Can we have a legitimate discussion on why game systems over

Because rules.

File: yotsmung.png (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>3106997
I would love 6th gen discussion on vr

I wouldn't love all the purist who hijack very thread to just say "not retro"

Just wait they'll be here too

>>3106997
Because /vr/ is too autistic.

That's really the only reason. You can make threads and the won't be removed, but they'll be ruined within 3 posts.

>>3107027
>You can make threads and the won't be removed, but they'll be ruined within 3 posts.
Not different from any other topic then, what the hell are you complaining about

Because /vr/ can't always wipes /v/'s ass.

>>3106997
There already was this thread.

>>3107012
>>3107027

Just one in this case

>>3107030
/vr/ is bad right now but we're not that far gone.

A console must be three generations old to be considered retro.

You need to wait until Sony,MS, and Nintendo ninth gen systems are released before you can discuss Dreamcast,PS2,Gamecube, and Xbox.

Gameboy Advance, Ngage, Gizmondo, and dumbphone games discussion will be permitted when Nintendo comes out with its next handheld.

I hope I have been able to make this clear for you.

File: mario64sucks.png (113KB, 630x296px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 630x296px

Because retro gaming specifically is more about an era of gaming than "mah childhood."

Gaming went to shit in the mid-90s thanks to the gaming industry going after casual non-gamers and making lazy games with no depth and shit controls and gameplay. Honestly, /vr/ should be pre-1995 only.

You little shits and your Mario 64 and MGS1 garbage should be on /v/.

>>3107062
>Vickie Pollard
Yer but no but yer but no!

File: download.jpg (6KB, 240x210px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x210px

>>3107045
>must

You don't make the rules faggot

>>3107062
>Vickie Pollard
Fucking lol

Retro is defined by PRE-2000. That's the rules, there's no sliding scale, it doesn't change DEAL WITH IT

>>3107065
>huehuehue memes arpil feul shit dodge the truth because it hurts our poor little underage minds
Typical.

I'm fairly sure that Atari stuff was considered retro by the late 90s and that was about 15 years old at the time.

>>3107072
Yeh but gaming hasn't changed so much since the 6th gen. If you're talking late 90s, you're comparing Space Invaders-level games to Turok. The rate of technology change has slowed a _lot_ since then.

Periodization is the process or study of categorizing the past into discrete, quantified named blocks of time[1] in order to facilitate the study and analysis of history. This results in descriptive abstractions that provide convenient terms for periods of time with relatively stable characteristics. However, determining the precise beginning and ending to any "period" is often arbitrary.

To the extent that history is continuous and ungeneralizable, all systems of periodization are more or less arbitrary. Yet without named periods, however clumsy or imprecise, past time would be nothing more than scattered events without a framework to help us understand them. Nations, cultures, families, and even individuals, each with their different remembered histories, are constantly engaged in imposing overlapping, often unsystematized, schemes of temporal periodization; periodizing labels are continually challenged and redefined, but once established, a period "brand" is so convenient that many are very hard to shake off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodization

>>3107071
Wha? I actually agreed with the post. Also check my name!

>>3107072
Yeah, because the late 90s changed gaming for the worst. Atari was actually retro compared to nugamer garbage at the time.

Shit like Half-Life, MGS1, and Mario 64 changed gaming for the worse, and anything before that damned generation is the only retro gaming that exists.

If you shitlords want to circlejerk over such shit gaming, this board should be called /vmc/ - Vidya MAH CHILDHOOD.

>>3107062
thanks for the pasta

>>3107070
>Retro is defined by PRE-2000. That's the rules, there's no sliding scale, it doesn't change DEAL WITH IT

Ian here gets it. How so many of you don't is beyond frustrating.

>>3106997
>Can we have a legitimate discussion on why game systems over 15 years old are not considered retro now?
Obviously we can't

NOR SHOULD WE

Because /v/ exists and is the board for this kind of discussions.

>>3107074
I disagree there. Actually today's gaming has definitely evolved from the PS2 era in terms of the type of games being produced as well as hardware features and consumer expectations. For example online connectivity was not yet a big thing in the 6th gen, nor were FPSes dominant. They certainly existed, but that was when the 3D platformer still ruled. It was only after 2007 that the FPS definitively ousted platformers.

>>3107092
/v/ won't discuss 6th gen stuff though. They won't discuss anything more than 5 years old.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (27KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1440x1080px

>>3107079
>Also check my name!

