Meta thread on allowing the GBA to be discussed on here

no, fuck off

go complain to hiro and make /vr2k/

Also, to put my cards on the table: Like many I'm nervous that expanding the scope of the board any further with more modern platforms may degrade the quality of the discussion on here by inviting /v/ posters and such across. That said, the GBA is definitely a nifty little platform with a lot of original games to discuss and a lot of relevance to popular franchises/series on here, and I do feel that enough time has passed that discussion of where or not it qualifies as retro is now valid.

>>3878847
I've no interest in bringing any discussion of whether /vr/ should change its' rules anywhere outside of here. It seems dumb as hell to discuss it with outsiders.

No.

I think any console pre-2004 is retro at this point.

GBA, Gamecube, PS2 and Original Xbox are definitely retro. Having /vr2k/ for just those four consoles is silly, especially when this board barely gets any traffic as it is.

Nintendo DS, PSP and Xbox 360 (which were all released in a 1 year period between 2004-2005) are not.

>>3878840
I mean you pretty much summed up why it should be allowed.
>Shit tons of games on it already get discussed on here because they're from a /vr/ relevant series or ports of older games
>The Switch releasing marks three gens since the GBA released much like the PS4/Xbone did for the Dreamcast
>The GB and GBC are both allowed so adding the end of the family line would be a good capstone on newer handheld discussion for the foreseeable future
>It's old enough that /v/ermin are unlikely to be drawn here to talk about it
>Its 2D focused and still 'feels' like a retro platform in many ways

I'd fully support it being permitted on here now that the Switch is out.

>>3878867
Would you mind expanding on why?
>>3878870
I think that on home consoles the 6th gen definitely marked a big enough turning point for the industry that you can argue that it will never be 'retro' in the same way older platforms are.
I'd personally prefer if it never gets added, beyond maybe the handhelds like the GBA - especially since the PS2 and Gamecube in particular would invite fuckloads of /v/ posters here.

>>3878870
How is having little traffic a bad thing? I always see this come up when people talk about this board like it needs to have /v/ levels of traffic to be worth visiting.

I'd be happy to see it allowed in, personally. In the end it is up to the moderators, but I digress.

>>3878878

Exactly. High traffic is not necessarily a plus, as long as the site isn't at risk of being shut down as a result.

As for the OP, NOT RETRO REEEEEEE

>>3878878
Yeah I honestly think that's by far the least convincing argument in favour of it. Slow boards are nearly always better boards, and /vr/ is pretty much fine as it is in terms of its population size.

Only if it came with an assurance from the mods that allowing other consoles won't happen in the near future.

The only GBA games I think might hurt the board are the Gen 3 Pokemon titles, but they already have their own board.

>>3878840
DC was released in 99 champ. It's ignorance like that that makes people want to keep you and your consoles out. We need to be tightening the rules not loosening them. This place has already gone to shit with an invasion of underage and their 10 emulation threads a week.

File: 5d956ac448b849e3d3514017bb3b4ee3.jpg (362KB, 600x848px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 600x848px

It's never happening. Not retro.

Look, I'm playing the GBA fire emblems

I didn't make a thread about it here whining about why GBA isn't allowed

I made a thread on /v/

And it LIVED. People actually talked about the games for a good while.

/v/ HAS interest in GBA games. /vr/ does not.

/v/ has MUCH more traffic too so I'm sure that will satisfy you.

There is NO reason to turn /vr/ into /v/ when /v/ exists.

>>3878878
I don't think he said it was a bad thing?

The way I see it this board's size and pace is fine, but we don't know if a /vr2k/ would even reach a point like this.

>>3878892
This is a fair point. I can take that.

>>3878891
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 1999 rule codified along with the introduction of the DC to this board? Because I seem to recall before then people would say that the DC was too new to be retro and its late 90s release was a point of contention. Its been like three years and I didn't pay too much attention at the time so I'm genuinely not sure on this.

>>3878887
Agreed. If the GBA is allowed I want a guarantee that no other sixth gen or newer platforms will be even up for discussion until the 2020s or something like that.

>>>/v2k/

>>3878896
Then why even mention it? If it's a good thing, why ruin it with more traffic? If bad, why is having less traffic bad other than you need to wait longer for a reply? If neutral, why even mention it since it doesn't matter either way?

There's no real reason to bring it up unless you look at it as a negative.

I see what you're saying about an alternative boars, but I'm not really worries about alternatives one way or another. I just don't want a faster pacing on this board.

>>3878915
>alternative boars
meant boards

>>3878892
I don't think /v/'s willingness to discuss games for the GBA should be the deciding factor. /v/ is willing to discuss nearly every fifth gen platform at length and has threads about 90s games regularly, yet that's totally irrelevant to them being allowed on here.

That said, the matter of whether or not allowing the GBA would bring across more posters from /v/ is a much more worrying issue to me - but given the lack of discussion of it compared to the N64/PS1 and how we're fine even with those being on here, I am not convinced it would actually be a major issue.

>>3878892
>/v/ HAS interest in GBA games. /vr/ does not.
Bullshit.

And really? If we were banning platforms and games using /v/'s interest in them as a deciding factor then the Playstation One and Doom would both be banned. That's a terrible argument.

>>3878887
Agreeing to this too. If the GBA makes the cut, I want nothing else to be added for a few years after it.

>>3878928
> I want nothing else to be added for a few years after it.

I'm all for GBA being added and even I agree with this. Opening the floodgates all at once is a terrible idea. If we expand for whatever reason it should be a very slow, staggered progress.

GBA is borderline, but it's probably better to not put it on /vr/ because it has so much shared with the Gamecube.

>>3878870
What those consoles had are the same type of games we get today, other than improved graphics and larger worlds. So they shouldn't be retro in any way. They are the roots of modern games. If anything they should get their own board, combined with PS3/Wii/X360/DS. A 00s /v/ board for those who grew up with those consoles.

>>3878940
What does it take to get a new board made? I legit have no idea how that process works.

>>3878940
>GBA is borderline, but it's probably better to not put it on /vr/ because it has so much shared with the Gamecube.
That's actually a good point I hadn't considered, the GBA-GC connectivity is something that definitely ties it to 6th gen home consoles in a way I'm not fully comfortable with. I'm still mostly in favour of allowing it though.

>>3878939
I'd honestly be fine with establishing a three year rule or something where everytime something is added three years have to pass before discussions of new additions can be held. I'd be even more fine with sixth gen home consoles never getting added.

>>3878948
From what I've seen it over the years it really is entirely up to the mods these days. Hiro seems to have switched to an entirely hands off approach to running the site in terms of the moderation of it, and stuff like /qst/ or the short lived film board were seemingly all down to the mods deciding they were needed for whatever reason.

I think it should, but just the gba, nothing else, i think /v wont come to this board because they are NOT INTERSTED IN RETRO, if they were theyll be here already, these oldass dudes dont want this board to be alive and want the same threads over and over, (im 27 btw)pretty sure most people in this board collect gba as retro a while ago. So yeah. It should imo

>>3878948
For whoever is running 4chan at the moment to go and think "hm, maybe I should work on 4chan for a few minutes".

Consider that even moot waited for 5 years to just add standards compliant html for the site, and he at least knows how websites work; hiroyuki has no idea what he is doing at all (otherwise he wouldn't have made /aco/ and /trash/).

