is it retro?

it was closer to 9/11 than we are now

People will continue to argue it's not, even though they're 17 years old.

>>386495231
PS1 was released in 2000, XBox and GameCube was released in 2001. People who played those consoles as children are now old enough to have graduated from college, are working full time, have income with which to spend on consumer goods, and are nostalgic for their childhood. Therefore they should be considered /vr/ material.

/vr/ says no

Despite what /vr/ says, yes.

It's not about whether or not the consoles are retro, it's about keeping out cancerous canvases. If you let 6th gen into /vr/ you're letting in
>Meleefags
>Halofags
>P3/4fags
>Hoennbabbies
>Sunshinefags
>TPfags
>WoWfags
>Runescapefags
>early Pcbros

>>386496076
>Valve d rones is filtered to Pcbros
What the actual fuck? Which Gaben cocksucker did this?

You don't lump the Silver Age of Hollywood into the Golden Age just because time has passed.

>>386495231
Ehh yes but they won't be allowed in /vr/ till like 2020 or something

>>386495231
No.

>>386495231
By the definition of retro, it has been for some time. Don't tell the autist hugbox of /vr/ this though.

>>386496189
Pcbros

File: 93101221990606.jpg (923KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 1024x682px

is it classic?

>>386496076
>>386495815
why is the dreamcast allowed then?
>>386495373
the 360 is 12 years old, so is the psp and i think the ds. those systems arent retro. how many years does a system need to be in order for it to be"retro" ? imo i think 6th gen isnt really retro because it pretty much laid the foundation for modern gaming. should it be added to /vr/? idk

>>386496409
Well fuck me, it does filter. Hiromoot confirmed PCfat.

>>386496189
Fucking bullshit
Pcbros
Val ve dro nes

File: Big_Boo_Artwork_-_Mario_Pinball_Land.png (230KB, 1838x1645px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1838x1645px

>>386495231
Retro is 8 and 16 bit. Once 3D rendering became the norm, we were in the modern era of games. Anyone that disagrees is a baby that thinks Super Mario 64 is more of a 3D Mario game than Super Mario 3D World is.

>>386496189
every console war insult is filtered retard

>>386496613
PS1 and PS4 are not part of the same era, you dumbfuck.

>every console war insult is filtered
>console warriors dont take the fucking hint

>>386496076
don't forget Kingdom Hearts manchildren

>>386496537
I would argue anything with the capability for entirely compressed audio in place of composed music played through a soundchip(synthesizer) is not retro.

>>386496886
Sonybro
Nintenbro
Xbot
PCbro
Pcbro

File: 1500983834218.png (167KB, 318x308px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 318x308px

>>386497002
>xbots being cucked this hard

>>386496537
>why is the dreamcast allowed then?
Died early on.

>>386497002
wait whats the differences between PC and Pc bro?

>>386496795
Sure are. There's no technological jump that can match that of the jump from 2D to 3D. Until such a revolutionary technology can happened, we're still in the same age. It just be refined.

Film had the same jump when it got sound. Color, film quality, and 3D didn't change how movies worked. Sound did. Just like 3D did for games.

It's the last pure era of gaming. It's not retro yet but it's on the cusp.

>Last generation where you purchased a game and it was complete, no DLCs, no patches, etc

Yes I know the Xbox and PS2 had a few online games but they were exceptions.

>>386497395
P.Cuck and Valve d.rone

>>386495373
nigga what?

>>386497410
Oh dear. That's such a sad and closed off way of looking at shit, my dude.

>>386497929
triangles.jpg

>>386497929
Wha-? It's just video game consoles, friend. Not that big a deal.

>>386497637
Good enough i guess

>>386497410
>Multiplayer services. E.g. Xbox Live and PSN
>Steam
>The DLC model
>F2P model
and on and on

These are all things that completely changed gaming and can define an era. You limiting eras solely to how many dimensions are being rendered is retarded.

>>386498217
I'm just glad I don't think in as limited a fashion as you and I don't mean that as an intelligence thing. I mean it's just super dull.

>>386496076
Every gen has its cancer, the only reason why you think that's more cancerous than any other gen's cancer, including your own cancer, is because of your own nostalgia goggles.

6th gen was the best gen anyway, and this is coming from someone who grew up in the 16-bit days.

>>386496207
That's not what retro means.