>>3107098
Go cry about that on /v/, you seething freshcunt

>>3107062
>>3107080
Saturn confirmed innocent.

>>3107027

I've seen threads get deleted for not being retro before. In fact, the best example I can think of was a strawpoll that we did several months ago. It asked if we should allow GBA games to be discussed here. It actually stayed up for a couple of days, but then got deleted after the majority of posters voted that, yes, they did want GBA games to be discussed here. Whenever you see someone throwing a shitfit over 6th gen games here, remember that they're just the extremely autistic and vocal minority.

>>3106997
>>>/v/
and don't come back ,kiddo.

File: gbapolljanuary3rd2016.png (466KB, 1077x558px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1077x558px

>>3107119

File: 3d_goldface.jpg (133KB, 776x678px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 776x678px

>>3106997
Your gen 6 faggotry will NEVER EVER be accepted on this board, kid. Cry me a fucking river.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAA!!!

>>3107119

srrawpolls are easy as fuck to rig with proxies though. They are only fun for trolling and shitposting, but not for actual demographic accurracy.

The pre-2000 rule is the best option, both for simplicity and to prevent this board becoming /v.2/ in a few years.
Also just thinking about it subjectively, I would never consider an Xbox or whatever retro. Because it and its games seem much closer in design to the modern era than the 70s/80s/90s games/consoles this board was meant to give room for.

File: 1459309414349.jpg (63KB, 470x705px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 470x705px

>>3107143
Look at that VOCAL MINORITY. Obviously the VAST MAJORITY is being held down by this insignificant MINORITY.

>Can we have a legitimate discussion on why game systems over 15 years old are not considered retro now?
No, because even if you do have one these threads will still keep popping up anyways regardless of the rules you break.

We are hostile because we don't want our culture displaced or changed. You can say it doesn't matter because the culture is shit but we want our shitty culture, not your shitty culture.

>>3107094
>It was only after 2007 that the FPS definitively ousted platformers.

You've gotta be kidding. Platformers were on its death row after the release of GTA3 in 2001. Even the Jak series abandoned platforming to become a GTA clone for number 2.

FPS didn't completely take over like later, but it was already much more prominent, particularly if you take PC into account.

>>3107161
>Joyce Cardenas
WHAT THE FUCK I KNOW A GIRL WITH THIS NAME

>>3106997
Because it's a different type of game after the year 2000. That's why not, it's obvious. Some people think in such simple terms, it's pathetic.

If you want to then create a board 2000-2008 in gaming, or something like that. Come up with a good name for it, go have fun with it.

>>3107156
>The pre-2000 rule is the best option, both for simplicity and to prevent this board becoming /v.2/ in a few years.

I don't think that's a concern. /v/ is literally 13 year olds who won't discuss 6th gen games anyway. Shit, a lot of that board was probably in diapers when the Gamecube was relevant.

>>3107173

And /vr/ doesn't want people who were in diapers (or unbron) when the NES, SNES and Genesis came out.

>>3107171
>Because it's a different type of game after the year 2000. That's why not, it's obvious. Some people think in such simple terms, it's pathetic.

And? N64 is very unlike a Colecovision yet we can discuss both of those here.

>>3107178
Dude, you'd be like 30 years old if you were in diapers when the NES first came out.

Honestly surprised this thread hasn't been deleted yet.
Maybe it's because there's a Dreamcast controller in OP Pic which makes it inexplicably Retro related despite being a from a 6th Gen console and therefore is not actually Retro.

>>3107181
And?

You can't talk about the original Xbox because it was a shit console with about two good games on it, and you can discuss Dreamcast here.

>mfw retards actually think we should discuss hardware as advanced as PS2 and GCN on the same board we talk about NES and Master System

>>3107045
>A console must be three generations old to be considered retro.
So then why is Dreamcast allowed?

>>3107185
You said you didn't want underage kiddies who don't remember anything before the 2000s.

>>3107092
/v/ will actually tell you to go to /vr/ if you try to discuss 6th gen games

>>3107187

Again, >>3107179

File: epic pepe.jpg (19KB, 400x388px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x388px

IT'S NOT FUCKING FAIR, FELLOW 2000'S BROS! WHAT ABOUT OUR NOSTALGIA?! I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT GAMECUBE GAMES! IT'S NOT FUCKING FAIR!