Retro is gaming not in the modern era of style-over-substance focused-on-graphics BS.

PS1/N64/DC doesn't belong here, really, GBA is right the fuck out even if it is mostly SNES conversions, which means just play the damn SNES, please.

>>3878971
Now this is some peak contrarianism right here

>>3878840
>they're amicable to the idea of allowing the Gameboy Advance
Source: My ass

>>3878974
It's been my opinion since /vr/ started. All the kids that loved their fucking crappy N64 toys crying to 4chan to include their "nostalgia" in a real board about true retro games (which N64 isn't a part of) are the contrarians.

>>3878891
This. I want the hipster emulation fags to leave. This board should be about playing retro games on retro hardware. Not playing ROMs on your laptop between college classes.

>>3878840
>>>/v/

No.

>>3878840
>>>/v/

>>3878840
God damn it now we're going to get swarmed with meta threads about six gen for months again. Thanks asshole.

>>3878983
There's literally a thread up right now with people saying they think it should be allowed. Just search the archive and you can find plenty more instances.

I'm not saying that it's the most widespread opinion on the matter but it isn't exactly rare either.

>>3879000
I doubt it.

>>3878840
im down.

Yes.

GBA is such a cancer cash grab no innovation shovelware for babies shit system that ported classic games for no fucking reason other than children at the time never owned an SNES. it is the epitome of non retro and can never be grouped in with pre 2000 consoles

There are, hands down, the worst threads on /vr/.

>>3879004
>I doubt it.

Trust me it's going to happen. Either someone is just going to keep posting meta GBA threads after the previous one 404s or you'll start getting a bunch of threads about the other sixth gen consoles because this always fucking happens when someone makes a meta thread about this topic.

>>3879009
Counterpoint: """"crt"""" filter threads

Fuck right off.

>>3878876
>Would you mind expanding on why?

No fuck off people have explained numerous times in the past but you faggots can't take no for an answer.

File: 1415195265248.png (713KB, 960x828px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 960x828px

>>3879019
Those are unique to /vr/ and have a point. Though I don't browse them very often.

This is just trying to ruin the board

>>3879030
Would you mind doing so anyway?

This is the first time I've made a thread about it or even thought that discussion about the topic was worth having, to be clear.

>>3879037
>Those are unique to /vr/
I wish

>>3879047
Oh. I didn't know. Which other boards are they on?

Why not just wait a few years and allow it in 2020?

>>3879008
Spoken like a true retard.

GBA is fine because it basically stopped receiving games in 04 barring a few stragglers like Mother 3.

Allowing PS2 would legitimately mean we would be getting Persona waifu threads. Yeah, no thanks, give that a few more years.

File: 1228640350429.png (131KB, 477x267px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 477x267px

>>3878840
allowing gba would be the trojan horse for the gamecube and ps2/xbox.
ps2 alone would destroy this board. and halo 1 is the complete opposite of retro.

we 100% should not allow the gba. keep it on the backburner for when there's a new board that has gc+ps2+xbox+wii+ps3+360.

>>3878986
I was playing hitherto completely unknown titles and English patched Final Fantasy V on my PC in 1999 with Genecyst and Kgen, then on the Dreamcast.

>>3879107
>halo 1 is the complete opposite of retro.

What, a fun console FPS with good mechanics, and memorable multiplayer? We should ban the N64 if this is the case.

Anyway, Halo CE was actually pretty fucking good, it was Halo 2 and onwards that sucked.

>>3879105
>Allowing PS2 would legitimately mean we would be getting Persona waifu threads.
How about I make one right now just to piss you off? P1 and P2 are both /vr/ :^)

>>3878840
Post 00s """mods""" are a problem here also that mostly overshadows discussions on retro games since those introduces modern concepts of video games currently plaguing the industry. I would argue that discussion on all mods should be banned but that would be too much, I guess.

>>3879131
Were you trying to refer to hacks?

>>3879135
That too, but not only.

If the GBA is allowed here then ps2 GameCube and xbox should be too

>>3879116
I was going to say I think he means because of Xbox Live, but wasn't that introduced with 2?

>>3878984
You're a deluded faggot with awful opinions

Go back to /v/ where you belong kid

>>3879030
Give a reason instead of repeating yourself you actual fucking shitbrain

>>3878840
fuck that shit, /vr/ thrives on the current traffic it gets simply because most things discussed here would die off pretty quickly in /v/,

where the fuck is /v2k/?

>>3878840

For future reference, /vr/'s moderation sadly rivals /v/ both in terms of tenacity and arbitrariness. So it's unlikely these meta threads will ever survive for very long. Some anons have tried to move this discussion over to >>>/qa/, but with limited success. Those threads just get shitposted down.

Personally, I don't mind if anons want to discuss GBA games and hardware here. So much of the platform's library is enhanced (or direct) ports of retro games.

>>3878840
>It featured new entries to or ports of many /vr/ relevant franchises that already come up in threads discussing said franchises regularly
This.
Actually, I wish /vr/ would just lighten the fuck up and not spazz out over discussing a franchise as a whole.

Like what's wrong with a thread comparing Zelda 1 with BOTW? Other than the fact that someone may have refused to play a new game and feels left out.

>>3879214
you can go do that on /v/ right now. it doesn't work the other way around though. one exception is discussing how your non-/vr/ games look like on a CRT in the /CRT/ thread.

>>3878840
go away

>>3879220
/v/ wouldn't shut up about how old Zelda 1 is. I imagine a thread on /vr/ would be more insightful, if the not retro crew can keep their silence for once.

It's just a hypothetical situation. I haven't even played it myself yet. But it's the same for any long running series.

And these discussions do happen occasionally already but they always go to shit if the OP mentions a modern game or someone decides to spout NOT RETRO in the middle of it.

If you wanna discuss GBA here just make a Gameboy General and start posting GBA shit in it. The mods won't do anything about it.

>>3878967
Fuck you /trash/ is great.

/aco/ was a dumpster fire though.

File: 119.gif (136KB, 605x434px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 605x434px

no

>>3879214
>like whats wrong with comparing zelda 1 with BOTW?
Years of massive hardware improvements and a lowering in price to produce said hardware, and years of learning and working experience for the developers and designers at Nintendo to start.
Obviously they are going to be radically fucking different. The problem is if you just try to talk about the difference between then and now it will always devolve into "zelda 1 is superior and a more pure experience ree" and "its just better zelda 1 it is superior and the more pure experience ree" evrytim

>>3879320
Yeah, but >NOT TETRO REEEE
Autists will shit it up.

That or babbage will shit it up.

We should let gba/ps2/gc and maybe xbox just to prune some of the autism from this board. That and those consoles where the last of their kind. Mostly focusing on the games, instead of the online multimedia aspects of the consoles.

>>3879107
So just allow them. You gonna fish out that Fifa 2013 cover to argue against it? Nobody even plays that game, but you lot keeps going >muh boogeyman. 6th gen and 5th gen were not all so different in design besides online multiplayer and 4-player local co-op from get-go. This board needs more material. Make it 6th gen and be done with it. This whole DC is okay but not the rest of 6th gen, SNES is okay but not GBA etc practice is dumb as shit.

>>3879335

the issue with that is that they kept making games for those consoles for a really long time. I don't want threads about Persona 4 on this board.

