I donn't know, guys. Maybe I'm stuck in the past. But

I play retro because I enjoy them more than modern games. And if you feel overwhelmed know that there will never be any more "retro" games coming out

I prefer playing retro games since the new games these days seem to have a bigger focus on story and graphics than actual game play.

I play games that are fun.

>>3916817
Don't just pick up whatever modern game is popular, sort through the junk to find something that looks good just as you do with retro games.

>>3917661

This, but there's nothing wrong with that. Many modern games are like a playable movie, which is pretty cool.

>>3917509
>And if you feel overwhelmed know that there will never be any more "retro" games coming out
There are still very many games. I didn't play many PC stuff.

>>3916817
I mostly play games that are not junk.

>>3916817
I play retro games mostly because it's cheap to emulate the old rom files (and more likely than not, no one will care that you pirated them), they're pretty enjoyable and a lot of games nowadays have been overly politicized to the point where people thought the problem with the new Mass Effect game had to do with the fact that the woman that animated the game was a woman, not that she did such a piss poor job at it and BioWare shouldn't have let her anywhere near it since this as her first major project.

I just want to play for 20 minutes at a time and be fully engaged. I feel like every time I start a new game I'm sitting through a tutorial of something I already know. I feel like new games are not finished products. There are some exceptions. The graphics are too much focused on and they aren't as fun. Its been like that since N64 came out. N64 has a few games that are truly excellent, but even back then we still played Super Mario.

>>3922323
With modern games I don't know where to go and the disc is loading forever; my character is wandering through worlds that aren't anything new, or I can't explore the limits of, and any enemies I encounter are too easy.
Some of the FPS games have gotten so dark I can barely see the levels. Or I go online and I get insta-death because one player in the arena literally plays the game all day. Or I get kicked out of a lobby because I didn't do what the creator wanted. Or I have to listen to someones rap music over a mic, or hear people fighting etc. I boot up and I'm barely gaming.

I don't think Sony understands how many downsides and time-wastes they've created by adding features. Its obvious that Nintendo knows how toxic the players and developers for modern games are. They are just bad people with no sense of doing a finished job.

Its no wonder Netflix is doing so good. Its probably because the game industry is failing.

>>3922323
>Its been like that since N64 came out
I'd say it's been like that since 2008 really. That was when the Internet came around and developers could afford not to finish their games because they could just release a patch to most of the players and they would receive it, thus making it unnecessary for them to finish the game by the time they shipped it. It was also the same period where the massive hardware updates over the previous generation (where consoles actually could match what most mid-tier PCs could do graphically) allowed for the likes of EA and Ubisoft to create more titles that took advantage of these graphical updates, to the point where they were something of a feature of the game itself, not to mention the decline in exclusives in non-Nintendo consoles and the growing market in games that had PC ports and ports with either the Xbox 360 or PS3. I don't remember graphics being as huge of a deal until really the same period of time the Xbox 360/PS3 came out. Not that it wasn't a focus of a console beforehand, but a lot of the focus of games before then was also the usual story and gameplay elements.

>>3922746
The what?

>>3921814
Mostly this, my computer being shit is the main cause of me exploring retro games in the first place. But i'm happy i did that, they provide a different experience from the mordern ones, and i enjoy them more.

You *are* stuck in the past, and there's nothing wrong with that. Play whatever era you want, just don't become one of those who make enormous generalizations about modern games despite not playing any. That shit really gets on my nerves. Why can't we enjoy old games without having a stereotypical "everything new sucks lmao" attitude?

>>3918029
If they were based on good movies maybe, but they're based on modern blockbuster shit flicks. I don't want to watch those, let alone play them.

>>3917716
But are old games more fun to you?

>>3927136
Nah, I play new and old games. Mostly ps1, ps2 and Saturn these days. Nioh was great. Can't wait for the new Ace Combat.

>>3916817
I just don't like games which have teams larger than 30 or so, they are too formulaic and predictable. Which happen to be all modern games.

>>3927243
I don't think team size is very relevant, anon. So long as the director knows what he's doing.

>>3927250
When you have team of 200 people all over globe no one knows what they're doing. That's how you get MA: Andromeda with horrible faces who were mostly fixed by shader patch which probably took single coder 3 hours to add, yet which required massive backlash to get added.

There was also that shitty trend MS brought to console gaming with X360, every game was thinly-veiled US army recruitment propaganda with burly boring army guy protagonist and generic terrorist enemies in pseudorealistic setting. It was horrible. It's slowly reversed, but the damage was done.