>>3107187
>You can't talk about the original Xbox because it was a shit console with about two good games on it

Yet the 3DO is allowed and that had exactly one good game.

>>3107190
Dude, I'm not Curtis.
>>3107189
Because the death of SEGA was an end of an era.

>>3107197

Sorry, I don't think I was clear enough. You can't talk about the original Xbox on /v/ without getting shitposted to death because it was a shit console with nogames.

>>3107195
>>3107194
>>3107194
>>3107187
>>3107182
>>3107179
>>3107171
>>3107161
>>3107156
>>3107153
>>3107130
>>3107130
>>3107117
>>3107098
>>3107094
>>3107081
>>3107080
>>3107079
>>3107076
>>3107065
>>3107062
>>3107045
>>3107037
>>3107034
>>3107027
gamer grrls plz go

>>3107201
He said he didn't want underage kiddies who don't remember the NES era. But you'd have to be in your 30s at least to remember when the NES was around.

>>3107201
Wow? So fucking what? That's no reason for it to be allowed.

Well, I am 26 so hardly underage yet I would have no problem with allowing 6th gen games.

>>3107208
No one really cares about what you have to say girl.

>>3107062
>You little shits and your Mario 64 and MGS1 garbage should be on /v/.

Check out the /v/eenager trying to puff himself up and act like a hard crusty adult.

You ain't fooling anyone, bub.

>>3107206

We have a lot of people on /vr/ who are in their 30s and 40s, it even makes sense they would be here instead of /v/, I don't see the issue.
If you don't have memories of the era when NES was relevant you probably don't belong here anyway.
It doesn't mean you have to be over 30, but at least remember when NES was current. NES lasted until the early 90s.

>>3107209
>implying the opinions of people born in the 90s should be valued

>>3107218
>We have a lot of people on /vr/ who are in their 30s and 40s

Maybe about the first three weeks after the board first opened. It's literally just <19 kids who watched an e-celeb on Youtube.

>>3107219
if he was born in 89, isn't that actually still the 80s?

>>3107220
Besides that, even if you were like 35, you'd have to be a pretty pathetic manchild to be so immature as to get fanny flustered by some /v/ kid. You're a grown adult, act like it.

>>3107219
>implying the lives of people born in the 90s should be valued

>>3107226

>>3107219
>>3107218
This guy is an underage /v/tard. Don't let him fool you; he's no crusty oldfag.

>>3107223
still didn't get to experience the '80s, so it doesn't count

File: 1449029691889.jpg (130KB, 1024x1009px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x1009px

>>3107220
I'm 33
>mfw my 39 year old friend turned me on to /vr/

>>3107220
It really is starting to seem like that, isn't it?

>>3107223
Well, it is but depending on how you look at it, 1990 was actually the last decade of the 80s and 1991 the first year of the 90s if you're one those types who insists a decade does not begin on zero years.

>>3107232
See what I mean. Even the alleged oldfags like >>3107230 are actually underage.

>>3107229
And? The board rules don't say you have to have recalled the 80s to post here. If you can point out where it says that, please do so.

Wait a minute. You actually telling me that there's a bunch of unemployed 40 year olds who think /vr/ should be an exclusive circlejerk for them and their other unemployed 40 year old friends?

>>3107237
Underagefags contribute the most to shitposting, and shitposting is against global rule 15.

Ergo, underagefags are against the rules.

>>3107240
On the surface of it, it looks like it except those guys aren't really 40 anyway, they're 15 year old reverse trolls trolling other trolls from /v//

>>3107234

I think it has more to do with what your childhood memories are like. If you were born in 1989 or 90, you would be 5 years old in 1995, and 10 years old in 2000. You're more of a late 90s kid in terms of culture heritage, as you don't really remember anything about the 80s or even the early 90s.

The same can be applied so someone born in 1985, he is mostly a 90s kid as he will have very little (if any) memories from the 80s.
And a kid born in 1995 would be mostly a 00s kid.

>>3107241
Yes but he's trying to say that underage kiddies don't remember the NES era when in fact anyone under 30 is too young to remember it. If this were like 2002 when someone born in 1988 was 14, then I could see his point but it's 2016.

>>3107242
I'm gonna have to agree because no real guy that age would be this childish. >>3107219

>>3107240
>>3107242

I genuinely feel that many of the posters on /vr/ are here not just out of appreciation for retro games but because of fond memories of old times and perhaps even a deep longing to go back.