>>3879334
Then maybe you shouldn't be posting non retro stuff.

>>3879345
Add a rule to say we can talk about any game or system older than 15 years. And then rename the board to Old Games as Retro doesnt mean what moot thought it did.

>>3879351
Autistic screeching wins again!

>>3879356
Nice ad hominem.

>>3879361
How else would you describe NOT RETRO REEEEE?

>>3879364
Upholding the rules and consistency of the board.

>>3879367
To the letter, but not in spirit.

>>3879367
In the most immature way possible, maybe.
It's your job to report rule breaking posts. Nothing more.

I don't mind if GBA is allowed, as long as we all agree that gamecube, PS2, xbox, and later will never be retro.

>>3879367
I gotta wonder how many autists do run around this board typing "NOT RETRO". Half the times it about things that are by the rules of this board, are retro, like ports/remakes which we can talk about.

>>3879320
This is the best option DESU. The rules shouldn't be changed again, but we could just quietly tolerate GBA as long as it doesn't bleed over into gamecube stuff.

>>3879373
I do report them.

>>3879379
Ports and remakes aren't retro. People just talk about them anyway because the mods can't do their job.

>Dreamcast 128bits = Retro
>GBA 32bits = Not Retro

A console with retro graphics won't be allowed here even if it's library is composed by remakes or ports of retro games

>>3879381
>Ports and remakes aren't retro. People just talk about them anyway because the mods can't do their job.

Its been stated a number of times we can talk about those, thats why they dont get deleted. Also learn what retro means, it means something new that imitates something old. Nothing we are allowed to discuss here is retro.

>>3879381
>Ports and remakes aren't retro. People just talk about them anyway because the mods can't do their job.
It's the same game on a different platform. We're discussing a retro game. Stop splitting hairs.
I get not wanting 6th gen consoles on here, but wanting to limit discussion in different smaller ways is ridiculous.

>>3879387
>Its been stated a number of times we can talk about those
RIght, because they can't properly do their job.
>Also learn what retro means, it means something new that imitates something old. Nothing we are allowed to discuss here is retro.
Retro via the rules, jackass. Don't be pedantic. You know what I mean.

>>3879390
Remakes aren't the same game, and neither are enhanced ports which are mostly what people talk about.

>>3879397
>Remakes aren't the same game, and neither are enhanced ports which are mostly what people talk about.
They're essentially the same, not literally the same. Some more than others. It depends. Save your autism for a Final Fantasy 7 remake thread and not a OoT3D one.

>>3879397
>I'll challenge the mods cause they let remakes be talked about, but follow the sticky as it keeps my autism calm.

Righto.

>>3879408
To be fair with OoT3D, didn't they have to literally rewrite the game from scratch or something? It's amazing how close they were able to get it if that's the case.

>>3879409
>Everything I don't like or agree with is autism

What about a different, equally arbitrary rule for defining retro?

>no consoles with processors over 200 Mhz
>no games that support more than one analog stick
>No games over 1GB (for consoles) or 32 MB (for portables)
>No consoles that support EMBM or normal mapping
>No games created after the Square and Enix merger, as that was kind of sort of the end of an era. Allows a handful of 6th gen games, but not Halo or Melee.
>Alternatively, no video games created after the release of Shrek, the movie that clearly changed all facets of pop culture forever, and made an even bigger impact in 2001 than Flight 93

File: 1209705498576.jpg (94KB, 364x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 364x600px

regarding the topic of ports/remakes on non-retro hardware, they have been allowed here but only if they're not the thread topic.
for instance mentioning super mario 64 ds is fine in a super mario 64 thread.
meanwhile starting a super mario 64 ds thread is looked down on and gets reports.

board rules are not always community rules.
but yeah, no gba allowed.

This board should be for 8 and 16 bit hardware, and games (from any point in time) that run on that hardware. Now and forever. I have to agree with other anons who have expressed their displeasure with the 5th gen home consoles, and the crowd it draws.

>>3879419
>Everything I don't like or agree with is autism
Nah, disliking a rule and calling the mods lazy because you dont agree with the rule, is autism. Thats why you run around postin NOT RETRO at everything that triggers you, even though its within the rules of the board.

I dont run into every nintendo thread and bitch about nintendo because I dont like them.

>>3879446
>Thats why you
Where did I ever say I did that? I just said I agree with their stance.

How about you stop making assumptions?

>>3879449
You're still missing his point.
You love to uphold the rules so much, but for some reason you refuse to accept an un-written rule that the mods follow, and the rest of /vr/ already agree on.

>>3879458
>You love to uphold the rules so much
Right, because they follow what I want to discuss.
>for some reason you refuse to accept an un-written rule that the mods follow, and the rest of /vr/ already agree on.
Right, because it contradicts the first point and they aren't retro.

This isn't hard, anon.

>>3879107
you keep bringing up halo, but i never see anything about it even on /v/

>>3878840

I only agree with this because GBA threads would die anywhere else.

>>3879465
>This isn't hard, anon.
The mods say they are retro enough. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

In all honesty, what constitutes retro on /vr/ is kinda weird. Hardware and games wise, the GBA is pretty much a portable SNES, but no discussing that. The Dreamcast gets an exception even though it came out six months before the PS2.

>>3879491
>The mods say they are retro enough.
And I disagree. Again, this isn't difficult, anon. This whole thread is literally built around the point of a disagreement in the rules, so I would assume by posting in it, you would be able to understand this point.

>>3878887
Holy shit, THIS. My only real worry is that then we might have "Why not ps2/gc/xbox" threads. Gba is perfectly fine in my opinion but that is it, ONLY gba. I'm not a huge advicate for it but I love its library and think it may lead to good discussion.

File: GBA-WdeboyAGB.jpg (51KB, 700x537px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 700x537px

Ya know, considering that we go by hardware gens here, wouldn't the GBA library be allowed via pic related?

When are we going to extend the /vr/ time window?

A separate board just for GBA, PS2, and Xbox is silly, but I really don't think it is time to add any of those consoles in yet, or wait until PS3, 360, and Wii can be relegated with 6th gen as well.

>>3879532
Never, hopefully.

>>3878887
GBA library has games that are ports of Wii and 360 games.

>>3879532
I'd say in 2020, maybe 2021.

>>3879532
With any fortune, we'll decrease it.

>>3879492
Look at this guy using logic and reason to come up with a point! Let's all laugh at him for making any kind of sense

Har har har!

Are we being invaded by woffboys that want to ""change"" what retro means?

>>3879525
That's like saying "You can play GB/GBC games on your Gamecube so we should allow that."

>>3879550
Stop samefagging.

>>3879195
If it was at all possible, at this point I think a /vr2k/ or something similar would please both parties.

The problem is whether or not the staff would ever bother making the place.

>>3879556
Yes and?

File: Capture+_2017-03-24-01-12-39-1.png (60KB, 480x361px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 480x361px

>>3879558
I may be a filthy phoneposter, but wew lad.

I've always thought "retro" in the context of /vr/ should mean consoles two or more generations older than the current ones. So, PS2/GCN/Xbox are all fair game IMO. No need to split the board up.

>>3879575
Adding to this, if the Dreamcast can get an exception, why not the PS2 and other sixth gen consoles/ I never understood that rule.

>>3879556
Except it's not.