>>386495728
>PS1
>2000

>>386498361
>sega channel and satellaview
>battlenet
>expansion pack / rushed sequel / lock on cart
>free demo disc in mail or magazine
and on and on

These things have been here before, and they will be here again. Don't pretend that old is new and new is old, come back when you have proof of something new under the sun.

>>386498645
Not him but what cancerous discussion can you find on /vr/ except for Castlevania threads (sometimes)?

>>386498361
>Multiplayer services. E.g. Xbox Live and PSN
Online existed for years before those services. Also not all games use these services.

>Steam
That's more of a business/market innovation than anything that affect game design.

>DLC
Also, arcade revisions, pc game expansions, and even episodic releases. All of these did this before and while it can affect the game it hasn't been a positive thing overall

>F2P
This is another business/market innovation, not a foundation to how games are designed and how they work.

>>386498968
That's not the point. Just because /vr/ doesn't have it doesn't mean the cancer didn't exist make when all that shit was new. Inversely, all the cancer from the 6th gen won't necessarily invade /vr/ unless grognards start shitposting about it.

>>386498637
How so?

I think they might just barely qualify as retro. One more generation of consoles then i think there is little room for argument. For me personally these are not retro since most people will say retro consoles are what ever console they grew up on. For me it is the NES and the SNES.

25 years before something is considered retro/classic in my opinion. Remakes of movies, for example, should only happen after the original is 25 years old.

Even a game as old as Super Mario 64 (21 years) hasn't quite reached that retro benchmark.

>>386495231
More along the lines of vintage, since they're all pushing 20 now.

>>386499584
PS2 still got games well into the 2010s, hardly would consider that "vintage."

If you have to ask then probably not.

All those consoles came out in the 21st century, not retro at all

>>386500000

Depends.
1. What is the metric for "retro?"
2. So fuckin' what if it is?

>>386498217
>wha-?
you need to go back

>>386495815
They say no because it dilutes the purpose of the board, which is discussion of retro consoles and games. Even though early 2000s consoles and games are now technically retro, they do not have the retro feel or aesthetic.

If they started including early 2000s consoles just because they're old now then the board effectively becomes "/v/ for old stuff" and this, "/v/ for new stuff."
You can just discuss those consoles here.

>>386500657
Plus the further you go down the line, the more it's going to appeal to consolefags.

>>386500823
>the more it's going to appeal to consolefags.
The more the board is going to appeal to them, I mean. Last thing /vr/ needs is to become another console war board..

>>386495231
This generation was so based. Each console was it's own unique experience. Exclusives that were actually good and muliplats had cool shit like Soul Caliber having Link on GC, Heihachi on PS2, etc.

Videogames suck now.

>>386500657
>Even though early 2000s consoles and games are now technically retro, they do not have the retro feel or aesthetic.
Then the 5th generation should be banned as well. Retro style right now is still pixel, which means 4th gen and before. Until low-poly indy games outnumber pixel, 5th gen should be kicked out.

If hipster geek stuff is a part of popular culture then is it considered outdated or out of fashion? It cannot be retro if it is relevant in the popular culture. If the new atari console is not actually old but references aesthetics of the recent past then is it considered retro?

File: 20170807_172835-1.jpg (3MB, 2650x1836px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2650x1836px

No,
Retro doesn't mean old
It means retro.

>>386501483
Means out of style right?

>>386501414
>If the new atari console is not actually old but references aesthetics of the recent past then is it considered retro?
That's literally what retro style means.

File: feels.jpg (89KB, 322x800px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 322x800px

>>386495231
Soon

>>386501556
I can agree with that, we are talking the possible non "retrobox" full next gen atari system. It will be allowed on /vr/ and I'm ok with that.

>>386496247
They won't be allowed in /vr/ at all, 90s games only
Kinda like how someone who started browsing in 2015 will still be a newfag even if they've browsed for 20 years

>>386502057
Keep in mind the /vr/ definition of retro isn't actually retro style. If /vr/ was actually about retro style games, it would be talking about current-day pixel-based games like Sonic Mania or Undertale, not simply old games.

>>386501414
>>386501556
>>386502057
If retro means outdated then I'd have a hard time calling 6th gen retro. Only "outdated" thing there is graphics.

I consider the PS1 and older retro, everything else younger than that is classic.

>>386502716
It depends on your definition of outdated.

