/vr/ - Retro Games

>>10101398
https://youtu.be/gVzojfFrDZU

>>9249429
Oh man, people embellishing on the internet? That never happens. Excuse me while I go kill myself.

>>7474090
>Like, what is an optimal route good for in racing? Obviously the scenic route is better
>Have you never played a racing game, ever?
>Y U DODG?
It's almost like getting a good time in a racing game is a good thing
Much like completing a level quickly will give you more points
It's honestly shameful that you need this explained

>>7448128
>the obsession over "better"
Nobody's forcing anyone to play Test Drive 3 as their only choice of racing game, and yet some choose to play anyways for the same reason some still watch older film formats. They still retain entertainment value.

You did watch Citizen Kane, didn't you? That should clearly illustrate how we can enjoy works within the context of their creation; Productive conversations about these works are entirely subject to an individual's experience with, and by extension their understanding of the given medium; Creating an arbitrary standard for discussing and enjoying purely innovative works will not improve conversation quality here because innovation doesn't necessarily determine what an individual values and therefore discusses. While innovation allows for more refined expression and therefore "better" works, you can still find entertainment value in standard definition.

By assigning objective value to countless games in a given genre from your anecdotal opinion on a "better experience", you've missed the whole point of playing classic games. If you don't like a design choice an older game made, that's completely understandable. To then say those older games have less value than newer games with more innovation on a board for appreciating old video games is hilariously lacking self-awareness. Seriously, why are you even here?

>>7417743
Someone already said GTA4 and you're indignantly disengaged because you don't understand how modern web design affected the world around you. High resolution displays? Social media? 3G? Is none of this getting through to you?

>>7376682
Bernie Stolar you fucking ignoramus Jesus Christ

>>6606949
...dude what?

>>6492982
>Reaches in jar, excited
>Looks in jar empty-handed, disappointed
>Thread-bad.hurr
It's not my fault you're so terrible at interpreting information. The thread was fine until someone derailed it and the fact you're acting like only the last hundred posts exist is telling

>>6401887
You're a moron.

>>6065183
>for 170$ this not even completely does what every piece of shit old tv that you can get for free does
wow

>>6025795
It doesn't. Pretending it's better than original hardware does.

>>5992264
And did you know super mario 2 was actually a game called doki doki panic in Japan?

You do realize shut the fuck up?

>>5613641
inb4 b8
1/2
>CRTs are no longer produced because they have inferior picture quality versus LCDs
CRT's weren't created for HD resolutions (some of them were), LCD's are lighter, cheaper and easier to produce, its natural that they are the successor.
>CRTs emit dangerous levels of X-rays or other forms of radiation
False
>CRTs always have easily-visible flicker
False
>CRTs always cause eyestrain
False
>CRTs always make a high-pitched squealing noise
Not always, computer monitors don't because of higher horizontal frequency scan.
>CRTs contain lethal amounts of electricity, even when unplugged
Yes but charge depends on tv, most of electronics hold some charge on capacitors.
>CRTs need calibration more than two to three times a year
False
>Overall CRT black levels are not superior to LCDs because ambient light ruins CRT black levels
False
>Analog CRTs have more processing time than digital LCDs due to poor RAMDAC performance
False
>Afterimages caused by phosphor decay are extremely annoying and are a significant downside of CRTs
False
> Sending an improper mode (resolution or refresh rate) to a CRT can cause permanent damage
You would have to try hard to do that
> CRTs cannot have touchscreens
False https://youtu.be/QEZEVy6aIww?t=579
>4:3 is so bad that nobody should use a non-widescreen CRT
Personal preference
>The Sony GDM-FW900 is the only CRT worth owning
It's one of the best crt monitors.
>Curved CRTs have objectively inferior picture quality versus flat CRTs with otherwise equal specifications
False, where do you find that bullshit?
>CRTs should not be used because they are heavier and deeper than LCDs
Personal preference

>>5467198
a thread died for this

>>5432416
I only realized now Kong Quest is a play on the word conquest.

>>5395019
>shitting up a low poly game with high resolution textures