There's no other reason I can explain that seemingly middle aged people can suddenly conjure up the inner 15 year old and go on a shitposting spree. It's like a form of mental time travel.

>>3107249
>I genuinely feel that many of the posters on /vr/ are here not just out of appreciation for retro games but because of fond memories of old times and perhaps even a deep longing to go back.

I don't believe it. I don't believe it was true except perhaps in /vr/'s first month of existence.

In fact I'm near 100% certain that 90% of this board are 15 year olds who watched a retro game channel on Youtube. Just this shitty thread alone proves there's no grown adults here.

6th gen is retro.

>>3107253
The PS2 is 15 years old. I don't see why it could be excluded. I'm certain that NES games were retro by the early 2000s.

>>3107249
>I genuinely feel that many of the posters on /vr/ are here not just out of appreciation for retro games but because of fond memories of old times and perhaps even a deep longing to go back.

It would be the same with people who want 6th gen. They don't want to discuss 6th gen because they have appreciation for the games, they just want their nostalgia fix on a board that's specific for that.

I'm 24 so I was a kid when 6th gen was new, but I understand that my own childhood isn't necessarily "retro". I come to /vr/ to read about the actual retro games, I'd love to see more 2nd gen threads and I'm always actively posting on these threads, and thanks to them I started collecting Coleco and Atari.

I'm sick of people crying for 6th gen to be included, be aware you're no better than the people who always post "not retro", you're the same. You just want YOUR own nostalgia to be validated, you don't care about the games themselves.

Anyway these threads prove that allowing 6th gen on /vr/ would be a terrible idea. /vr/ would die within a week, imagine the whole board be like this thread (and every thread about this). It'd be nothing but shitposting until /vr/ dies.

>>3107258

>cutoff date is 1999
>"B-BB-B-B-B-BUT MUH CHILDHOOD, IT'S NOT FAIR"

>>3107253
not according to the sticky it isn't
unless it's dreamcast, then it gets a pass because whiny babies couldn't shut up

>>3107261
Even Dreamcast gets flak around here and has to be contained to its own general.

>>3107258
Fuck off 90s kid, your opinion isn't wanted here.

>>3107261
>>3107262
Nobody here likes the fagcast, it's the cancer killing /vr/

>>3107260
But what if we moved it to 2007.

>>3107267
The constant threads about it and it's games would prove you otherwise

>>3107268
Why not move it back to 89. Nothing 90s should be considered retro.

>>3107268

>wanting to include not only 6th gen but 7th

here's your upvote

>>3107269
Only /v/ kiddies like a console that only lasted 16 months

So basically this thread boils down to the following:

>PS2 can't possibly be retro too new
>but it's 15 years old surely the NES was retro by the early 2000s
>butbutbut I personally don't think it's retro muh 90s underage babbies

The summation of it is "I personally don't like X games therefore they shouldn't be allowed."

I think it should stay the way it is. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's about keeping a meaningful category of videogames.

If you mention any of these things as a point in your post, then you should remove them because they don't mean anything and are terrible points and retarded nonsense.

* Anything about your age or other people's age. YES, ANYTHING.
* Nostalgia. Attributing it all to "oh that's just nostalgia" is ridiculous.
* Autism. I don't believe in autism, I think it's all nonsense and if you were more aware of the world so would you. Even if it did exist, it still wouldn't be a good idea to bring it up, it's not edgy or whatever.

I wouldn't be against moving it up to the year 2000.

On one strict condition, only 6th gen games released in the year 2000 could be discussed. I'm looking forward to the Evergrace generals already.

>>3107271
>7th gen
The 6th gen ran from 2001-06 though, so cutting it off at 07 would just about exclude the Wii and other 7th gen systems.

>>3107259
>I'm 24 so I was a kid when 6th gen was new

End yourself, 90s shitbabby.

>>3107278
6th gen consoles like PS2 had games getting released for it up till 2013

>>3107274

>/vr/ is created because retro games got shitposted to death on /v/ every time a thread was made
>you can still comfortably talk about gen 6 and up on /v/
>therefore there's no need to allow them on /vr/

Seriously, just fuck off, we don't need even more retards from /v/ pouring in and making e-celeb threads.

>>3107278

PS3 and Wii released in November 2006, and the XBox 360 released in 2005. Seriously, for real, just fuck off.

