How far back do you guys personally consider retro?I kinda consider

Anything past the master system just isnt retro. Once handhelds were born retro gaming died.

>>2795839
Why do you feel that way anon? What changed about the games? Just curious.

File: tm4-4.jpg (69KB, 653x447px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 653x447px

>>2795839
>the sega saturn isn't retro

Stuff from before I hit puberty: retro
Stuff from after I hit adulthood: modern shit for casuals

GBA and Gamecube shouldn't really be retro as their last games have been produced not even a decage ago. They're borderline at most.

>>2795857
GBA was my first console and I bought it in 2007. I suppose it just feels retro to me as I was only a teenager back then.

>>2795860

"retro" and "nostalgic" are not synonyms

>>2795862
Yeah, nostalgia has large part to do with it but I feel the nostalgia is part of the retro. I co sided it retro mainly because of nostalgia and somewhat because it seems so long ago.

>>2795869

It's not

>>2795837
4th gen and under
Basically grew up on 3rd and 4th gen stuff but we're talking about systems from close to 25 years ago and games at the latest still being 18 years old, so that's quite some time ago that even most of the cheapest phones can run games that are graphically stronger than some of the best of that time.

>>2795871
Yeah, you're right but I can't escape the feels from it.

A system that is twice obsolete is retro to me. Games that are 10+ years old is also enough to be retro. I guess? I'd never draw a strong line by saying some borderline game "just doesn't feel retro" or not.

The "feeling of retro" has more to do with where and how people still discuss the games from that time period. Older games = less discussed, and discussed in smaller, specialized communities.

you guys can keep your opinions on what constitutes retro, I'm sure no one gives a shit

>>2795889

No, 6th gen and onward will never be retro. There's no ps2 aesthetic, anything from the 6th gen and onward will be considered modern.

Things can't be "retro" unless they're new.

Gen 5 is not retro. I wish these underage /v/ faggots would leave and take their Playstation threads with them.

>>2795908

If anything you're the faggot for not being here when the board was created

>>2795897
To you I guess. That point of view also seems to be incredibly dependent on there not more drastic departure in future generations.

If you don't care about people and communities, then it does make more sense though. To me, it is more about the period in time that gradually leaves people's memories and discussion topics.

>>2795908
>>2795914

The OP asked what you "personally consider" as retro. Not what you consider as suitable for /vr/ discussion rules. Lets not shit up the thread by starting THAT pointless debate again.

>>2795924
Thanks anon.

>>2795924
>only im allowed to complain about posters on /vr/

Anything after 4th gen that is still considered playable by anyone under the age of 25 isn't retro.

>>2795837
I absolutely consider GBA, PS2, GCN, and Xbox retro.

>>2795837
2003.
Something about 2003 just says "end of the golden age"

>>2796128
that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard

>>2795837
I personally think of "retro" as a sliding scale and not a set in stone point in time.

For example, the SNES AND PSX are both seen as retro now, but back when the PSX was brand new, the NES was seen as retro, and the SNES wasn't at all. It wasn't until the Dreamcast and PS2 hit the scene that SNES got that definition change.

So, my personal way of looking at things is that you have to have one complete generation between the current point in time, and the point at which something becomes "retro".

So for example, right now I'd say that the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube and GBA are all retro at this point in time. But nothing newer than that.
Once the PS5 comes out (in what? 7 more years?) then the PS3 will be retro.

But that's just me.

>>2796130
>ps2 is retro despite having better looking games than ones coming out in 2015

This board has actually defined my sense of retro. It wasn't something that I really thought about before, but pre-1999 platforms feel like a good cutting-off point and it's what I use off 4chan too.

>>2796137
>thinking that's a relevant criticism
there's plenty of shit to complain about but jesus

>>2795837
Anything pre-360 is retro. Fuck this board. Elitist garbage. "Hurr durr not retroooo" fuck off. PS2 is retro as hell at this point.

>>2796147

You should probably look up what words mean

Twenty years and older works for me.

I'm okay with /vr/ standards but I'd exclude DC. I like the console, but the shitpost about what everyone consider to be or not to be retro don't worth it. So, 5th gen and 99' games on pc.

>>2796168
I very much prefer a rolling 15 years instead of 20, but I wouldn't be completely against 20 if it meant we weren't just at the arbitrary mercy of the mods to decide the cutoff.

20 instead of 15 would force some discussions to wait 5 years to take place here instead of /v/ though, and that's a little extreme. Imagine Dreamcast having to wait until 2018 to be discussed here, when we've been just fine talking about it already.

>>2796186

/v/ still has PS2 game discussions, the day /vr/ accepts PS2 is the day it's no longer /vr/ but just slower /v/

>>2796191
So /vr/ is just "stuff /v/ doesn't talk about any more?" I don't like the idea of this board being at the mercy of that one. We should be able to claim what we think qualifies. After all, they can and do talk about retro games on their noisy-ass board all they want too.

I'm okay with /vr/'s sense of retro, though in my personal opinion GBA should also be allowed (since it's basically a portable SNES).

As for the people who think retro should be a sliding scale, I said it before; consider the following, classical music is still the music of Mozart and Beethoven, the Beatles aren't considered classical music just because they're old. Same thing with retro video games, they're not only defined by age, but also by certain design conventions, philosophies and zeitgeist that games from the sixth generation onwards lack.