By the strictest definition, anything with any 3D graphics whatsoever shouldn't be considered /vr/ because, as mentioned, "retro" indy games and other throwbacks like Sonic Mania are pixel-based, not low-poly 3D. If you expand the definition to what today's adults played as children and are therefore nostalgic for, we're far enough along that 6th gen definitely qualifies. If you're simply saying "outdated", that's broad enough that everything prior to the current generation should be /vr/.

>>386502716
I agree, I think retro can be subjectively stretched to fit almost anyone's argument. It's neat to think about, but will probably never be objectively determined.

Anything pre-HDMI excluding the Wii is 'retro'.

>>386502445
This. I hope that they never allow anything past 5th gen in /vr/, keeping it pure.

>>386495728
Doesn't matter, 6th gen will never be considered retro.

>>386503404
PS2 could still be considered "in style" and snes/genesis are very very popular right now with rare game prices spiking in the past 3 years. Does society and culture determine what is retro or does time?

>>386496076
Don't forget
>CoDfags
>Silent Hillfags
>TimeSplittersfags
>SSXfags
>Primefags
>Disgaeafags
>DMCfags

>>386503749
>Does society and culture determine what is retro
Yes. Retro style is determined by what from the past is influencing modern trends. For video games, that's still the late 80s and early 90s.

>>386503570
It will be by 2020 when the PS3/360/Wii generation is considered childhood nostalgia for the young working class.

>>386503851
>influencing modern trends
Wouldn't that make those late 80's to early 90's video games "in style" thus not retro at all? If bell bottoms made a comeback could they still be considered retro?

>>386504441
"Retro style" doesn't mean old or outdated, it means something from the present which is consciously derivative of the past. For video games, that's still generations where pixel-based games were in style, because that's what almost all of the current retro style games are derivative of.

>>386496537
Dreamcast came out in 1998.
/vr/ is for systems made before 2000.
PS2 came out during the year 2000

>>386495231
I dunno why but there is something distinctly "retro" about the Game Cubes aesthetic.
Like I could imagine some faggot with a billiard table, a beater van, and a vinyl collection also having a Game Cube.

File: [FFF] Love Live! - 06 [BD][1080p-FLAC][78A34D5E].mkv_snapshot_14.45_[2016.07.28_22.37.38].jpg (237KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1920x1080px

>>386503778
>Silent Hillfags
>silent hill 1 was a PS1 game

File: 1488509080875.jpg (32KB, 545x362px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 545x362px

>the release of the dreamcast is closer to world war 2 than we are to the dreamcast

>>386504775
Sorry I was reading that retro was considered outdated, out of style, or new but referencing out of style or out of fashion aesthetics. I believe you that what you are saying could also be what retro means, but I disagree in that something does not have to be from the present in order to be retro.

Like contrarian and participation in popular fads should be mutually exclusive but I feel like this is now some doublereality and words don't mean much anymore.

>>386505290
What I'm saying is literally what the definition of retro style is. When you're describing something as retro style, you're referring to something in the present that is intentionally derivative of a style from the past. The /vr/ definition of retro should therefore be what current retro style games are derivative of.

>>386501232
I disagree. Early 3D is extremely dated looking, and screams "made in the 90s." Games like that simply don't exist anymore, and low-poly indie games are pale imitations.

>>386497825
The Xbox and GC came out 16 years ago. The PS2 17 years ago. The Dreamcast 18 years ago.

>>386496537
>why is the dreamcast allowed then?
Came out last century, and died soon after that.

The other three were alive until 2006, the PS2 arguably until like 2013 if you count FIFA.

>>386503778
>CoDfags
CoD didn't become the cancerous monster it's know as today until CoD4 or more specifically MW2, and that was 7th gen.

>>386505435
I kinda get what you are saying, but I don't think retro in terms of games should be based on indie revival fads. 8-track never had a revival but I would still consider it retro.

>>386495231
No, a console needs to be at least 20 years to be retro.

That's just me though.

>>386507096
What part of "this is the actual definition" do you not understand?

It just feels weird to me but the 6th generation doesn't really feel "old" compared to the other gens before it.

>>386496578
pcbros
nintenbros

>>386507421
Because it's the first gen to go full 3D, with detailed character models and environments.

