Why your defintion of retro?

>>3028953
And here's how I understand some viewpoints:

> Constantly 15 years before today's date
Because stuff gets old. The SNES wasn't a "retro console" when it came out, it was the latest and greatest of its day. One day in the future, a bunch of faggots will post here saying how antiquated having a physical controller is, and reminiscing about their retro PS4.

> A set date, usually 1999, 2000, or 2001
Because the games industry changed at this time. It went from small studios producing artfully good software and taking risks, and moved towards the big-budget triple-A guaranteed-sales guaranteed-sequel EA-acquired bullshit we have today. This brought about a change in attitudes of developers, advertisers, and console makers. They don't make em like they used to.

There's also the changing technical limitations of systems at this time. Fairly realistic 3D became possible, leading to a lack of imagination in games, because you're presented a rigid visual reality with no room for interpretation. This could also have led to a lack of effort designing truly engaging game worlds.

> Apply these thoughts to the release date of the system, or of the game itself?
This doesn't apply to most retro systems, but could apply to things like the GBA. Whilst the console was released in 2001, the last game was made in 2007, with over a dozen releases in 2006. That's the same year the PS3 was released, and I think we all agree that's not retro.

>>3028953
Also, is retro gaming about the attitude and "spirit" in which the game is made? There are plenty of indie developers today making retro-styled games which mainstream AAA players will never play. Could something like Fez or Shovel Knight ever be considered /vr/?

Consoles:
240p
4:3 aspect ratio
Pre online connectivity. ie PSN and XBox live

Would be the big things.

>>3028962
>240p

I can tell you're underage by listing something like this.

>>3028953
>>3028957 summed it up pretty well. The various seemingly conflicting definitions all make sense, and have reasonable underlying motivation. Most people can probably acknowledge them and have them coexist. Then there's people that insist they must be right ...

Retro is stuff that I don't remember being new.
I find it hard to accept that Windows 9x games like AoK or BG are considered retro here.

>>3028953
simple controllers, sprites, cartridge type media, passwords etc.

the dreamcast is allowed even though it has a web browser and a memory card with more advanced games than some of the consoles discussed here.

gba is more "retro" than the dreamcast.

>>3028965
Sorry, kid but I'm not. It effects the console quite a bit. Big limitation that retro devs had to make the best of.

>>3028953
Retro means something modern made in a primitive style. All off-topic Nintendo consoles were "retro" when they were new. It has absolutely nothing to do with /vr/, never has, never will. /vr/ is called "Retro Games" only because somebody didn't know what the word "retro" meant. /vr/ should be renamed "20th century games", and all the shitposting from people who can't read the rules will end.

>>3028968
>Retro is stuff that I don't remember being new.
That implies Win9x will never ever be retro to you, even in a couple decades, while at the same time, your 20y/o grand son will consider the PS10 retro, and be correct according to your suggestion. That strikes me as a bit unexpected.

>>3028975
>somebody didn't know what the word "retro" meant
Blame weeaboos for thinking it meant the same as "レトロ"

>>3028975
>It has absolutely nothing to do with /vr/, never has, never will. /vr/ is called "Retro Games" only because somebody didn't know what the word "retro" meant.
Separate the game from the action of playing the game, and it makes more sense. The games are old now, they're not commonly played now. The game itself is not retro, it's a product of its time. The act of playing the game now, is reminiscing a time when playing these games was normal, or at least emulating that (emulating in the sense of replicating a behavior, not in the sense of using an emulator to play a game), and that fits very much the definition of retro. Just like a photos of people dressed up like the 50s, that were taken 60 years ago are not retro, but the action of dressing up like these people now definitely is.

>>3028980
It's a subjective thing.
We had people come here thinking the DS could be considered retro.
The rules reflect what moot thought what was retro when he created the board.

>>3028970
Can you put a date on what you describe? I'm asking, because some of the stuff seems a bit arbitrary, because there was a long period of game development when many of these things were not true. Looking at the whole ancient PC gaming, for example. The controller has 130+ buttons, the hardware didn't like sprites but could do software polygons quite nicely, the data was on spinning rust, and the savestates were too. Yet all this happened a decade or two before the PS was even a thing.