>>2796198

They don't

You could talk about retro games on /vg/ or /b/ or /r9k/ or /trash/ too but those aren't made for specifically retro games. PS2 isn't retro and never will be retro, it will simply be old similar to how the iphone 1 will never be vintage computing.

How about a compromise on the rolling eligibility cutoff, if 15 years seems too short and 20 years seems too long?

18 years.

When a system turns legal, it graduates and becomes retro. We celebrate its birthday and graduation here on the board with a party.

For "eternal" platforms, aka PC and mobile, only games 18 or older would be allowed.

I also think retro-styled modern games should be allowed in exactly ONE thread on this board, the /fakeretro/ general. Any bleeding out into the rest of the board would be dealt with in the form of deletion by the mods.

Opinions?

>>2796232
I think that's a dumb idea because >>2796227 is right, it's not just about age. There's a massive gap between 5 and 6 and most people already think 5 is barely eligible

>>2796227
So do you endorse the idea of getting rid of PS1, Saturn, N64, and Dreamcast? Because the core design paradigms behind the majority of those games persist to this day.

>>2796228
Do you endorse the idea of PS2, GCN, Xbox, and GBA never having home board? They will just stop being talked about on /v/ and we will never accept that they have become retro?

I don't want to make any egotistical mistakes of "what we consider retro now will be retro forever." That would get real old, real fast. Future generations will not put up with that bullshit.

What board will exist for for systems not currently considered /vr/ in the future?

/vr2/ - Retro 2?
/slvr/ - Slightly Less Retro?
/nqvr/ - Not Quite Retro?

>>2796243
>Do you endorse the idea of PS2, GCN, Xbox, and GBA never having home board?

As long as it's not /vr/ I don't care. /vr/ is pre-2000s

It'll be another 5-10 years before people stop talking about PS2 and GCN regularly anyway.

File: laughing skelebones.gif (2MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x270px

>>2795837
>How far back do you guys personally consider retro?
1999

>>2795857

it feels retro to me because it feels so much like a portable snes

not like we got a bunch of twin-stick shooters on it

probs some atari dads out there who don't think snes is retro

and some pinball grampas who don't think nes is retro

>>2796262
I'm telling you guys, plan for the future as if our current perspective isn't the permanent basis of history's definition of retro.

I don't think there's any way that PS2 remains in some permanent limbo of ambiguity where it's never considered retro but somehow Dreamcast is.

Or we can just keep treating this board as some kind of stagnant, overly specific nobelty that should never evolve. Imagine /tvr/ or /mur/. Someone mentioned "slow /v/." Well, yeah, exactly. We kinda do only exist because /v/ is too fast and meaningful retro discussion has nowhere to exist. But if the board never evolves, it will eventually lose significance.

>>2796305
>Or we can just keep treating this board as some kind of stagnant, overly specific nobelty that should never evolve.

It's about retro games, aka games and systems from 1999 and earlier. You might as well ask /toy/ to start talking about video games or /po/ to start talking about scale models

>>2796130

I agree with you.

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 is going to start looking pretty damn retro when our kids are accustomed to every game being 3d VR with head tracking.

>it's 480i
>you play it on a 2D screen
>only two sound channels
>only 1d rumble tactile output
>PSdads WILL defend this

Even the early VR's going to seem retro at some point >2035 >still playing PHOTON based games once input and output's all done by some sort of weird brain helmet that seems like lucid dreaming.

I think it's fine if they want to keep this board fixed at 1999, I just hope they open up a new board for us at some point once the 9th gen comes out or VR gets like 90% market penetration.

I actually think a logical separation point would be 2d retro (NES autists), 3d retro, and then /v/ can have all the VR stuff

>>2796130

I agree. I think it's fine if they want to keep /vr/ fixed at 1999, i just hope they open us up a new board at some point once /v/'s moved completely on to VR/mind-helmet/holodeck whatever.

I actually would support pushing back /vr/ to snes and earlier, and spinning off early 3d into it's own board.

My personal definition of retro is "can't buy it at Gamestop"

>>2796318

THPS3 is a PS1 game making it fall under /vr/ only PC has the 1999 cut off for games. You could talk about a NES game that came out in 2015 if you wanted to

>>2796326
>I actually would support pushing back /vr/ to snes and earlier, and spinning off early 3d into it's own board.

Great way to completely kill 5th gen except the most surface level stuff like Majora's Mask

It's not like 4th gen didn't have early 3D either

>>2796314
Well that's a problem of definition. To you, retro only means pre-2000 and that's all it will ever mean. I don't think so, and I think the classical music analogy falls flat when you look at evolutionary differences between generations. The difference between Dreamcast and PS2, or SNES and GBA, is absolutely nothing like the difference between classical music and 60s rock.

>>2796339

because classical and rock are totally different things

>>2796341
Exactly, and DC and PS2 aren't.

>>2796348

If you have a problem with the DC being included go reply to the sticky

>>2796350
1. I don't
2. I get the joke

Anyway I am advocating a rolling cutoff where there is a predictable schedule of eligibility to be discussed here. I think it would be interesting, relevant, and fun to do it that way. To me, Xbox is already retro.

>>2796390

Well too bad I guess lol

>>2796396
I expect that we'll continue along the current stupid trend of having the mods decide what is retro. GBA will eventually be added for sure, and I strongly expect PS2 as well.