Many 5th gen consoles got games after the cutoff date, but we can still discus them since the hardware falls within the rules.
So here we have GBA games running on the N64, a console which came out before the cutoff date.

GB Player is just old games running on new hardware.

>>3879575
Ultimately, all this hubbub is due to everyone having a different definition of retro. Some people think one gen old is retro, some think two. Some people think it's before a certain year (which is preposterous imo). Hell, some people think it's a mindset.

I knew there was opposition to 6th gen, but I can't imagine why /vr/ is against GBA. You guys surprise me once again with your autism..

>>3879582
Because rulefags only care about the letter of the rule, not what the rules actually mean.

The Dreamcast came out before the cutoff date, so it is technically allowed.

File: pes2014_ps2.jpg (84KB, 268x380px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 268x380px

>>3879575
can't wait to discuss my favorite ps2 games on my favorite retro board.

File: dreamcast-1347030821.png (4MB, 1429x1429px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1429x1429px

>>3879595
Can't wait to talk about the best Dreamcast game of 2016.

>>3879595
Even though I wouldn't mind 6th gen, there should also be a rule against talking about 6th gen games that are part of a currently ongoing series (smash bros, halo, persona, etc)

>>3879595
No one posting on /vr/ gives a fuck about a "port" of a shitty soccer game that is really just a reskin of an older version with roster changes.

I just wish we could talk about computer games up to 2004.

>>3879602
A 2011 port of a Neo-Geo game? Try again, kiddo.

>>3879609
>Adding Deus Ex, UT2k4, Civiliation III fuck you I like it to /vr/
yes please

>>3879595
Also, the last game to come out on the PS1 came out in 2004. Your point is moot.

File: toystory3ps2esrb.jpg (222KB, 1000x1409px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1000x1409px

>>3879605
calm down there, partner

File: ghostbladecover1.jpg (517KB, 941x1038px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 941x1038px

>>3879614
2012, actually. And maybe you'd prefer something from 2015?

>>3878840
not retro. mods purge this thread

File: large_998_2600_Halo_2.jpg (280KB, 800x688px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 800x688px

>>3879621
Port was made in 2012, game was made in 2011. Posting games made for consoles after their lifespan means nothing.

Considering that Gamecube & PS2 don't look nice on modern TV's without a lot of extra fiddling I'd consider them 'retro' enough.
GBA is definitely retro considering how pretty much all the games are sprite based.
There's no reason to make a new board just for 4 consoles.

>>3879632
>Posting games made for consoles after their lifespan means nothing
That's the point I'm trying to make.

>>3879637
I agree with you, although if /v2k/ did get made, it would probably be 6th/7th gen, and the be made to expand as new gens get released.

>>3879638
but my favorite soccer game was made during the lifespan. You could buy a PS2 in-store in 2013.

>>3879648
Couldn't you buy NIB Famicoms as late as 2003?

>>3878919
Too late. I already imagined purple haired boars with tattoos and a nose ring

>>3879660
Yeah, I've seen a couple of those in the English department.

File: smerk.jpg (45KB, 169x200px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 169x200px

>>3879662
took me a second

The PSP is retro as fuck and it can emulate even retroier games

>>3879037
>discussing hardware on video games board have a point
>discussing video games on video games board ruin the board

>>3879609
As much as I dislike the games it's weird that I can't have conversations about D2, NWN1, or ToEE.

>>3879668
>The PSP is retro
bad bait

Fuck no
GBA is not retro
Even if we allowed it as an exception, what is there to discuss? The system had three games and 9001 remakes.

File: 1486174580872.jpg (18KB, 383x287px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 383x287px

So who even decides what's retro though. So many people here shooting off "REE NOT RETRO", but how do you know? Why isn't this retro, but that is?

anything before 9/11 is fine imo

>>3879697
The moderation staff. There are a few loopholes where you're permitted to talk about things in a certain context (you're allowed to discuss a remake of a /vr/ game, for example) but then you have people who freak out even then.

It's a very touchy situation.

>>3879685
The Jaguar had fuck all for games, and it's still discussed here.
>>3879697
Drawing a line is hard since so many people have different ideas of what constitutes retro, but I think 2 gens or 15 years in the case of PC games is a decent compromise.

The rules autism has been dragging down 4chan for fucking years.

If you want to discuss ps2, or GBA, or whatever, go find another forum.

4chan is a shithole anyways. I still don't know why I still post here.

>>3879714
The PS2 discussion I've seen here on /vr/ (that didn't immediately devolve into an argument about whether or not it should even be discussed) has always been very intelligent, with insight into the PS2's cpu and how it works, and how that compares to its competition. The hardware side of things is really fascinating, especially if you consider the PS2's hardware is essentially all from the '90s.

>>3879707
>drawing a line is hard.

Except it's not. It's defined strictly by Date. Dreamcast was let in for arbitrary reasons, and the fact that it's basically a home version of teh Sega-Naomi arcade hardware.

>>3879721
It doesn't matter. This isn't the place to discuss it. I don't sperg out over off topic threads, but the fact is, the rules are pretty fucking clear.

If you want to discuss GBA or PS2 or whatever, just tkae it to a different board, ora different forum. That's it.

>>3879723
>but the fact is, the rules are pretty fucking clear.

The rules were pretty clear before the Dreamcast got cleared as well, with people such as yourself going RULES ARE RULES.

Threads like these are how we define what the rules are.

Adding exceptions for a single system was stupid in the first place. It's all or nothing, and in this case, enough time has passed that these systems should be allowed for discussion.

>>3879723
But why is the line here and not there, anon

>>3879726
This. The rules were written weird in the first place, Dreamcast never should've been excluded since it came out in '98. All the RULES ARE RULES fags bitched about Dreamcast discussion ruining /vr/ because they couldn't outthink a shitty rule, and that just made shit take longer than it had too. And when DC was finally allowed again /vr/ stayed just as fine as it was before. RULES fags don't know shit, and they never learn, and they never know when to shut up.

To put things in perspective, I've seen old usenet posts from the '80s and '90s where the NES and SNES were snubbed by the (then) majority of PC and Atari enthusiasts as kids toys, and not true video game systems. It's the "no true scotsman" argument, applied by confused posters over and over again. We're far enough away from all of that to see them all as appreciable pieces of video gaming history, and eventually everyone on /vr/ will appreciate the GCN, PS2, XB, GBA, ect.'s place in gaming history too.

I don't think many people on this board realize how old the sixth gen is. Dreamcast will be 20 next year, PS2 two years after that. Both Xbox and GameCube will be 20 years old in '21.

And if some people don't think 20 years is enough to count as retro, then they can take a hike.

>>3879747
Yeah so you may as well just seperate it into HD vs. SD gaming.

>Composite was mainstream
Goes in /vr/.

>HDMI is mainstream
Goes on /v/

That would mean we also get PS2 and GCN discussion here. Since you can argue that the gameboy player was designed for playing GBA games on the TV.

But people will freak the fuck out if PS2 is allowed here.

the main problem with the retro board is that gaming consoles phase out rather quickly

either you set a reasonable permanent threshold year so everyone can be happy (so there won't be a situation like the dreamcast one) and never ever touch it again, or make it so you can talk about games and consoles that are 15 years older than current year

>>3879742
No people were against the Dreamcast because they were worried that this will cause a slippery slope that creates cancer threads like this one.