Why the fuck do we need a year? The generations are clearly defined. Just say "Up to and including 5th Gen"

>>3107259
>I'm 24
Worthless opinion discarded, this board is for those who were playing vidya in the 70s/80s

>>3107283
That's easy to solve.

>games up to 06 may be discussed
>but not if they came out on a 7th gen system - not retro

File: 1373022812030.jpg (131KB, 664x495px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 664x495px

>this dreamcast debate again

Generations are irrelevant, the cutoff date for consoles and PC games was always 1999, that's the fundamental and initial rule in /vr/. Initially the Dreamcast wasn't allowed, but since the console was released in 1998 moot (or whoever it was) acknowledged their mistake and it's been allowed ever since, not to mention the games overlap it had with all the other retro consoles. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Back then the only objection to allow the dreamcast was because of these slippery slope threads, "but if the dreamcast is allowed PS2 should as well", and guess they were proven right, as these threads keep popping up. Generations are an abstract concept, it shouldn't matter.
And I'm not saying the PS2 shouldn't be allowed, the jury is still out, I'm open to it, but that generations argument is not a good argument, find better rule.

>>3106997
I wonder what Australia-kun's opinion is on allowing all of gen 6 on /vr/.

>>3107281
FWIW, PS1 had games until 2004 yet those are still off topic.

I may only be 28, but I was trained by wise old arcade sages who taught me the art of vectors.

Witness me.

>>3107289
Shut up 90s fag

>>3107289
>Generations are irrelevant
Not according to the Sticky they aren't. And the original Sticky also mentioned Gens

>>3107281
There are still people making homebrew Atari games. Should we not allow those consoles?

>>3107289
>And I'm not saying the PS2 shouldn't be allowed, the jury is still out, I'm open to it

It should if you cut it off at 06-07. Yes some games continued to come out until recently but the console's main commercial relevance was 2001-07.

What benefit would be gained from /vr allowing discussion of newer consoles? If you are so displeased with the range of consoles currently discussed here, then maybe this board just isn't for you to begin with.

On the real though I have enough difficulty putting up with the rotten favela that is the PS1 general on this board.

No more.

>>3107297
As it stands right now, games produced after the cutoff date for a console before the cutoff date are allowed to be discussed

>>3107293
You're being rude Candice

>>3107294
Nothing in the sticky uses generations as part of a rule, the rule is 1999. They mention the sixth generation to clarify that the PS2, XBOX, GCN aren't allowed.

>>3107297
If I were a mod and I were to allow I would propose the cutoff 2006 so the rule is 10 years behind the current year, and increase to 2007 when we were in 2017. But honestly I think 15 years would be more reasonable.

Well, it's like this. Once upon a time in the 70s, antique car shows had only pre-WWII stuff. 50s-60s cars were just used car lot junk. Then as time went on, they were old enough to be antiques. Even 80s cars are eligible now to get classic car plates and they're excluded from having to meet emissions requirements due to being +25 years old.

>>3107305
All 90s, go back to /v/. This board is for those born in the 60s/70s.

I think anyway we should have new stuff to talk about. /vr/ is shit because we already discussed everything there was to discuss about video games from 1975 to 1999.

>>3107204
Shut up reba

>>3107305
Whiiich means that the sticky is using generations as part of a rule.

>>3107307
Where does that leave us 80s kids?

>>3107307
Nice try again but I'm 86

What do I do since I'm stuck in your limbo rule, what board is more suited for me Patrick.

>>3107314
That guy is underage.

>>3107303
Well, late PS1 games are allowed because they're still over 10 years old. Late PS2 games are only a few years old so we could not consider those "retro". Which is why I said we should cut off 6th gen games at 2006.

>>3107313
Megan you're being a obtuse. Generations isn't part of the rule, if it were the Dreamcast wouldn't be allowed. Again, the rule is 1999, no more, no less. Mentioning the 6th generations is only a descriptor inside a clarification that only serves as a caveat.

>>3107316
>Nice try again but I'm 86
Are you posting from your nursing home bed?

>>3107295
No, we should apply the 1999 rule to game release date instead of by hardware.

File: hqdefault.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>3107324
I'm not literally 86, you barnacle head!

>>3107321
Which means it's being used as part of the rule, dum dum.

"retro" isn't designated by an arbitrary number of years ago holy fuck.