The one year delay after adding PS2 and before adding GCN and Xbox will be funny. Another year of this kind of meta discussion.

>>2796390
we already have that. once the ps5 is released the ps2 will be retro. once the ps6 is out, ps3 will be retro.

GBA will probably be allowed soon, since it will be more than 15 years old

There's a lot of before and afters in gaming, shit that changed the industry so much it made it barely unrecognizable.
>Before and after the nes
>Before and after the psx
>Before and after the wii
I grew up with the pre-psx stuff mostly gen 3 and 4 so anything past that is underage crap to me.

>>2796428
if you're on /vr/ for purely nostalgic reasons I feel bad for you

>>2796432
why

>>2796441

Wanting to relieve your childhood just seems pathetic to me

>>2796445
what can I say I'm /r9k/ tier pathetic myself

>>2796425
I do get the gist of what they're doing, but it means retro is based on the release of modern plaforms instead of the old ones in question, and I disagree with that a bit. What if modern lifecycles change significantly?

A fine wine doesn't wait for other things to happen, it ages on its own timetable. I'd enjoy talking about GBA and 6th-gen games here. To me, they are old enough.

I'm of the opinion that if someone thinks that the PS4 will ever be "retro" they don't deserve to be on /vr/

>>2796471
Yeah, the video game industry will be doomed to extinction before that ever happens.

>>2796457
games are programs, 1s and 0s don't age, you can't compare a videogame to a wine that way

>>2796471
this guy thinks the world is gonna end

>>2795837
I sort of consider 6th gen retro. I mean, it was the last generation where standard definition TVs were the norm, online play was optional, microtransactions were unheard of, and games actually shipped in a finished state most of the time. There were a fair number of games that were closer to "modern" titles than 5th gen titles, but there were also a number that were basically just like 5th gen games with improved graphics and cameras.

Sixth gen was kind of weird because it was basically a big turning point. I consider it to be the last great generation of gaming, and frankly, I think /v/ is a terrible place to discuss it. It should be allowed here simply because people here seem to be more willing to talk about GBA and PS2 games than Fallout 4 or whatever polished turd the-13 year-olds obsess over nowadays.

>>2796675

/vr/ isn't your secret hideout from /v/ to talk about PS2 games

>>2796675
>gen6 is retro because it's feels like gen5
But gen 5 itself is barely retro

>>2796693
>But gen 5 itself is barely retro

As someone who jerks off to gen 5 daily I agree. There's not really a term for "transitional retro" but if there was I'd consider late 90s PC and 5th gen to be that.

>>2796679
Have you ever been to /v/? It's fucking shit. I just want a good place to discuss 6th gen, and so do tons of other people. That gen was my fucking childhood.

>>2795837
i just got schooled in this today, read the fucking sticky, I don't agree with it, I think if a graduating high school senior was in a single digit age when a system came out, it's fucking retro. The mods say it's 1999 or previous. But whatever I won't argue because the system more or less works.
tl;dr according to the sticky GBA is not retro no matter how hard you try. Sorry.

>>2796756
isn't there a pokemon board that they made to try to fuck over 420cham?

>>2796756
>>2796807
here it is have fun
>>>/vp/

>>2796812
>>2796807
When I said 6th gen I didn't mean Pokemon, I meant the GCN / PS2 / OG Xbox console generation.

>>2796820
oh yeah well nothing I can do about that, you're fucked for another few years until the mods decide to yield to popular opinion(HAHAHAHAHAAAAA yeah fucking right like that EVER happens)

>>2795837
>How far back
As far back as the NES. Anything before that isn't retro.

>>2796694
>transitional retro
>trans retro
>mtf pre op lesbos edition

How the fuck did it get to this /vr

For me, the GBA feels a lot more retro than it actually is, mainly because I got mine right after they launched and quickly moved onto PC gaming after, so it was basically the last system I ever had as a blissfully ignorant kid.

>>2796914
It's almost a portable SNES. It's pretty retro.

>>2796326
>My personal definition of retro is "can't buy it at Gamestop or GAME"
this anon speak the truth

File: 662552-battlezone-arcade-screenshot-take-this.png (9KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 640x480px

>>2796326
>early 3d
Shut the fuck up, asshole. So fucking tired of retards calling PS or N64 "early 3D". This is what "early 3D" looks like. It was over a decade before your bullshit.

File: ME0000162727_2.jpg (15KB, 240x160px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x160px

>>2796227
>since it's basically a portable SNES
Only with a much more powerful processor, much more advanced video modes, considerably more cartridge space and an entire different sound architecture. Apart from all these things, making the GBA an entirely different fucking system, it's basically the same.

>>2795837
I feel the GBA is kind of retro-ish.
It came after 2000, sure, but it's pretty much like a Gen 4 home console as a portable.
Plus, it had a bunch of Gen 4 and some Gen 3 console games ported to it.
It also had compatibility with Gameboy and Gameboy Color games.

I mean, it's not outright retro I suppose, but it's retro enabling, if that makes any sense.

>>2795839
Geriatric pls go

>>2795897
Literally opinions.

>>2795908
You should just kill yourself.

>>2796009
That's a dumb measurement.

>>2796186
>I very much prefer a rolling 15 years
I'd second this.