>>3028990
>It's a subjective thing.
Certainly, but it's helpful when at any given time, under one definition, people would come to the same conclusion whether something is retro or not. Note the "under one definition". The thing here is, if I understand that anon right, they, and their grandchild could point at the identical same object and both come to a different conclusion whether it's retro or not, using the exact same definition between each other. That strikes me as a bit difficult.

>We had people come here thinking the DS could be considered retro.
And I'd be inclined to agree, for some definitions of retro. The visuals resemble something commonly found in the mid 90s, the system is largely not played anymore, the 3DS completely replaced it, much to my dislike. So from these two angles, it's decidedly retro. At the same time, the game concepts and execution of games is very modern, with a social emphasis, collectathons, tutorialized, etc. In that way it resembles the GBA, which a lot more people would argue is retro.

>The rules reflect what moot thought what was retro when he created the board.
The rules are not subject of the thread.

>>3029000
>At the same time, the game concepts and execution of games is very modern, with a social emphasis, collectathons, tutorialized, etc. In that way it resembles the GBA
I fucked up that statement. The social emphasize and tutorializing are modern traits, that people would be unlikely to call retro. It's not just the DS that's affected by it. The GBA deals with the same "style" of games. And although more people would likely consider the GBA retro but not the DS, from that angle they both would not fit. These conflicting definitions are one of the major reason why people argue. I don't mind discussions, but it does show how important it is, that people agree on one definition for the sake of an exchange, before beginning that exchange. Whether it's the one true definition of something is irrelevant, just that everybody's on the same page.
What OP's doing, and which I think is a good idea, is trying to work out how these different definitions came to be, and what their motivation is. It helps to see the bigger picture and to follow and understand the definitions used by others.

The kinds of games I think should be on /vr/ (not "retro", nothing on /vr/ is retro) are anything with:
No wireless networking
No commodity storage

CDRs are still cheaply available, so they count as commodity storage, and the PS1 is banned. Floppy disks are no longer widely available so floppy disk based systems are allowed. GBA never used wireless networking or commodity storage so it is allowed. The Gamecube is allowed, the PS2 is banned, and the Dreamcast is allowed because it was never intended to use CD-ROMs, only non-standard GD-ROMs and MIL-CDs.

To prevent arguments, "commodity" is defined as something following a commonly used standard design (formal or de-facto), which I can buy in quantities of at least 100000, with a unit price of no more that double the cheapest price it was ever profitably sold for.

>>3029000
Most of the argument for the GBA is that it's supposedly a portable SNES even though they're quite different. Nobody claims the DS is a portable N64.

>That strikes me as a bit difficult.
Some things are difficult. If you need to fixed interpretation of retro you need a fixed point of view, e.g. your own or that of a kid or in our case moot's.

>>3029019
>If you need to fixed interpretation of retro you need a fixed point of view
Do you? Most of the other definitions allow a view point neutral decision

>>3029021
They aren't. Look at the suggestions in >>3028957. Why 15 years and not 20 or 10 years? Or set the date at 95 or 2005.
It's all arbitrary, any further explanations are just pretense.

>>3029031
>Why 15 years and not 20 or 10 years?
No matter which year you pick as definition for the moment, any two people understanding the definition will be able to point at the same thing and say retro or not retro, regardless of their own viewpoint.

>Or set the date at 95 or 2005
Same here, set it as definition,and two people come to the same conclusion

>It's all arbitrary
Maybe it is, but each definition on its own is internally consistent across the people applying it. That's not the case with "it's retro if it existed before me" or a variant of it. Then two people can point at the same thing and come to a different conclusion, which makes the binning difficult.

>>3029031
Commodity mass storage gave rise to cinematic experiences.
Wireless networking gave rise to social networking. (wired networking was less convenient so it repelled casuals enough to avoid the problem)

Those are not arbitrary, and they have better results than age based rules. A 2016 release pinball game belongs on /vr/ more than some PS1 FMV shit. And if the people complaining about pinball being too primitive get their way and put social bullshit in pinball, I'd be happy for that to be banned too.

>>3029016
>>3029039
>Commodity mass storage gave rise to cinematic experiences.
I take it the PSP is a retro system.