>>3107305

>i-i just really want to talk about PS3 and Xbox 360!
>why isn't there any other board on this site for video games? why is there only a board for retro games?
>it's not fucking fair!

>>3107295
He means as commercial products. The last commercially released VCS games came out in 1990.

>>3107319

If you allow PS2 games, people will make threads stating "um I know this isn't technically allowed due to the number of years since its release, but it's a PS2 game so maybe it'll be okay" and the shitposting will get so much fucking worse. Seriously just fuck off

>>3107321
>>3107305
>>3107289
No one ever obeyed that rule, because there are always games that were released after 1999 being talked about. Diablo II for example on PC, and the Zelda Oracle games on GBC.

>>3107328
>"retro" isn't designated by an arbitrary number of years ago holy fuck

>>3107306

File: 1459213610910.gif (3MB, 300x188px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x188px

It's because this is the most autistic board on 4chan next to /mlp/
Come on, they like to show off 20 year old piece of shit tvs and belittle anyone that has an actual, nice TV (like a 4k).
Go check the "post your setup" threads and you'll see the autism reek through your monitor. And don't get me started on emulation fags.

>>3107331
This is certainly specious reasoning.

Just think of it this way. Allowing sixth gen means we'd be seeing discussions on such "retro" classics as Halo and God of War. No thank you.

>>3107332
Yes people break the rules, and moderation is scarce

More news at 11

>>3107337
Halo came out in 2001. That's 15 bloody years ago.

>>3107328
Maybe if you read the whole conversation you'd see I'm not in favor of changing the 1999 rule, I was only arguing that if they were to allow the PS2 that's the rule they should apply. But nice greentext

>>3107335
>>3105004

This wasn't proof enough of that?

>>3107336

If you seriously think so, you're too fucking new to even be posting on this board, we get threads about 2000+ PC games going "i-i know it's not technically retro but IT WAS MADE FOR WINDOWS 98 SO IT'S FAIR GAME R-RIGHT GUISE?" all the fucking time. Lurk moar. It's not "specious reasoning" because it already happens all the fucking time.

How about a compromise between both parties?

6th generation is allowed, but no games that have sequels or games in the same series that were released on later consoles/handhelds.

That way niche 6th gen games could be saved from /v/ but the truly cancerous stuff like Kingdom Hearts, Persona, Halo, etc would be left out.

>>3107337
>Halo allowed on /vr/
Well that's that, this Anon figured it out. Case closed.

>>3107341
I am in favor of it provided we put a strict cutoff at 2006-07 and also make clear that 7th gen is a no-go despite those consoles first being released at that time.

>Windows XP games
>Xbox games
>PS2 games
>GBA games
>Gamecube games

glorious neo-/vr/ age is upon us

>>3107346
Yet we can freely discuss the classic Sonic games even thought that fanbase is 100 and 1000 times more terrible than KH fans.

>>3107351

>in favor of a year cutoff

As if people are going to look up what fucking year a game came out before posting. It's a bad idea.

>"H-HOW IS THIS ANY LESS RETRO THAN THOSE OTHER PS2 GAMES EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT? IT'S NOT FUCKING FAIR"

>>3107352
Suppose we're in 2002. Well, would you say NES isn't retro and only Atari stuff is allowed?

>>3107354
Sure but under those rules we wouldn't be able to discuss 6th generation Sonic games, so that leaves out at least a good chuck of that fanbase.

>>3107356
Year cutoff never applied to any console games in the first place, anon. It only applies to PC games.
That's why we can discuss Shantae despite it being released after 1999.

>>3107356
The rules would say "Games made after 2006-07 are not allowed, nor are any 7th gen games that came out at this time."

It seems pretty ironclad to me.

File: gba_sonic.jpg (51KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 300x300px

>>3106997
The admin will never allow it because the mod here has a strict hatred of Sega/Sonic games on Nintendo systems.

>>3107362
Actually I don't think Sonicfags even play video games. It's more like a pseudo-religious cult that compels them to draw thousands of shitty fanart pics on DA.

>>3107361
The NES was released in 83 in Japan (Famicom technically)
The fuck is your point

>>3107367

And what I'm saying is that you're a fucking newfag.