>>2796250
I don't think /vr2/ would be such a bad idea either, there we could talk about older, but not really old games, stuff between 2000 and 2010, and then eventually roll the dates at some points.

>>2796326
No, I think 5th should still stay in here, because a lot of 4th gen still lingers on 5th gen.

>>2796445
This, I'm here for the games themselves.
I never grew up with a Genesis and now and poking through it's library (as well as the 32X I suppose), with an emulator. It's not at all about childhood.
I mean, there's SOME nostalgia which I partake in on this board, but I think the actual games themselves are more important.

>>2796756
Yeah, it would be nice to have a place where you can discuss just sort of old games without the constant diarrhea typhoon of /v/.

>>2797207
This is also fun to point out to people who says that anything with 3D or anything that came after 3D isn't retro.
Because they're faggots.

>>2797210
I think he means more in the terms of the GBA's library.
Yes it's stronger and more capable, but look at the kind of games it had.

File: 43299262f8c29baa164271275bf4058e.jpg (132KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 736x552px

>>2796471
>HUUUUUUUH DAMN KIDS AND THEIR ROCKING ROLL!
>THEY DON'T KNOW RESPECT, THEY DON'T KNOW REAL MUSIC
>GET OFF MY LAWN
>BACK IN MY DAY...
I fucking hope PS4 gets let in some day just to make you angry.

I'm picturing you seething with anger and tears as you turn on your 2600 (with a cracked casing), and the glow of your old 10" wood-framed CRT with a damaged tube fills your dark living-room with the (discolored) glow of whatever shovelware tier game you grabbed from an old dusty cardboard box.

"Fucking kids, they don't know, they just don't KNOW! They play SNES games! They play Playstation games! They have the GALL to come to MY board and talk about EMULATION!"
"It's all those internet people, all those angry nerds and punks and what not, in MY day, nerd was an insult! YouTube ruined videogames!"

And the kicker is that you're barely 5 years older than the average poster on /vr/ so it's all really bizarre, unsettling and pitiful.

>>2797207
i understand your frustration mate but there's not much you can do about it without coining a good term for playstation/saturn/n64 era 3D

Fifth-gen 3D?
Low-poly 3D?
Early gpu-based 3D?

>>2795860

GBA is basically a retro machine in the sense that it`s library is mostly ports and remakes of retro games.

>>2797304
Or sequels and spinoffs to 4th gen console games that have a very similar style of gameplay and visuals.

Compare Super Metroid (SNES) to Metroid Fusion or Metroid Zero Mission (GBA).

>>2796287
>atari dads
Gonna start using this to describe grognards on this board.

File: jpg.jpg (752KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 1920x1080px

There are differences between 5th and 6th gen games besides age. PS2 games are still being re-released for the PS4. They're identical to the PS2 versions, but with better textures and slightly smoother polygons. PS1 games do not get this "remaster" treatment. For many 5th gen games, it would be impossible to do because they rely so heavily on pre-rendering.

>>2797278
fifth-gen 3D, since that whole mess is entirely a console issue.

PC gaming had a much smoother transition and did polygonal and textured 3D earlier and more gradual. Primary reason is not that PC gaming is better (it isn't), but that PC gaming visuals are almost entirely software rendered, with graphics modes that allow per pixel access. It lead to polygonal engines, voxel engines, raycasters, hybrids and much more.

Low-Poly 3D is also wrong, because, again, stuff has been done much earlier. BattleZone also happens to be low poly.

GPU-based 3D is misleading, since DOS was pulling the same and better visuals without GPU support.

>>2797304
As much as I would love to have a place to discuss PS2 stuff, the very least they could do is allow GBA discussion on here, because it was for most intents and purposes essentially a portable 4th gen console.

>>2797359
Sad that a lot of the raw files for the pre-rendered backgrounds are probably either lost or so old as to be unusable

Be great to have HD versions of Resident Evil or FF games where the backgrounds have been re-rendered in 1080p or higher and the character models updated a bit

>>2797420
They'd need complete re-rendering anyway. The number of polys on even high end renderfarms was nowhere near what it is now on toasters in real time and that doesn't even go into the advancements in lighting and shaders. There are prerendered room escapes in flash that look better than psx prerendering.

>>2797435
higher resolution would be sufficient for starters, to avoid the clash of the polygonal characters and the prerendered backgrounds, when playing on higher resolution

>>2797435
I also want them to distribute the game with the raw files and a renderer, without the backgrounds rendered. Then when you install the game for the first time it renders all of the backgrounds to your preferred resolution

I want a 20 hour install time that slowly cooks your computer

>>2797442
Modern GPUs can render these backgrounds in realtime

>>2797447
Sure they can in terms of raw polys, but will they be able to raytrace the scenes authentic to the original renderer?

>>2797450
The workstations used weren't particularly powerful, which is what took so long. The shit some people are doing real-time is almost indistinguishable from the render at this point.

>>2797450
No need to raytrace (although it's a feasible option). Rasterizing and pixel shading can pick up the slack just fine. Keep in mind, these backgrounds are static. You have easily over half a second to render the image, that's 15-30 realtime frames. Depending on how you implement the engine, you get several seconds to render such a background (render every background that can be reached from the current location into off-screen targets)

>>2797456
Most of the backgrounds in FF are FMV at 6 fps. The real problem isn't whatever rendering and baking you're doing with the background, but how insanely high poly and full of lighting physics the character models have to be to come close to matching it. I have a feeling there were more grafix in jill and a few zombies than there was in the entirety of mario sunshine at once.