>put social bullshit in pinball
Big Race USA has head to head multiplayer

>>3029051
>I take it the PSP is a retro system.
Meh, forgetting it, it has networking.
Still, the commodity mass storage strikes me as a bit odd, especially because according to you it's fluent, where the floppy is not commodity mass storage. Also in a couple years the CD will be out of the commodity mass storage range, and your oh so hated "cinematic experience" is right there. That, and requiring the lack of networking is gonna lock down the end date harder than 1999 ever could.

>>3029051
>I take it the PSP is a retro system.
No, it has wifi.

>Big Race USA has head to head multiplayer
Assuming you mean IPD No. 269, no, it does not have wireless networking. It is not multiplayer that's a problem, it's wireless networking specifically.

>>3029061
>it's wireless networking specifically.
Why?

>>3029037
> any two people understanding the definition will be able to point at the same thing and say retro or not retro, regardless of their own viewpoint.
And so can we by accepting moot's point of view.

>>3029062
also, why base your concept specifically on things you hate? It's pretty hard to convince people of your viewpoint if it boils down to "stop liking what I don't like"

>>3029062
Because wireless is too convenient, which attracts casual players. It used to be the only people playing multiplayer were those who really wanted to play, and made the effort to get past the technical obstacles. Now people play because their friends are playing, and games are dumbed down to appeal to that sort of player.

>>3029064
This thread is not about the board rules

>>3029070
what about home systems? The only reason to go from wired to wireless was convenience for the setup.
What's the problem with people playing games in a non-dedicated manner?
Do you hinge your concept of retro gaming on elitism?
Why do you blame the players for developer decisions?

>>3028957
>the last game was made in 2007
This part is pretty misleading. It's like saying the ps2 is still relevant now because its last game was released in 2013 during the same month as the ps4's launch.

>>3029080
Or you could argue a system with its very last bit of software released 3 years ago is very much not relevant for present day gaming and hence qualifies as retro gaming

>>3029071
The point is that having the line set at 2000 and going by moot's point of view is the exact same thing.
He set the line at 2000 because that's how he felt, not due to some complex process.

File: 1999_323i.jpg (88KB, 765x472px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 765x472px

This is a 1999 bmw 323i. Would you call this a retro car?

>>3029087
Please read up on the actual exchange. The problem I had was not with arbitrary lines. 2000 as cutoff is yet another variant, and has its merit. The definition under discussion was "everything I couldn't play since I was young", which leads to different people considering the same thing retro or not retro, even when going by the same definition.

>>3029091
And it works when you agree on which person was young.
What's so hard to grasp about people having different definitions of what's retro?

>>3029098
>when you agree on which person was young
Their definition is tied to the observer, not a specific person.

>What's so hard to grasp about people having different definitions of what's retro?
Nothing. Just with that one definition being variable.

>>3029074
I'm not talking about the controllers, I mean wifi and similar. Wifi is casual networking. It's objectively worse than wired but it's easier to use. Therefore it is a good indicator of casual attitudes.

And elitism is hugely important. Old-style (not "retro") games were born in either the arcade culture or the wargaming culture, both of which were focused around competition. If you have a better score or a better win rate you are better. There's no "your friend got an achievement" bullshit, there's no pay to win, there's no tracking of how many hours you played. You learn the skills or you lose. That is what I like about old-style games.

>>3029121
>I'm not talking about the controllers
Neither am I, just the connection from the box to the router.

The rest of your post suggests we have no common ground though, so I'll leave it at that.

>>3029121
>It's objectively worse than wired but it's easier to use.
How is Wifi easier to use? With ethernet I just plug the cable in and am ready to go while on WiFi I had to search for the network, enter a password and deal with all sorts of extra shit.
Null modem cables or old networking standards might be a different story.

>>3029130
How many casuals/normalfags do you know who use wired networking?

A PS4 is basically a souped up PS2. There's no fundamental difference in what the games are like and how they're controlled. Same goes for the current and original Xboxes. So that's why the PS2 and Xbox aren't going to become retro any time soon. The GameCube I think will be retro soon.

Retro is not really the right word for this sort of thing by the way. Retro means a throwback to another era. Oldschool would be a better term.

>>3029147
I don't know many normalfags to begin with.

Any definition that cuts off the PS1 while allowing other consoles from the same generation that had similar styles of game is utterly useless.