>>3922687
> developers could afford not to finish their games because they could just release a patch
What's the problem of not playing on the launch week?
>2008
>period where the massive hardware updates over the previous generation
At any period before that graphics were progressing even faster.
>decline in exclusives in non-Nintendo consoles and the growing market in games that had PC ports and ports with either the Xbox 360 or PS3
Thanks god. Console exclusives have to die. Imagine if there was LG exclusive movies or Beats by Dre exclusive songs. Someday, gaming ecosystem will be completely unified and separate console releases will be as rare as new arcade cabinets today.

>>3927286
> damage was done
To players' brains? Sure. To game industry? They learned a lot.

>>3916817

I've played most retro games that seem like they would be good. There's a few systems I haven't touched(Saturn, PC98/PC whatever), but for the most part I feel liked I've played everything good that retro games have to offer.

I don't play as many video games as I used to. As far as modern games go I'll play the occasional indie game but other than that I'm pretty much done. Now if it weren't for work I have no idea what I would do all day.

>>3922350
>I don't think Sony understands how many downsides and time-wastes they've created by adding features. Its obvious that Nintendo knows how toxic the players and developers for modern games are.
This is a great insight, and I think it's also indicative of the larger trend in technology in our society right now. Some creators have realized that "because we can" isn't a good reason to force something into a design, and that useless features are actually worse than nothing at all because malicious users will figure out how to exploit them to make the product or service worse for everyone. And then there are some who are suffering from having made that mistake over and over again, but still can't see what they are doing wrong.

>>3929538
>Imagine if there was LG exclusive movies or Beats by Dre exclusive songs.
But there literally are. Lots of movies, TV shows, and (to a lesser extent) songs are exclusively available on specific platforms (e.g. Netflix, Itunes, Google Play).

I think you are suggesting "what if there were movies you could only view on an LG-branded phone or TV," but to a certain extent it's apples and oranges because video games are inherently interactive (and thus rely on code that may or may not be portable) while audio/video is not, and can therefore be easily converted to universal formats (i.e., even if netflix isn't available on your platform, it's trivial to download a pirated mp4 that you can play on anything).
The situation is more analogous to games that are exclusively available on clunky distribution platforms like Origin or whatever. I think that's the direction "exclusivity" in gaming is going anyway. With consumer PC/portable and console hardware converging, distribution services like PSN, Steam, etc. are the new "platforms."

>>3929669
>because video games are inherently interactive (and thus rely on code that may or may not be portable) while audio/video is not
How exactly does interactivity tamper portability? Maybe only performance and controls. But performance will eventually be non-issue because it will exceed time used to create assets. Like today sound in games is practically computationally free. As for controls we know that they can be emulated - see mobile games or Wii emulator for example.
>The situation is more analogous to games that are exclusively available on clunky distribution platforms like Origin or whatever. I think that's the direction "exclusivity" in gaming is going anyway. With consumer PC/portable and console hardware converging, distribution services like PSN, Steam, etc. are the new "platforms."
Exactly.
Well, Origin games are still piratable too, and thus can be liberated from their platform, just like movies. That would change with streaming exclusive games though. On a side note, they'll also hopefully provide graphical fidelity not achievable at home, reminiscent of 80s arcades.
I don't have a problem with diversity of game services like Steam, Origin, GOG. Competition is beneficial for public I guess.
My main complaint is having to buy the same hardware multiple times. Like PS4 and PC for example. Or Switch and tablet. Not to mention other consoles, but Microsoft is addressing the problem already by releasing most of their new Xbox game on PC.
I'm just hoping there will be universal format for apps just like today there are universal formats for video, music, pictures. You can play wav, jpg and mp4 everywhere.
But the way, that's kinda happening inevitably thanks to emulation and piracy scenes.
Sorry for my random collection of thoughts.

>>3929708
>How exactly does interactivity tamper portability?
If some obscure, totally locked down, video streaming service releases an original and exclusive video, you can successfully "port" it to every platform just by capturing the video with a screen recorder and encoding it in a well-supported format.

Currently there is no equivalent process for making an executable portable. Emulators and compatibility layers exist, but those only serve as a mapping from one specific platform to another (e.g. Wine lets you run x86 executables compiled for windows on x86 *nix platforms). There's no "universal translator" for binaries. In fact, it's not even theoretically possible in all cases.
However, I definitely agree that over time this issue will become less important and easier to overcome.

>>3929759
True, I forgot about that.
Video can only be converted from one format to another too though. And open source hardware abstraction layers like SDL and compilers like gcc exist so code can more or less easily be ported to any system.

>>3929768
The key word there is "code" though. It's a lot easier to build code written by a human for a different system than it is to create an emulator or a compatibility layer to interpret a binary on the wrong hardware (which may not even be possible in all cases).

However since hardware is becoming more standardized and since developers are becoming more interested in selling their software for as many hardware platforms as possible, the issue is probably evaporating in practical terms.

>>3916817
there are plenty