>>2797465
>I have a feeling there were more grafix in jill and a few zombies than there was in the entirety of mario sunshine at once.

you mean for REmake?

>>2797465
looping FMVs, no? So you could render all frames to RAM. Not like you need that space for other things. As for the character models, I wouldn't sweat it, really. The resolution clash is the biggest issue. The old lighting models are actually fairly basic, we're pulling much crazier shit in shaders nowadays. And we have historic examples, like Resident Evil, that show devs do know how to skillfully combine prerendered backdrops and interactive characters

>>2796318

KEK

>thinking VR will actually take off

And early VR is already retro, VR has been around since the early 1990s.

It failed then, and it will fail this time too, it's a fucking gimmick.

https://youtu.be/SP8wSw4bBuA

>>2797480
Touch screen gaming isn't a new concept either.

>>2797435
>>2797420
I'd rather they'd just keep it the same res for pre-rendered stuff. A lot of that worked because of lowres,

Look at the monsters in Duke Nukem 3D, they kinda work, they're pre-rendered, and then turned into sprites which they worked over.
But have you seen close-ups of the original models? They're smooth and plasticy as shit, it looks really weird and ugly. The Duke3D monsters benefit from being the resolution they are, and would look atrocious if redone with the same models at a higher resolution, and would require substantial reworking to achieve a similar effect. Hell, Duke himself just barely look passable.
Or hell, look at Shadow Warrior, they actually used a substantially larger sprite for Lo Wang (but scaled down in levels), and you can really see how awkward and chunky/segmented and stiff his unnaturally smooth body looks.

This same logic can be applied to a lot of games with pre-rendered graphics, you really don't want to see all this stuff in greater detail, everything looks unpleasantly smooth and waxy.

Now, if it's a 3D rendered game like Resident Evil 4, they just improved resolution and touched up the textures (I think), and that's fine, it wouldn't have the same jarring effect.

>>2797610
the waxy plastic look is a result of the shading algorithms used back then, because they thought they're cool. It is not an artifact of prerendering

>>2797625
I still don't really want a look that clear and closeup of those models, them being turned into lowres sprites is the only way they looked good.

>>2796425
you assume the mods will use logic, you are an idiot

File: Screenshot_2015-11-15-18-05-24.png (190KB, 768x1280px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 768x1280px

>>2795862
Hate to tell you this anon, but...

>>2797751
The concept of nostalgia is linked to retro, but the bittersweet desire for things, persons and situations of the past has an ironic stance in retro style. Retro shows nostalgia with a dose of cynicism and detachment. It is said that the desire to capture something from the past and evoke nostalgia is fuelled by dissatisfaction with the present.

>>2797756
But most commonly “retro” is used to describe objects and attitudes from the recent past that no longer seem “modern.” It suggests a fundamental shift in the way we relate to the past. Different from more traditional forms of revivalism, “retro” suggests a half ironic, half longing consideration of the recent past; it has been called an “unsentimental nostalgia”, recalling “modern” forms that are no longer current.

Things that make me throw a temper tantrum on the internet: not retro
Everything else: retro

DreamCast isn't retro

>>2797779
why?

>>2795857
First games were made in like 01 though.

>>2795839
>Super Nintendo and Genesis aren't retro

You got some splaining to do.

>>2797761
Yeah, so basically what you're saying is that nostalgic and retro are synonyms.

I agree. So does every thesaurus I could be bothered to check. So at least one.

>>2797847
that paragraph actually explains how they're not exactly synonyms, although closely related terms. Especially
>it has been called an “unsentimental nostalgia”
suggests that retro is an aspect or a variant of nostalgia. That in turn means, nostalgia is a broader term, including concepts that are not retro.

ITT a whole bunch of people who didn't read the sticky

>>2797779
sticky
read it you pleb, dreamcast is the one exception of that gen that is retro

Looks like this thread was a lot of trolling, so I skimmed it.

I hear people say (and partially agree) that anything 360 or later feels a lot different. It's not relevant to /vr/ retro purposes, but I would personally argue that anything before the 360 can be considered, in a way, 'retro'.

But why? What makes everything feel so different after ~2006? Was it the jump to HD? Online play? A very strong imitative to push videogaming into new markets with things like the Wii and rotating yearly FPS releases? All of the above?

>>2797862

he asked what the posters consider retro, not what the anonymous mod considers retro.

>>2797870
For me, as an outsider (don't own consoles) a major change I perceived is online access, which lead to two primary changes:
- banana software, games delivered in an incomplete or buggy state, to be field-tested by customers, and maybe patched later. This makes the initial game experience a bit of a mess
- social integration. That's chat, friend lists, achievements, stats sharing, video sharing and so on.

Before these changes, games used to be a more complete and local experience, with multiplayer being people in the same room, sharing not just a game, but also snacks and community.
Especially the social integration is a game changer (pun intended) because a side effect was publishers actually taking advantage of peer pressure and cliques. Players would have to have certain games, to not feel left out, and the proof was right there in the gamer's profile/score. Games put a literal price tag on exclusiveness, be it physical items, or unique in game items. It communicates to the player that their wallet is more important than their entertainment, and leaves a bit of an aftertaste.