I think that /vr/ should be defined based on particular video game development/distribution/consumption philosophies. The time of "retro" in the context of this board as I understand it quite objectively ended with fifth gen for home consoles and sixth gen for handhelds. Entire game libraries of these platforms should be allowed, including modern hacks/homebrew/whatever - anything you can play on the original hardware is okay. I'm not sure about PC gaming, probably any hardware and games made before 2000 should be allowed, same with the arcades. Discussion of modern ports/remakes shouldn't be allowed, you can't play them on the original hardware, they're made for modern hardware and aimed on modern audience, you can post/read news and participate in discussions about them on /v/ and /vg/.
Newer gaming platforms should never be allowed on this board. It doesn't matter that PS3 and Xbox 360 will be 20 in 2026, they're from different era of video gaming.

Or you can go /his/ way and allow absolutely everything older than X years. 20 or 15 years, I'd say.

>>3878840
It's not retro. Simple as that.

not retro

>>3879384
Nigga do you even know what a bit is?

>>3879786
Yeah retard just like the NES and SNES were "slippery slopes" away from the glorious Atari and PC game culture of the '70s and mid '80s. Fuck off with your slippery slope bullshit

File: 5732282+_df7f73f533c2e4f4bf7dabaf49c90470.jpg (42KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 720x720px

>>3879030
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3879214
But you can do that on /v/

>>3878878
This. Although we're already infested with reddit posters.

>>3878908
The rule was 1999 but excluding 6th gen. This caused constant sperg outs so eventually the sticky was updated to add the exception the the 6th gen part for the DC.

File: images (1).jpg (139KB, 704x1080px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 704x1080px

>>3879925
For the love of christ stop talking about reddit. nobody gives a shit

Dreamcast had online multiplayer and was pushed by Fred Durst. Collectorfags kept crying and it was allowed. Stay at it GBAers, post more threads! Be more vocal! Fight for what you want.

>>3879182
No use the archive if you want them.

>>3878874
I firmly second this

>>3878870
>especially when this board barely gets any traffic as it is.

That's one of the best aspects of this board because I can actually make a post and then go do something else for a couple of hours or maybe even days without the thread 404ing by the time I return. Part of the reason I come to 4chan is because a lot of boards like this one have the perfect middle ground between a standard message board and a chatroom when it comes to poster speed.

>>3879959
dreamcast was allowed here since /vr/ started.

>>3878840
I'd definitely support it for all the reasons you listed, so long as nothing else gets added for a good long while afterwards.

GBA isn't retro. Fuck off.

>>3879336
Try FIFA 14; games from 3 years ago aren't retro.

>>3879956
>>3879976
Janitors occasionally still delete dreamcast threads.

>>3879621
>implying unofficial homebrew counts in anyway whatsoever

>>3879212
Ain't that right. I caught an all boards perma ban here green text quoting another anon's post in the same thread. This is why I'll never post from my PC anymore.

File: 1484964579133.png (1MB, 784x1032px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 784x1032px

>>3879865
>>3879868
>>3879983
Ok, but why, anons?

>>3880000
CHECKED

GBA is now allowed

I'm pretty certain the entire debate basically comes down to Kingdom Hearts

Games through 2001 should be allowed regardless of system imo

>>3880010
Reported for announcing reports.

>>3880000
Yeah, I'm noticing a trend.
>Anons who support the GBA being allowed provide detailed summaries of why they think so or at least reference the posts that have
>Anons that don't just tell the OP to fuck off without explaining why

>>3879976
No it wasn't. The last sticky revision was when the Dreamcast got allowed.

>>3880013
>Anons that don't just tell the OP to fuck off without explaining why

Because they've already explained it a million times and are sick of doing it by now since you all never listen and will just spam more GBA threads a few months from now.

>>3880016
Then surely they could just copypaste these supposed prior explanations from the archive and post them within fifteen seconds, right?
Because all I'm seeing in the thread so far is lots of good reasons for why the GBA should be allowed - including one that directly ties it to the same reason the DC was eventually permitted - and no good counter-arguments, and its making the 'for' side look a lot stronger than the 'against' side.

>>3880016
>Because they've already explained it a million times

>"it wasn't made before 1999 so it's not retro"
>well that rule would change, and that's a weak definition of retro anyway
>"but that rule can't change because than games after 1999 would be allowed"
>that's the point
>"muh 1999"

>>3880008
Baldurs Gate 2 is often discussed on here and that's 2000.

>>3880021
They could just use the archive if they want an answer so bad.

>>3880021
>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.

/thread

File: cyber-city-oedo-808-episode-1-3.png (323KB, 1021x685px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1021x685px

>>3880010
>airplane mode activated and deactivated

>>3878840
> The Dreamcast is allowed to be discussed on /vr/ despite its release date
Dreamcast release date is before 2000.
It doesn't comply with rules.

GBA = NOT RETRO

META THREADS = DEFINITELY NOT RETRO

>>3880024
Yeah, that's just a thing on here in general. The 1999 rule pretty much just means "don't make the OP about a game released after 1999" with little regard for the contents of the threads themselves at this point. I firmly believe the GBA should just be allowed since so much of its library gets discussed or is already relevant anyway, and the release of the Switch seems like a good a time as any to do so.

>>3880026
>One side of the debate should have to go and find the other's arguments for them
Do you have any idea how dumb this sounds?

>>3880031
Look at the OP image you double nigger.

>>3880027
see >>3880023

Also, in a thread about giving rules an update, using the very rules under debate as an counterargument is a bit of a tautology.

>>3880031
Meta threads are allowed now mate, Hiroyuki says so. The only condition is that only one can be up at a time on any given board.

>>3880027
And the topic is all about whether or not that definition is still in fact the best one to go by or if the release of the Switch is a good point to redefine it and make an exception, just like how the Dreamcast had one made for it with the release of the 8th gen consoles.

>>3880032
You're just making it harder to persuade the other side if you keep asking the same thing they're sick of answering a gorillion times already.

>>3880047
And if the other side can't even be arsed to copypaste a response then I'd argue they clearly care so little about the topic that they're forfeiting any role in the debate/discussion by default.

>>3880013
Because it's not retro and no amount of blog posting will change that

>>3880027
Except this is the absolute bullshit. Mods have made it all up. This is not what retro means.

>>3880047
Oh, and also that is a fucking terribly illogical line of thought. If someone wants the GBA to be allowed then their best course of action is to just not say so? That's dumb as heck my dude.
>>3880053
I don't think you understand what blog posting is.

>>3880051
Why should it be on everyone else to answer a question that you asked that could've already been easily found if you spent a few seconds on the archive for? You're insane if you expect people to not get annoyed at having to answer the same thing again when this topic constantly gets brought up every couple of months.

>>3880058
>constantly gets brought up
>every couple of months

Yeah, I would say that anyone so bloody entrenched in their viewpoint that they get fanny flustered about a civil discussion of the rules happening two or three times a year should just have their opinion ignored if they're also not at least willing to say WHY they're so adamant about their stance on the matter.