>/vr/ is created
>nothing past SNES and Genesis era is allowed
>"WE WANT N64 AND PS1"
>months of crying and complaining for this
>mods finally break down and allow it because otherwise the board would never stop being anything but bitching and complaining
>"WELL WHAT ABOUT THE DREAMCAST? BAWWWW"
>mods allow it
>"B-B--BUT MUH 2000'S MILLENIAL NOSTALGIA!"
>fast forward 5 years
>people are talking about PS3 games here

It's not a "slippery slope fallacy" because that's what actually fucking happened. The buck needs to stop here.

>>3107373
PS1 games were always allowed from the board's inception though.

>>3107373
But 5th gen was allowed from the start, dumbass

Because then it'll become a primarily a 6th gen board, with some 5th and 4th, and then literally nothing before. 3rd and previous doesn't get talked about much as it is. Also, the board would be way faster. It's nice being slow, a new influx of people that don't even play all the older gens isn't going to help the board and will incite even more shitposting of shit like "muh graphics" or "it aged like milk". There needs to be an age system instead of a catch all term for retro since you all can't handle that.

New age = current gen
"Some nifty name" = 5th and 6th gen
Same as above = anything pre 5th

>>3107373
This is some terrible bait, and yet I'm replying

>>3107372
Or whatever...Master System. That came out in 86 and the Genesis was only two years after that.

And I'm just curious, but at what point exactly did 4th gen games be considered retro? It was definitely in the 2000s but not exactly sure of the date.

>>3107391
Sega Mark III was released in 85

>>3107383
>Because then it'll become a primarily a 6th gen board, with some 5th and 4th, and then literally nothing before

How so? 1975 to 06 is 31 years worth of games to discuss. If nobody discusses Atari stuff, it's likely because the games are so simple that there isn't anything to discuss about them.

>>3107391
>And I'm just curious, but at what point exactly did 4th gen games be considered retro? It was definitely in the 2000s but not exactly sure of the date.
Probably around 2005-ish.

File: eternalring_ps2box_usa_org_01.jpg (48KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 350x500px

Some games are impossible to discuss on 4chan.

Nobody on /v/ has ever heard of this game. They were literally 2 years old when this game was released, and it got utterly buried in the PS2 library.

And it's banned on /vr/. So this is literally a non grata game.

>>3107404
That's why we had to allow the Dreamcast because the underage kiddies on /v/ refused to discuss it.

>>3107396
What are you trying to prove in this post? More people that play video games played 6th gen games that are going to want to discuss them, because all current members have played them and anyone new that currently can't talk about them could speak on 6th gen. If you think for 5 seconds that there wouldn't be Halo generals, RE4 threads, FFX threads nonstop, then you're crazy. What's worse is you play those games and they feel modern in every sense of the word. I don't want to discuss games that look and feel new here, it's a niche area to discuss games that are rarely played, not games that are regularly played and remastered or still recent in memory. It just doesn't fit the nature of the board in my opinion, and it 100% would alter the flow of the board with a huge influx of new posters, and would increase the game library of the boards discussion limit by likely closely to 2x its current amount. It'd just change way too much and overflow the board with primarily 6th gen content, especially for the months following the allowance of such posts.

Like I said, there should be another board made if you all are adamant on this. But we have a non existent janitor as it is here, and the shitposting and disproportionate post topics that would be geared towards 6th gen neglecting the previous gens would defeat the purpose of the board.

And if there's so many of you wanting, why can't you carry threads on /v/ where it's already allowed?

>>3107426
don't reply to me again unless you have something to contribute to the thread

File: .png (196KB, 1211x1259px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1211x1259px

>>3107448
Sorry Anon

>>3107280
>>3107286
>He actually gives an good opinion about the matter
>HURRDURR UR 2 YOUNG FUKKOFF XD

Underage detected

>>3107448
Holy shit, you are a child. Wish granted kid, thread hid. College will be okay, young one.

>>3107426
>and would increase the game library of the boards discussion limit by likely closely to 2x its current amount.

>6 years worth of games versus the 25 years from 75-00
>would grossly upset the balance of the board
Uh...

>>3107462
That response was a meme, you retard

And yet, classic rock radio stations play Metallica now when they used to only play Rolling Stones and Steppenwolf.

>>3107462
thanks for the (you)

>>3107476
Not the other guy and I don't actually know the number of games and don't know it it is actually 2x, but the number of games per console steadily increased over the years, so it's not impossible

Because the mods know that once you allow 6th gen into /vr/, it will absolute drown out discussion over older gens because it's next in line for the retro hipster hysteria.