>>2797882
Would you say that being able to do post release patches on consoles subsequently influenced PC publishers/developers to adopt the same strategy? It technically was possible for them to do things like that well before xbox live was even a thing, but steam did happen to come abouts around the same time xbox live did.

And on the social aspect, I know that for some people video games were a more isolated thing before online play. Yes you had multiplayer and you could be social, but it was very easy to not be social as well. Now most games have online aspects, and outside of that there's stuff like steam (as a social platform) and twitch and what have you.

>>2797898
I don't think the console ability for post release patches influenced PC pubs/devs. What influenced them much more was more widely available network access. In the mid/late 90s patches were distributed through CD-ROMs, which was still awkward, or as part of mission disks. When online became a thing, patches happened more frequently. Steam just automated the process.

The social aspects for me are really two-fold. Yes, there's the superficial aspect of friends and multiplayer and stuff. While annoying, it's managable. What bothers me far more is the sinister underlying mechanics of achievements and peer pressure. Games are played for the gamer score, not for the game itself. It's a strategy by publishers, because it massively increases the attach rate, regardless of game quality

>>2795837
Everything prior to 9/11 of course.

>>2797870
What the hell are you even talking about gen 6 and 7 feel like the same fucking crap, there's a clear natural progression between the two.

>>2798094
>not pre-Columbine vs. post-Columbine

>>2798134
there were no video games pre-Columbine. There wasn't even the USA, or America, pre-Columbine

File: saber-vidya.jpg (218KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1280x1024px

>>2797910
>>2797898
>>2797882
>>2797870
I think online kind of changed console gaming a lot.
I'm not opposed to it, I like that games can be patched if a problem is discovered but I strongly oppose what companies like Bethesda does and release unfinished, buggy as fuck games, throw on some band-aids, then basically fucking the console players because the PC players have the possibility of repairing their broken game with mods. It's just a shitty way of treating your customers.

I like DLC when it's proper, like when it's an actual expansion pack where they've actually made and worked on a lot of content after release and actually sell it for a reasonable price as an addition to your game. I hate it when a shitty publisher like EA actually cuts out content from the base game and sells it afterwards, or even worse, when the content of that "DLC" is already on your disk or hard-drive, but they make you pay money to unlock it.

I think modern consoles connecting to online services can be really useful and good, and I'm not even talking about multiplayer, (I never play online), but like how Nintendo sells old videogames on their Virtual Console service, basically selling you a ROM for cheap (compare how you can buy Earthbound on VC for a couple of dollars VS how a real SNES cartridge costs over 100 dollars on the used market), and you can play it on a modern console with their built in emulator (I think Sony and Microsoft does this as well, but not quite on the same scale), we just have to put up resistance against shitty companies like EA, and reject bad business practices.

>>2798117
In some ways yes, in other ways no.
Gameplay was getting a lot more similar to 7th gen, but a lot of business practices that are common today hadn't happened yet.

>>2797882
That pretty much sums up why I feel 6th gen should be allowed here. It was the last good generation of gaming before always-online crap and lame business practices ruined it.

>>2798525
I don't think it'll get allowed here anytime in the near future at least. While it's different from newer games, it'd also drag in more posters, and /vr/ is pretty decent like it is.

>>2798139
I was afraid someone would go that route but I bet against it

>never bet against the odds of someone making the bad joke

>>2798568
I hope you learnt a valuable lesson today

>>2798726
Somehow I feel doomed to forget. My joke was pretty horrible too, to begin with.

File: nwah.png (604KB, 1007x534px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 1007x534px

>>2798525
>ruined it
It certainly has taken a dip in some regards, but I still think there's good games being made. I thought Far Cry 3 was pretty damn good (but then, me and my brother got it for free from PSN, so that's an even sweeter deal).

There's really one very important thing you just gotta consider these days to not get fucked: Don't buy a game on launch.

For one, some companies will just release a buggy game. If you wait a year, there'll be a couple of patches. There might also be some DLC, go see if anything that interests you came out, and whether or not you think it'd be worth it.

For another, the game will have gone down in price over time, you'll save money.

Fallout 4 is all the rage right now, and it looks like it'll be fun, but I'm not gonna buy it now. Bethesda has AWFUL programmers, (and AWFUL animators).
They're gonna patch it a little, maybe SORT OF fix some really terrible memory issues, but not much, they're gonna stop patching it, and the game is gonna have a bunch of bugs. So if I get it now, on console, I'll eventually be stuck with a game I'm not wholly satisfied with.

I'm gonna save up for a new computer, and I'm gonna go pick up a copy of Fallout 4, long after all the DLC is done, then I'm going to go to the Nexus and get all the fixes and patches made by fans (which Bethesda REALLY should do themselves), as well as put in all the sexy girls and all the guns I want.

Morrowind is one of my all time favorites, but in it's original state, it's HORRIBLY broken, it has all sorts of glitches and memory issues (a lot which were REALLY retarded and even a novice programmer should have caught them).

Several years after it's done and released, fans have made a Code Patch, which fixes ALL the engine problems. Morrowind is INFAMOUS for crashing to desktop, but with the Code Patch, it NEVER crashes anymore, no matter how big and bloated your savefile becomes.

the people asking for 6th gen seem to actually want /nostalgia/ which isn't the point of /vr/

>>2798790
Now I'm curious what the point of /vr/ is to you, and why you believe that.

