel knight (if you want).

That gives you a future proof board and a board that preserves /vr/'s culture.

>>688559
>nowhere near the dramatic egged
Wait, did you actually type out that greentext and make that typo? Did you not know that you can highlight text and click a post number to quote automatically?

>>688570
It's late, I'm posting from mobile and I don't feel like closing the reply box so cut me some slack.

>>688571
It's alright. Don't sweat it.

File: The soul looks at you with a troubled glare, like that of ZUN who must explain to his PC-98 character that her dreams of appearing in a windows game will never come true.png (33KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 200x200px

>>688332
/v/ currently has a posting rate of 188.9 posts-per-minute.
/vr/ currently has a posting rate of 6.58 posts-per-minute.

Do you really think /vr/'s discussion and atmosphere would be possible to keep alive to the tiniest degree on /v/?

>>688450
>he wants quests back on /tg/

Opinion discarded.

>>688569
>>688551
I don't think that would work. There's already a lot of bristling about lumping indie and "retro style" games in with actually old games. That would be a pain in the ass for posters and mods to parse, and there would be inevitable confusion and problems spanning both boards.

File: Consider-The-Following-random-31200159-500-500.jpg (37KB, 500x500px)

37KB, 500x500px

How about we just change /vr/ to /v99/ so everyone will shut up

>>689162
/vXX/ and /v2k/

20th century videogames

Videogames 2000