>>3880058
>their opinion should be valued even if they're not willing to talk about it like four times a year because their feefees get hurt
Boo fucking hoo

>>3880054
>mods made up rules
>site operates on rules
>bullshit
hmmmm

>>3880067
When I first started posting on 4chan there was a dedicated lolicon board. The site changes with the times, and with reasons. There's plenty of reasons in the OP to support that change, and the reasons against it amount to "RULES ARE RULES" and "slippery slope" retardation

>>3880072
>literally because reasons

>>3880073
>there's plenty of reasons in the OP

To put things in perspective, if we were having this thread 10 years ago it would be mindless rulefags shitting on everyone for trying to discuss PS1, SS, and N64. If we were having this thread in the '90s the rulefags would be shitting on everyone for trying to discuss the NES and Master System instead of Atari 2600 and Colecovision.

What is considered retro changes over time, GBA and 6th gen consoles will just naturally be considered retro sooner or later, this is a fact.

>>3880076
What an inane post. We're having this discussion now, and a lot of people don't consider GBA retro now.

>>3880080
Some people don't consider the PSX or N64 retro either.

>>3880080
GBA has become Retro. You'll just have to deal with it and click hide on GBA threads.

>>3878878
Yeah, but this is just as cancerous - if not more cancerous - than /v/ with just a fraction of the traffic. Might as well speed things up.

>>3880080
It's important to have these discussions so we can challenge weak opinions and point out the flaws in arbitrary labeling. The OP lists plenty of reasons to consider GBA retro, and there's plenty in this thread who admit that it should be, but they don't want to admit so for fear of slippery slope bullshit

I like that this board only discusses 20th century videogames. Deus Ex should be allowed though (the mod deletes posts that complain about it anyway.)

>>3880107
Yeah, I'd be fine with allowing PC games from the year 2000 and the GBA myself.

Nothing past 2000 should be allowed on the board, I don't get what's so hard to understand.

Just because it was arbitrarily named "retro games" doesn't mean a sliding scale of personal opinion that'd determines something to be retro was introduced. You guys take the word retro way too seriously and think that this board was built with intent to constantly absorb old consoles, it wasn't. It had a select era of games that it was encapsulating to ensure healthy discussion.

>>3880113
Nothing past 1999 is supposed to be allowed on the board as is games from 2000 get discussed. The Dreamcast is only allowed because it failed as a console.

>>3880121
Or you know, since it was released in 1998.

File: 451fb6ac2afd7daaec2f584fba4bc8380.png (69KB, 300x264px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 300x264px

keep /vr/ pure

>>3878840
No. 6th genners will make this shitty board even shittier.

>>3880121
I meant like 1/1/00 when I said past 2000.
P sure DC was released in '99 anyways.

Regardless, my point stands. Quit being monkeys caught up in the word retro when there's explicitly stated rules.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 11.02.00 AM.png (68KB, 273x445px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 273x445px

>>3880136
pic related

>>3880138
Thanks.
I think people get mixed on that since it's considered 6th gen, so they assume it's post 2000. Amazing what reading would do for folks.

>>3880136
woah, it's almost like this thread is proposing changing the explicitly stated rules or something

why don't we just rename the board to /99v/ while we're at it

>>3880131
what exactly happened between 1998 and 2000 that you can't handle?

>>3880136
Plenty of PC games from 2000 and 2001 get discussed on here.

>>3880141
I think it's more probable that they just don't know Japan got it that much earlier than the West.

>>3880141
The point is that if it was around as long as the rest of the 6th gen it would be retarded to allow it be discussed on here and not allow other 6th gen consoles be discussed.

>>3880153
You being born.

>>3880160
> projecting so hard you could sell tickets

>>3880164
>projecting

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>3880147
Yeah, I don't think that's really a reasonable thing to ask of a user base. To change the rules they helped form, to accommodate something that can already be discussed elsewhere (/v/) and has a strong tie to a console (GC) also in the sixth gen. This debate only serves reasonably in a formation of the /v2k/ board.

>>3880160
>hurr durr the only people who disagree with me must be young'uns cause there's no way an adult could think my views aren't objectively correct

>>3880164
Weak retort mate. He got you good there.

>>3880164
Kek.

File: images.jpg (7KB, 168x300px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 168x300px

>>3880169
Yeah because pretending I was born in the 90s is an impervious argument.

>>3880160
/thread

>>3880176
Kill yourself.

GBA discussion needs to be allowed because /vr/ is running out of things to discuss. We are resorting to weekly e-celeb generals because we've exhausted topics to cover on pretty much every /vr/ game out there. It's either allow GBA or the board will die.

>>3878840
people that believe retro is a period in time are dumb. just keep allowing consoles as time moves on.

>>3879107
good

>>3880180
No lets just make more castlevania threads

>>3880180
I think you're being a bit overdramatic but I agree that GBA discussion would breathe some life into the board like the Dreamcast did, which I'd like.

6th gen will never be retro because that's where modern gaming started

>>3880180
If we allow PS2 we're basically set for life. Since that has a library of 3,500+ games.

>>3879660
You've been watching too many Ninja Turtles reruns then

>>3880187
The PS2 is only 17 years old are you fucking crazy!

>>3880187
And most of that is shovelware

>>3880179
>>>/v/

>>3880186
I'd argue that's the seventh gen.

>>3880180
Or, you know, actually play some new games instead of staying stuck in your own niche little corner of games you've already played so you can discuss more. I personally expand my library all the time due to here, maybe you should expand your horizons since there's literally tens of thousands of games currently able to be discussed.

>>3880191
Well, fuck me then. Isn't the GBA younger? Why are we arguing about allowing the GBA when the PS2 is older?

If anything the PS2 has more reason to be allowed.

>>3880195
The difference between sixth and seventh is minimal

>>3880198
Not really, in fact I'd argue that it's bigger than between the fifth and sixth.

>>3880113
>I don't get what's so hard to understand.
It's this part
>It had a select era of games

Because the rules were written in the early 2010s, the <2000 cutoff date was arbitrarily implemented. If /vr/'s rules were written in the early 2000s it wouldn't be a <2000 cutoff, it'd be a >1990 cutoff and discussion of '90s systems would be against the rules for "not being retro". I hope this sounds bad and stupid to you because it is.

Here in 2017 we know that 90s consoles are basically the same shit as 80s consoles. You put your media in the game player, hook to tv, and you play with a controller. The graphics improved but that core experience remained the same.

So now we have arbitrary cutoff dates, for systems that are basically the same as the systems that came before it. Well that's bullshit, and needs to change, and it will. We got the rules fixed once before by raising enough awareness.

>>3880202
Ok then argue it

>>3880195
This.

People like to exaggerate the modernization of the 6th gen. When at best, it only had experimental online functionality, dlc, etc. Most of it thanks to Microsoft.

And the 6th gen wasn't overflowed with shooters like the 7th gen. 6th gen still had tons of arcade ports, plenty of sequels to classic series from Capcom, Konami (6th gen era Konami is best IMO, arguably second only to 3rd gen), Sega, and big developers still took more risks in trying new things.

7th gen was just shooters and companies refusing to make new sequels to classics IPs.

>>3880209
Define modern gaming

>>3880209
It also presented the struggles of making new games for classic IPs. Like, you have to reboot the series form scratch because a lot of things became unacceptable in that era. Contra Shattered Soldier (best Contra game) got lukewarm reviews, but the negative reviews focused on the length of the game or punishing difficulty. Mega Man X8 got also got shit on for trying to be like the classic games without doing anything new. Sonic was just being Sonic.

