/vr/ - Retro Games

>>4316535
The sentence is very clear. It's impossible to read it the way you are saying in proper English. That's why I broke down and explained the structure of the sentence. >>4314704 Using proper English grammar, that is what the sentence means. It cannot properly be interpreted another way.

Also important point, this isn't "my fight" in that I don't really care about Deus Ex or whatever being allowed or not. I just want the rules to be clarified or changed. I think they're already bad and should go by software release, not system release. This board is for old games.

If PC games are an exception and cut off at 1999, I'm fine and cool with that. My issue is that is very clearly not what the rules as written say. That they are this confusing to so many people is part of the problem.

>>4279787
According to here, yes.

>>4279796
How have you been here this long and not understood the rules? It's not an exception, the rules don't go by when the game came out, they go by what the game runs on.

>>4134653
The rules are stupid, but I didn't make them. A game that runs in Windows 95 is perfectly acceptable under them.

If you don't like Diablo, just ignore the thread but shitpost trolling about the rules is weak.

>>4049945
>why are the rules regarding what is /vr/ on the PC so poorly elaborated?

Because the console rules are also poorly elaborated, but understandable.

>why are people being banned/warned for understandably complaining about 2000s games being off-topic?

Because they can't read the rules?

>>4005795
>but it is not allowed on /vr/.

According to the rules it totally is. Any Genesis game is.

Why is there so much homebrew and fan games being made for Genesis and hardly any for SNES?

>>3936829
People are still making Genesis games but they're even worse than that. All just crap like this and that pos belt scroller that was getting shilled here.

>>3917083
I vote for any game 15 years or older being allowed.

>keeps every game talked about old
>allows for regular new content to be discussed
>removes the question of "when will we allow X"

Screw the whole console thing, it's a poor way to set up the board. Pier Solar and Cave Story Genesis don't fit here as well in my opinion.

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.

>>3871557
>and the best consensus we had in that thread was the creation of /v2k/.

I was in that thread and I think you only believe that was the consensus because it's what you want.

>Also, I'd like to know your opinion on what I said about what'll happen if 6th gen is allowed here, people will start asking for 7th gen as well. Would you be okay with that?

Optimally I would like to see /vr/ move to go by year. So anything either 10 or 15 (or even 20) years old would be open for discussion. It both makes for new games coming up for discussion on a regular basis, but keeps talk to things that are old. It also removes the question of "when can we talk about X".

Under the current rules we can have threads about modern games just because they were developed for an old console and that's one thing that genuinely doesn't feel like it fits this board.

>>3826978
I visit most of the boards here, actually /pol/ and /b/ are two of the only ones I never bother with, and this place is slower than most.

Really though it's fresh ideas I want more than just faster traffic. So often before even clicking on a thread I know what's going to be said because it's the same people saying the same things over and over.

I still think the best solution is to go to either a 15 or 20 year old rule instead of going by console. That removes the question of "when will X be retro", keeps things fresh because new games come up for discussion regularly and keeps this place just for talking about old games, which under the current rules it isn't necessarily.

>>3673004
>>3670268

Board cutoff should go by game year not console release year.

>>3496160
The current rules are ridiculous. This board obviously wasn't set up to discuss new games like Pier Solar so going by console doesn't make any sense.

I vote we go to a rule of including anything that's 15 years old by date. That will give opportunity for new topics of discussion most days as some game or other turns 15, but it keeps the board dedicated to old games. 10 years or 20 years would also work well, but I think 15 is a good number.

Also "Retro Games" is a misnomer that only confuses people so we should also change the name to Old or Classic Games.

>>3485331
Real talk, the shitposting on /vr/ is way worse than the shitposting on /v/. We're /pol and /b tier here right now. It's a shitty situation and I don't think letting 6th gen be talked about will make it better, but I could hardly see it making it worse.

Personally I think this board should go by date. Either 10 years, 15 years or 20 years being the cut off. Doesn't really matter which, but it would make things more clear, give new things to talk about on a daily basis and clear up confusion because the rules as is are retarded. Pic very related.

If you want civil and polite discourse though you came to the wrong website in the first place.

>>3462464
>>3462464
Nothing about this board works well.

>>3412514
Nah. The board rules are super retarded, it's true. But you are completely aware of what you're doing posting a mosaic of games that are outside what this board was set up to talk about. It's a weak ass effort too.

Every year is the best year for games.

>>3400096
The cutoff isn't a date, it's a console. We can have threads about games from just a couple years ago, so long as it's on the right console. Rules here are super retarded, yo.

>>3189316
>released on a retro console
That's all that matters. The rules here are retarded.

>>3133774
Some of those are great for millennials.

>>3069519
>how you can possibly justify post 2000 computer games being allowed based on the "platform" rule.

The exact same way we have post 2010 console games being allowed based on the "platform" rule. The rules here are pretty retarded, yo.

>>3036618
Yup! Weird rules, huh?

>>2748710
The rules are retarded. Going by console instead of year just muddles everything. So technically, stuff like Pier Solar is an acceptable topic, but the Sims isn't...

So is Pier Solar retro? According to the board rules it technically fits, because they go by system release dates not game release dates. But it's weird to have a "retro game" released in 2010.

Also, is it any good? I'm not usually a fan of RPGs, but it has me curious.