>>386495231
>died in 2002
>died in 2012
>died in 2006
>died in 2005
These consoles are still too fresh to be considered retro except the dreamcast

>>386495231
i would say yes when the new xbox/ps5 comes out. Then it would be separated by two generations in between that one and the current

>>386507898
Define retro in a way that isn't just what your personal feelings are.

>>386496485
well a classic car from a legal perspective is defined as a vehicle that is at least 25 years old. So if its 25 years old than yes.

>>386507234
>Retro can be applied to several things and artifacts, for example, forms of technological obsolescence (such as manual typewriters, cash registers, and bulky hand-held cellphones)
>But on the other hand, many people (incorrectly) use the term to categorise styles that have been created in the past
I am trying to pin it down and it's difficult. You are saying only revived things can be considered retro.

>being the styles and especially the fashions of the past
Being means it imitates, or being means that it is authentically that style made from that time?

Jewish pianos and button phones can be retro style without a revival?

>>386508876
Holy shit, I hate that its true but I'm glad there is legal concrete determining factors in place to prevent a semantics fight. Now what about legal terms for classic computing?

File: 1487372787293.jpg (60KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 550x366px

>>386495231
>we are closer to 2030 than to 2003

>>386508942
The strict literal definition of a term is not always going to line up with the common colloquial definition. Most people use "retro" to refer to something that's old. The problem with this is everyone's personal definition is different, so there's no strict limit.

>>386508256
Dead for more than 15 years

>>386509608
That's fine, if I agree or not I'm just trying to hash this out. Are you of the belief that the definition implies a requirement of modern revivals?

>>386509892
Do you have an actual rational reason for that, or is that just your personal feelings?

File: Why sixth gen should never be retro.png (246KB, 852x754px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 852x754px

No.

>>386510272
>Persona 4
Oh fuck no. Keep that shit out of /vr/

>>386496076

yeah, but you let segafags in no problem and even let those faggot atari fanboys exist.

>It's not retro because I don't like the community

yeah, well, your dad isn't gay because he sucks dicks

>>386510001
If someone is going to define "retro" as it applies to older games, then it needs to have a definition with some strong basis behind it. The way I see it, there are two options:
- Define "retro" as a product from an era that inspires retro-style games being made today. This would encompass primarily 8-bit and 16-bit games, as low-poly 3D from the PS1/N64/Saturn era are not yet influencing current retro-style games to a large degree.
- The consumerist definition, which is to define "retro" as what the working class grew up with when they were children. The reason why this definition works is because people in their mid and late 20s are more likely to have graduated school and become established enough in their careers that corporations can appeal to their childhood nostalgia in order to sell games. Adults currently in college are exempted because they're not usually in a position where they can afford a large amount of nostalgia indulgences. If you use this definition, it would be everything up to the PS2/GCN/XBox definition, because the people who grew up with those consoles as adults are now in their mid-20s and qualify as working class adults.

The way I see it, there's no rational definition of "retro" that includes 5th gen but excludes 6th gen. It's both or neither.

>>386498968
shoot 'em ups, consoles, emulation. there's a lot of obnoxious elitism on /vr/ that never really gets called out desu.

File: 1496640006603.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>>386495728
>calling a dreamcast a PS1
>not even calling it a PSone

>>386510649
Some method of quantifying how obsolete the tech is could be interesting, but that would definitely be used to split 5th and 6th further apart.

>>386512650
Even how obsolete the tech is varies depending on what each person would consider relevant. PS3/360 for HDMI graphics and fully-online, app-based operating systems? XBox for XBox Live? PS1/Saturn for the replacement of cartridges with discs?

>>386495837
This,

>>386513439
Dreamcast for release/how long dead, or various limitations stemming from hardware components. one, the other, or both?

>>386495231
According to /VR/ only one of these consoles is retro. Reminder that PS2 completely lost online capabilities this year

>>386514217
>release/how long dead
This kind of criteria is subjective and constantly shifting as time goes on. "How long dead" shouldn't be considered either because then you have idiots saying the PS2 isn't dead because some poverty BRs were playing FIFA on it. By that logic the Dreamcast itself didn't die until 2015 because Germans kept making games for it.

>various limitations stemming from hardware components
This can work, but again it needs to be defined. What's the cut-off?

>>386495231
Considering my brother born in 1999 is 18, I'd say yes.

>>386517028
fuck off nufag