>>2798790
I'd say they want old game discussion without all the tweens or cancerous generals. This place is a little dead and the rehashed topics are unforgivable when you can leave for months and not tell the difference.

3D games cannot be retro.

>>2798834

>>2797319

It's odd to me. I had an easier time considering Super Mario World and Street Fighter II retro in 2005 than I have considering GTA3 retro in 2015.

Must be because GTA3 doesn't use pixel graphics

>>2798768
>Don't buy a game on launch
Look at the last couple years of marketing, and you can see a clear shift to increasing the perceived value of a game at launch. Hype campaigns, pre-order or launch exclusives. To me it seems as if publishers are scared shit-less of their own lackluster quality, and try to trick people into parting with their money before they see the mess they bought. So I'm staying far away from it.
I'm not sure you're doing yourself a favor by buying Fallout 4 at all, as it's still a support of that broken development model, but that's something you got to decide for yourself.

Does /v/ ever have threads about gamecube? I've browsed before but it was all modern and rubbish. There is something about that system that feels 'retro'.

File: spittake-1.gif (199KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 200x200px

>>2798995
>doesn't use pixel graphics

The hell kinda monitor do you have?

Something primarily developed in the 90's or earlier. Release dates don't really factor in to me, plenty of 2000/2001 releases are really '90's games'.

>>2795850
What about everything inbetween?

>>2798834
Shut up, nerd.

>>2799029
The thing is, for all the terrible code, for all the awful design decisions, for the typically FUCKING STUPID writing and plot (which isn't everywhere and not always as bad as Fallout 3), I enjoy the worlds Bethesda builds (for all their flaws). It's fun enough sandbox games.

Also, I can buy a used copy or pirate it.

>>2798814
I sort of wonder the same thing. While I didn't really catch the 8/16-bit generations in their heyday (or much of the 32-bit generation for that matter), I still have nostalgia for them because I grew up often playing older consoles and emulators, even though I really started getting into gaming around the beginning of 6th gen.

>>2798815
Amen to that, brother. While I like the more relaxed pace of /vr/ compared to other boards, I do get tired of seeing the same discussions over and over. Allowing 6th gen would breathe some new life into this board, and give a lot of people the opportunity to discuss some of their all-time favorite games, myself included.

>>2798768
When I mentioned "lame business practices", releasing games in an unfinished, unstable state is one of the things I meant.

>>2797245
Thanks for the pasta, senpai.

>>2799289
It's not pasta, I wrote it on the spot, desu

>>2799068
I suppose he says about the time when consoles were primarily 2D-dedicated hardware, e.g. the 4th gen.
To be honest, it makes me more sense as a retro/non-retro border, because the 5th gen is the gen when new, modern means of gaming appeared.

I consider everything up to and including 6th gen retro (except the XBOX, fuck that faggoty brodude-spawning piece of shit).

For me retro isn't an age but a feeling. I consider many of the best games on the PS2 and GC retro, or at least having more in common with retro games than modern games despite being 3d. /vr/ tells me I'm wrong for that though.

If the console can create 3D polygon graphics under its own power, it's not retro.

For PC games, I think the before 2000 rule is fine.

File: NOT_VR.png (3KB, 159x200px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 159x200px

>this fucking thread

There are established rules on this board that do not need changing. GBAbabbies fuck off and stop making these threads, GBA ain't retro. Get used to it.

Mods, Janitor do your fucking job and delete this thread that has no place being here you fucktards.

>>2800256
>GBAbabbies
>m-mods, do your job!
>implying the mods pay attention to /vr/

>>2800256
Can you reword that with some explication of your opinions without sounding so assblasted?

>>2800243
>SNES isn't retro
>Genesis isn't retro

>>2800261
The panicking happens because once upon a time, they actually did quite a lot.

Janitors eventually either got removed or stopped caring somewhere around Moot leaving IIRC.

>>2800269
There was a palace purge before that which killed off a lot. Them irc logs are hilarious.

>>2795837
Maaan Pokemon Ruby was my jam!! I remember being so addicted to it! then dad got mad and broke my gameboy
never played any pokemon game ever since

also what this guy said >>2795850

>>2796137
>pier solar

>>2800256
Fuck off, oldfag. If the GBA isn't retro, then what the fuck is it? It sure as hell isn't modern, that's for sure.

>>2800256
>GBAbabbies
Ataridads.

>>2795837
It varies. I kinda view retro in phases. Playstation and SNES are very clearly not like the Atari days of retro. If I had to make an absolute decision, the cutoff would likely be at the mainstream console transition from major titles being 2D to major titles being 3D, or approximately the mid 90s. 94-95 specifically, solidifying into the late 90s when "refined" 3D games like Ocarina, Star Fox 64 and others started coming out. This also coincides approximately with the release of the Playstation. I don't personally feel we've made such a major shift in gaming since that time and that it was the end of an era, even if it didn't much feel like it at the time when there were plenty of quality 2D games like Pokemon Red/Blue still coming out alongside this. People may argue mobile games were a huge shift in modern gaming, but they're really just flash games and we've had those forever. VR isn't really that spectacular either because it's a tiny and gimmicky market that we might not even be ready for. Motion controls didn't go very far. I guess indie games/indie gaming culture could maybe be a modern shift if it doesn't fizzle out.