>>3880209
I remember all Dreamcast DLC was free of charge. Xbox Live DLC was actually free, unless it was for a game published by Microsoft. Then came 7th gen, and we all know what happened with the Oblivion horse armor.

>>3880206
Seventh Gen
>HD resolutions become the norm
>All consoles have internal storage and are now multi-media devices
>Online connectivity became the norm rather than the exception, as did social networking lite features
>DLC, microtransactions, season passes, day one patches, social features in games, episodic releases, digital storefronts, etc. all became commonplace business practices and some even started here
>Numerous longstanding companies and franchises died and several of the current big AAA series that dominate either started or really took off during this gen
>Demographic shift occurred with a much wider audience being reached by consoles than ever before
>The death and rise of genres that set the stage for today's gaming scene really kicked off here

That enough?

>>3880210
Paid online, heavy emphasis on online multi player, more story driven games (games being less game-y)/or shoehorned story, dlc/on-disc dlc, rebooting classic IPs, less representation of more gameplay focused genres (puzzle, platformer 2D/3D, shoot em up, beat 'em up, hack & slash, fighting games, rhythm, run 'n gun).

>>3880205
I don't get what you're trying to prove, the experience in 6th and later gens is not the same as 5th and prior. You said it yourself, the 6th gen consoles are not like what's currently allowed so it makes sense to separate by a cutoff date. You're just arbitrarily using the word retro to encapsulate more media, further broadening the scope on a niche topic. And refer to my post,>>3880167

Furthermore, if people really feel that space to discuss is sparse regarding sixth gen consoles, what do you think the impact would be for lesser discussed systems here on /vr/? One of the great things about this board is the ability to have specific discussions on minor things since the pace of the board allows for it. A significant boost in pacing would eliminate or greatly reduce that aspect of discussion.

The GBA doesn't really offer a high quality library like some nostalgia fags like to think. I'd like the DS to be allowed more than the GBA to be honest. /v/ is unbearable for any kind of discussion.

>>3880218
6th gen had all that, stop being delusional

>>3880216
and where did all those ideas come from? 6th gen.

>>3880209
This. Modern gaming is just an evolution of all the gaming that came before it. The commonly cited stuff that sets 6th gen as explicitly modern is all stuff that was present in some way in the eras beforehand, and had been more refined after years of experimenting. Online gaming? There were services like Satellaview and X-Band way before Xbox Live. Hard drives, operating systems? Totally acceptable on '80s-'90s gaming pcs.

>>3880212
I'd say that struggle was more difficult in the '90s, with established 2D IP's trying to gracefully make the transition to 3D.

>>3880226
It really didn't, besides the reboots and paid online (which was only on the xbox)

>>3880226
You can probably name all the 5 PS2 games that had DLC and online (if you're not lying from your ass). And that's less than 1% of the library of the system.

And the PS2 has one of the largest fighting game libraries of all time (If no the largest) with most of the SNK stuff being ported.

It's also the last gen that Konami tried (they have hundreds of titles for the PS2 alone), while they barely did anything for 7th (I mean they kinda tried with the DS, but they have less games for the PS3/360/Wii than they did for the PS2 alone).

>>3880231
dreamcast had paid online

>>3880228
Not even close familia. Most of them can draw their roots back further than that or began wholly in the seventh gen.

>>3880235
That reminded me that SNK also supported the PS2 greatly. PS2 was the last home console that the Japanese market really gave a fuck about.

File: edge.jpg (232KB, 1024x1200px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1024x1200px

>>3880235
and yet those games sold like dog shit while casual games were selling like crazy

>>3880237
6th gen is where it was viable

>not retro
Getting real tired of this meme.

>>3880250
For what in particular?

>>3880194
Yeah, you should go back there.

>>3880219
the experience in 6th gen and later is the same as 5th gen, in the same way that 5th gen is the same as 4th and so on. The graphics may be nicer but you're still playing media on a dedicated console hooked up to a tv.

You'll have more perspective in the future whenever something replaces that experience, jacking into the matrix or some such. Once you start loading 1:1 simulations of reality via electronic DMT manipulation you'll think back not just about 6th gen but all gaming that involved a console, media, televisions, ect and think of them as retro.

If you're lucky you might have a place to discuss them.

>>3880252
dlc and online

>>3880246
Yes Silent Hill 2, 3 didn't sell millions at all. Metal Gear Solid was flub (i think 2 is on the top hundred best selling PS2 games) they didn't make money by doing straight arcade ports of their Bemani franchises (which there are a dozen of). It's also the last gen where PES actually made money lol, when it still made millions (it's been on a steady decline ever since, and that hasn't stopped with the release of PES 2017).

They also made plenty of money with the GBA.

>>3880256
Then please explain why DLC barely existed in the 6th gen aside from experimental efforts (most of which drew from pre-sixth gen endeavours) and how that qualifies it as being viable during that period.

Then please go back to your original point abd back up your claim that the sixth gen was when they started.

>>3880263
it was easy to download dlc from your console. do you even know what viable means dumbass?

>>3880257
exactly.

>>3880268
I was being ironic. But I'm sorry if you missed the point, since irony is hard to convey on the internet. Maybe an "/s" at the end of the post would've helped you get it?

>>3880264
Yes list all those PS2 games with DLC. Try going to a best PS2 games or hidden gem's games list, and seeing how many of those games have DLC.

>>3880269
oh believe me, i knew you were being sarcastic when you said silent hill 2 & 3 didnt sell millions, delusional faggot.

>>3880264
Viable can refer to a lot of things depending on the context. You could just as easily argue that Sega Channel and other precursors to the Xbox and Dreamcast's own online services with DLC were when it became viable.

And you've still yet to back up your assertion that the practices I listed began in the 6th gen.

>>3880264
'90s kids in Japan were paying for Satellaview so they could stream DLC for games like Link to the Past.

>>3880273
*/s

>>3880272
thats irrelevant we are talking about 6th gen as a whole

>>3880253
>>>/v/

>>3880274
ok then argue it

>>3880278
a few games having DLC means that PS2 can't be retro? really? N64 had a little online functionality too, and that's considered retro by most of the gaming community.

Same with the Dreamcast (but I'm guessing you're against the dreamcast being considered retro).

>>3880275
but it didnt even work properly

>>3880280
Alright. Numerous online services made DLC available on consoles before the sixth gen while generating a profit, and were thus viable.

Now you argue your assertions.

>>3878908
>>3879956
The "1999 Rule" makes only a little bit of sense, especially considering that discussion of Diablo II, Fallout 2, and The Sims are forbidden, but Diablo I and Fallout I are fine

PC isn't as cut and dry as consoles are, mostly because of Windows still using MS-DOS up until XP came out

>>3880276
not an argument.

>>3880281
yeah, this board is better off without the PS2

>>3880251
The word retro, as used in the creation of and reference to this board, was never the dictionary definition to begin with. It was explicitly colloquial, and they tell you that by defining what it means to them as per the sticky. They even put scare quotes around it. And no, there was no shift in acceptance over time allowing the Dreamcast "into the fold" so to speak. It was always allowed, per the rules, as a hardware platform released in, or prior to, 1999. This isn't a nostalgia board for every successive generation to wank over the games of their childhood. It's about a unique and historical period of time, a developmental period, which can never be replicated ever again. It's about the birth of the medium.