I'm personally trying to discourage 6th gen circlejerking because collecting for PS2 and original Xbox is still cheap.

Once everyone is talking about 6th gen, prices will inflate as fuck.

>>3107476
Not that guy but there's ~6600 total games released during 6th gen.

>>3107476
While I can see your point, you have to consider as well that the first 10 years of that is Pong/Atari stuff that would hardly get any discussion. If we assume that only stuff from 85 to 00 gets any attention here, then those six years are a lot bigger proportionate to the total sum than it looks.

>>3107489
I'm with you but I doubt /vr/ has any real significant power over games prices.

>>3107493
And if we total up all games made from the NES through PS1 eras, then it would still be twice as many as that.

>>3107485
>but the number of games per console steadily increased over the years, so it's not impossible
That seems slightly improbable because the time/effort/resources needed to create a PS2 game are exponentially greater than what it takes to create a Colecovision game. This is one reason why only 2nd gen consoles have a significant homebrew scene. Starting with the NES, games got too complicated to easily be made by more than one person without expensive tools.

>>3107502
Well I didn't include PC games in that time period. Plus lines blur since consoles publish dates intersect. And it depends when you stop counting 5then games because a lot were released post 2000 as well.

>>3107513
And since 6th gen intersects into 7th gen with games like madden 10, idk how you'd approach it.

>>3107515

>>3107287

>>3107506
>275 Colecovision games
>970 Atari 2600 games
>1238 PS1 games
>3874 PS2 games

>>3107528
I wonder how that's even physically possible. Don't you need expensive dedicated 3D tools just to make the graphics for a PS1/PS2 game?

>>3107529
Beats me.

Shit, the mod autosaged this thread.

>>3107538
Why didn't he just delete it. It's a direct violation of the rule.

>>3107546
Probably wants it archived so he can assess all the pros and cons
If he deletes it disappears, if it dies naturally it gets archived

>>3107554
It's already archived on Desu Storage (formerly Foolz).

>>3107569
Well yeah, obviously despite third party archives. It's also on warosu.

> Replies: 193
> Posters: 38
This thread is going somewhere...

>>3106997
> Can we have a legitimate discussion on why game systems over 15 years old are not considered retro now?

No. That's like posting animated furry porn on /gif/ or Loli on /h/ in order to "discuss the rules". For some reason, you feel that showing up and violating the rules on /vr/ is fine.

>>3107546
To keep faggot OP from making the thread with the same image again.

File: Game_Boy_Advance_Purple_Model.png (258KB, 666x387px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 666x387px

>>3106997
As much as I'd like to discuss these consoles, because yes I agree /v/ is pure trash, I don't think /vr/ should accept 6th gen yet. It's too early.

Sure if you think of really early 6th gen games they could look a bit retro but come on do you want to see people bringing up stuff like Wind Waker or Twilight Princess? They'd just look too out of place, these games aren't retro yet by any means.

The only thing I WISH we'd have on /vr/ are GBA discussions.

>>3107797
>these retro games aren't actually retro because I say so
that is exactly what you sound like

FF11 on the PS2 just closed it's servers within the past week. That means the PS2 JUST NOW finally died. How's about you let the body cool down before you push to have it considered retro?

>>3107045
yeah but support for the ps2 just ended and xbox and gamecube has been done for awhile. It really should be once their is no more support the system is retro

>>3107156
but bumping it to pre 2005 would still exclude last gen and include ps2/GC/Xbox/

A new new board should be made for 6th gen, and rename this place /vvg/ for vintage video games.

>>3107220
You seriously overestimate the maturity of people playing videogames. It doesn't matter if you are 30, 40 or even 50, if you still waste your free time on videogames and discuss it on the internet chances are you are a huge manbaby prone to incredibly immature outbursts.

>>3107119
lets get a couple thousand /b/ tards to catholic forums dot com, after a month of regular posting lets hold a poll to ask members if snuff porn should be allowed on the forums, which wil then surely get 3/4 approval

that's about how much logic your argument makes,
30yo 40yos dont have all day to spend on 4chan, /v/ is much more massive,

but the fact that the lot of you are tired of low popularity threads dying within mnutes because 50% of the board are endless recreations of the same types of shitposting threads that you need somewhere else to discuss xbox and gba, DOES NOT change vr nature, this is a board for classics games from 0-to-5th gen consoles +dreamcast +ibm-pc games till 1999 (and their expansions if post 1999)