If I had to make a cutoff point for /vr/ discussion it would probably be at/after Playstation 2, but perhaps before the Gamecube. A lot of PS2 games feel like and could be mistaken for PS1 games, and certainly it was a big console with a ton of longevity that's now aged quite a bit. It would also extend to include some early 2000s PC games like Diablo 2, which are now definitely old as shit from a mechanical perspective.

>>2795837

Why are fuckers incapable of reading the rules?

>>2802475
Oh fuck, I forgot the whole internet thing. Yeah, okay, online console games were a bigger shift.

File: vr.png (246KB, 852x754px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 852x754px

I'm fine with allowing GBA discussion and agree with >>2796227. Allowing systems on /vr/ shouldn't strictly be an age thing, it should be on a case-by-case basis.

With the GBA, you can argue the following points for its allowance here:
>The system follows the design philosophies and styles of other retro systems (namely the 16-bit generation).
>Support for the system died off earlier than expected thanks to the DS. It last major games came out in 2006.
>There's not much potential for shitposting. Pic related is what would happen if we allowed unmoderated discussion for all 6th gen systems on here. In comparison, there's not much for people to shitpost about in regards to the GBA.

I'm also somewhat in favor in allowing discussion of the OG Xbox here because of these same reasons: It died off very early (2005) and there's a lack of potential topics for people to shitpost about (outside of Halo threads). But it's a stretch and the GBA is the far better option for the time being.

>>2802485
>personally

So when does the Game Cube, PS2 and Xbox become retro?

>>2802485
Because they want wannabe janitors like you to sperg out. Doing it for free is one thing, but pointlessly dedicating your life to derailing every thread that falls outside the rules, yet is a welcomed and non shitposty discussion that the rest of the people on the board enjoy, is completely pathetic.

>>2802518
Years from now when you hit puberty

>>2796227
It is called "dadrock", on occasion. It's old, but not a century old. And tons of people would call it "classic", though never "classical".

Food for thought.

>>2802515
>that screenshot

Darkest timeline

File: assassins-creed-05-401x535.png (255KB, 401x535px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 401x535px

>gba is retro because it feels like a portable retro system and they don't make games for it anymore
By that logic we should allow old java shit here too. And Ngage.

>>2802956
Old java shit was here wasn't it? In the "old internet" thread?

And who the hell would even want to talk about the Ngage? I thought it was common consensus that it didn't have anything worthwhile about it. And, as you've shown, its ports of newer IPs sort of mar the "retro" feel, which defeats your original point.

>>2802971
>Old java shit was here wasn't it? In the "old internet" thread?
Not that old, I was speaking about 2003/2007
>its ports of newer IPs sort of mar the "retro" feel
you mean, stuff the gba is full of?

File: 1440835497933.png (42KB, 171x197px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 171x197px

>>2802980
That... is true. I will concede that there was a ton of shovelware and cross-platform ports released for the thing.

I suppose the only argument now is the whole "/vr2/" concept, though I'm sure that will likely never happen. Oh well, I'm not that upset about not being able to talk about the GBA anyhow.

Give it 5 years. I'm sure that by 2020 people would stop giving a shit.

But ps3 wouldn't be retro, obviously.

>>2803010
>I will concede that there was a ton of shovelware and cross-platform ports released for the thing.

Nobody would want to talk about those though. They barely got attention when they were brand new.

File: das it.jpg (51KB, 577x465px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 577x465px

>it's yet another meta-off-topic shitposting bait thread that gets hundreds of replies
fuck this board desu senpai

>>2803024
True, though some people might want to out of sheer curiosity. I put a bunch of weird shovelware games on my psp just because I saw them in the store and wanted to try them for one reason or another.

So, I suppose even talking about the Ngage wouldn't be that far off. My money's on 2020.

I find it funny that people claim how ps2-era doesn't have an "aesthetic", but if you compared COD to COD3 there's a noticeable difference.

>>2803036
Report and hide :^)

>>2803010
>whole "/vr2/" concept, though I'm sure that will likely never happen
Chink moot seems pretty open to creating new boards

>>2795901
Idiot. Everyone knows that. The def for retro is specific to this board.

>>2803247
Fuck a /vr2/, but an ura /v/ wouldn't be a bad thing, although it has slowed down a ton in recent years. Basically /v/ is for current shit and hype and /v2/ is for all the trash everyone has already forgotten about.

>>2802485
People who point this out deserve to be slapped. Repeatedly. I've read the fucking sticky, I know the fucking rules, but I want them to change.

>>2796228
You're talking out your ass m8, of course those things will be retro.

>>2803292
In 10 years, when he's in his 20's, he will deeply regret his erroneous statement.

>>2803010
>But ps3 wouldn't be retro
You wish.
Overall, /vr/ should be renamed to /vo/ so it coundn't be possible to argue what feels retro and what doesn't so the beard would be just for discussing OLD games.

Consoles: PS2/Gamecube/Xbox and before Not underage, grew up with a Turbograffix but honestly it's been almost 15 years[/spoilers]

PC: Around 2006.

Of course I still feel like the fucking 360 just came out yesterday. It's weird how time passes without you realizing it.

>>2804006
Well hot damn. This here youngling has founf the solution to all our problems.