>>3880283
but was it viable to the consumers?

I would absolutely like to see this. Not just because I would like to discuss GBA but I'd like to see the autists that are so staunchly against this banned for being the disruptive whiny cunts they are.

>>3879107
>allowing gba would be the trojan horse for the gamecube and ps2/xbox.

this
look at the faggots using the dreamcast as an argument to include 6th gen, same thing would happen if we included gba

>>3880291
that's a nice argument as to why you think retro is a set period in time. but gladly you're in the minority :), or we can at least, argue that the 6th gen is the real cut-off.

I know it's you, Pat

>>3880293
Most of them functioned as intended. Now stop avoiding the subject at hand.

>>3880284
>mostly because of Windows still using MS-DOS up until XP came out

You mean Windows 2000, which used the Windows NT kernel, and had no real DOS mode support.

>>3880289
*and the N64 and Dreamcast (for having online functionality of course).

>>3880301
>no sources

yeah, right!

>>3880303
yeah might as well not include the n64. its probably the most overrated console of all time

>>3880298
I never said retro was a set period in time. I said the colloquial usage of the word that we use here refers to a set period in time. And the resistance you've faced, and the lack of any response by mods or by Hiro, is because the board culture here IS about a set period in time. That period is not arbitrary. Again, it's about the birth of the medium.

>>3880315
The birth of the medium isn't everything pre-2000, it was in the 60s. Video Gaming was in it's 30s by the point /vr/ cuts off.

>>3879637
That's the most removed, autistic reasoning I've seen yet The Wii looks like shit in modern TVs, should we include that?

>rulefags
I take it that if 6th gen became allowed here, rulefags would happily support it because it's "THE RULES"?

>>3880301
>>3880307
DLC basically took the place of expansion packs, it's a better solution.

>>3880339
Don't be disingenuous. We're not talking Spacewar here. You know that I mean, as I said earlier, the important thing and the reason we're all here is due to the inception of certain ideas which could only occur during the developmental period of gaming. When iteration becomes imitation, that's where we draw the line. The people saying that the PS2 doesn't belong here are saying so because its library is consistently imitative. And the same goes for its peers. That's a maturation of the medium. I personally argue that it happened far earlier, and think the cutoff should be 1993.

>>3880291
>And no, there was no shift in acceptance over time allowing the Dreamcast "into the fold" so to speak. It was always allowed, per the rules,
It wasn't, you're totally wrong. the rules were re-written in 2014, before that the sticky had the arbitrary pre-2000 rule but also had a disclaimer that expressly forbade Dreamcast discussion despite the Dreamcast coming out in 1998, which didn't make any fucking sense. After a year of threads and emails pointing this dumb shit out (and of course being challenged by the braindead) the rules were finally rewritten to allow DC discussion.

>>3880369
>which didn't make any fucking sense
Exactly.

>>3878840
These threads accomplish nothing. Stop making them.

>>3880376
No

File: solar_front.jpg (66KB, 502x700px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 502x700px

We should just go by any game that's 15 years old or more. It keeps things old and gets rid of confusion caused by the console rule. This place should be for old games, not new games on old consoles.

>>3880376
Just because they haven't yet is no reason to give up. The rules here are poorly made and most posters want them revised.

>>3880386
There's no confusion with the console rule.

>>3880386
>This place should be for old games, not new games on old consoles.
I disagree. I'd rather the board be for old hardware, and any compatible games. Do you understand the amount of work that went into the port of Retro City Rampage? The hardware limitations are part of what separates the wheat from the chaff.

>>3880386
/vr/ is the core audience for homebrew games.

>>3880367
What you consider the developmental period of gaming is short-sighted. Go forward in time to 2117 and you'll read how the historians consider everything prior to 2100 to be the developmental period of gaming.
>The people saying that the PS2 doesn't belong here are saying so because its library is consistently imitative. And the same goes for its peers. That's a maturation of the medium.
Again, you're being short-sighted. These same arguments were used to mock the SNES and NES, calling their libraries imitative or failing to innovate upon the gaming basics established in the Atari era. The PS2's library is no more imitative than the SNES's.

>>3880389
This is ostensibly a board for old games. Allowing 2015 era games just because it's on old hardware is nonsensical. We should go by the game's age.

>>3880394
>Do you understand the amount of work that went into the port of Retro City Rampage?

Doesn't mean this is the right board for it.

>>3880397
Ironic considering the amount of anti-indie shitposting here.

I'd be perfectly okay with GBA discussion, but indie shit most definitely does not belong here. I'm sick of topic after topic shilling some indie game or fan remake that no one really cares about except the game's author.

On a similar note, I wish something would be done about all the e-celeb cancer on /vr/. I would say it's one of the major issues affecting /v/ as well, but that would be like complaining about someone pissing into a sea of piss.

>>3880403
There's an enormous difference between some San Francisco clique pumping out narrative driven walking simulators in Unity, and the diligence paid to get a game working on original hardware. Are you crazy.

>>3880389
>With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.
must be pretty confusing considering we have this thread at all

I play more GBA than any other system so im happy with GBA being on /vr/
Was the system i had during my early teens so to me personally i feel it fits well here in /vr/

Starting a GBA thread over in /v/ is painful. So actual discussions would be nice here.

>>3880408
>t. buttmad /v/irgin who irrationally hates Gone Home for being an "SJW" simulator

Kindly fuck off back to your kiddy board >>>/v/

>>3880413
Right, but you didn't refute the point.

>>3880410
Considering it makes no mention of handhelds and is referring chiefly to home consoles, and that it makes no mention of other platforms being permanently banned, no - not at all.

>>3880408
I didn't say there wasn't a difference, just that neither should be topics here. This place is for old games. Not new games.

>>3880423
Its also a place for old hardware, however, and if modern games are being made to run on said hardware then I think it should be fair game for discussion.

Anything older than 10 years is retro. It's fucking vidya, not cars.

>>3880254
Why did I even bother typing anything if this was the shit you were going to reply with? This is the most disingenuous reply I've ever gotten and completely missing the point of what I have said.

>>3880423
Final Fantasy IX came out in 2000, but we still talk about it because it runs on a system that was released prior to 1999. What's the difference between Final Fantasy IX and Pier Solar, or Last Hope.

>Overrated Games General
>Console War Threads
A-Okay

>Mention Sonic Advance
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3880410
I mean, it's a pretty simple rule anon. It says that Dreamcast is allowed, other sixth generation are not. Are the words too big for you?

>>3880434
people always say this but then backpedal when they realize all the 7th gen consoles are more than 10 years old

>>3880442
the >With the release of the 8th generation of consoles
part makes it seem like it will change with each new gen.

File: cavestorygenesis.png (257KB, 848x473px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 848x473px

>>3880427
It should be for both, old games on old hardware. New games have their own places for discussion.

>>3880443
"Oh just wait until 2020!"
No. I know exactly what won't happen then.

File: 1397763714348.jpg (15KB, 200x211px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x211px

>>3878860
>the quality of the discussion on here

>>3878860
You don't belong on 4chan period. Anyone who can't stand /v/ shouldn't be on /vr/. Keep coming if you want but we're not changing for you.

>>3880465
>there are /v/ermin among us right now
how horrifying

>>3880472
lol

>>3880413
I hated it because it was a shit "game."