Not the Dreamcast, i can guarantee you that

>>3029260
Such as?
3DO and Jaguar were practically dead once the PS1 arrived. Include them or cut them out, I doubt many people would care either way.

File: 1453237494084.jpg (90KB, 700x441px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 700x441px

The definition of "anything before 2000" works, but I think there needs to be a logical exception or two, such as GBA and WonderSwan Color. The hardware really wasn't designed to compete with the rest of their respective generation, and a lot of games available for those platforms were in fact remakes and enhanced ports of retro titles.

You're telling me Dreamcast is retro, but pic related is not? By the way, the same remake of FF1 pictured was ported to the PS1, which is considered retro since it was ported to an existing retro platform.

>>3029352
The Dreamcast isn't retro and will be purged from /vr/

>>3029291
Jaguar got a surprising cult following in here. It's actually pretty cool.

>>3028970
THE DREAMCAST ISN'T RETRO, KEEP THAT SHIT ON /V/!

>>3029291
Such as what?

My point is the PS1 is just as valid a 5th generation console as the Saturn and N64, no reason to exclude it because of its game media.

>>3028975
I actually suggested that on the feedback page a few months ago but they never noticed.

>>3028975
>nd all the shitposting from people who can't read the rules will end.
lol it's like you don't understand how shitposter psychology works. these people just wanna argue over anything, they don't actually give a shit about what

>maybe you'll manage to sway some opinions

Other than the few people who can either ignore non-retro posts, or discuss them civilly (both ignoring the crybabies) probably never going to happen.

>>3028959
>Could something like Fez or Shovel Knight ever be considered /vr/?
Idk, Shovel Knight uses old ideas in a new way.
Fez uses new ideas with old graphics.

I would love threads for games like Shovel Knight that feel like games made decades too late.

>>3028959
>Could something like Fez or Shovel Knight ever be considered /vr/?
In a couple decades, probably. What I've seen from Shovel Knight, it has all the annoyances of modern gaming. Visuals are not everything

>>3029730
>Fez uses new ideas with old graphics.
Which clearly disqualifies it

>>3029730
>Fez uses new ideas
NO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfICeBtVv8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTK2Xk81M8

>>3029741
>Which clearly disqualifies it
That's what I mean. It seems like there are two sides to retro indies: the ones that are decades too late, and ones that happen to use pixel graphics.

>>3029726

This.

Changing people's opinions on subjective things? LOL; never going to happen, especially on the internet.

What changes people's opinions are personal experiences (especially childhood ones, which are the ones the remain the most strong in the subconscious and dictate our personality as adults).

Reading an opinion against yours on the internet will only reinforce your own stance, if anything.

This is why /vr/ rules will never change. The more people whine about expanding the retro spectrum, the more the resident /vr/ users are going to resist that change.
The only way /vr/ changes and everyone accepts 6th gen as retro is if older users eventually leave and a new, younger userbase take over. Which will happen, but not overnight, it'll take some years.

>>3029742
New as in modern, not original.

>>3029751
>Changing people's opinions on subjective things? LOL; never going to happen, especially on the internet.

Retro games aren't really subjective. There's a distinct objective and subjective difference with them.

>>3029749
>ones that are decades too late
Don't exist.

>ones that happen to use pixel graphics
Not retro, in any way or form. Most of the time the piles of colored squares are an insult to the old school of bitmap visuals.

>>3029761

Thing is, "retro", for in practice, means "my childhood".

Good luck convincing people that their own childhood isn't retro.

>>3028959
>Could something like Fez or Shovel Knight ever be considered /vr/?

No, and they shouldn't. Just because they were design to look like they belong from a certain time period doesn't mean they deserve to be in there. They faced none of the challenges or limitations games back then had to deal with

>>3029770
It's like classic cars. To the average person anything old is a classic. Same thing with video games.

>>3029770
>means "my childhood"
why strawman? What do you gain from that?
It only helps to damage any actual discussion, forcing people into a defensive stance. If you don't have any interest in the discussion, remove yourself, go elsewhere, play something, and let people with interest talk.

File: herocore.gif (12KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 600x600px

>>3029762
>Don't exist.
If you say so.

>>3029778
what are you trying to prove here?