/vr/ - Retro Games

>>1367457
Beating a video game actually used to be an accomplishment. Not anymore.

You could be that one kid in class that was able to beat a game that nobody else could and be a bauss.

>>1367459
>That one kid in class who would always claim to have beaten -game without save feature-
>Would never be able to back it up
>Played like shit when you would watch
>Clearly never beat the game
>Still brags about it and makes fun of you anytime you die in game.

>>1367457
>Nowadays vidya has turned into a bunch of interactive movies that you can play while half asleep.
But I kinda like these. I just wish they were a bit more difficult. Shit, dying in the new Tomb Raider took some effort.
I like such games simply because they make up for their lack of depth with storytelling and immersive graphics/atmospheres. Older games also relied on one thing or another - like old school JRPGs for instance. Sure, they told a nice story and had immersive graphics, but gameplay consisted of nothing more than flipping through menus and selecting attacks. A lot of classics are really lacking in content as well, like some of the barebones arcade titles (see pic) that were popular back in the day. Now, I'm not knocking them - but they're not exactly the type of game one plays for a long, engrossing experience.

(Sorry if this post reads like a stream of consciousness, because it pretty much is)

>>1367478
>but they're not exactly the type of game one plays for a long, engrossing experience

Long, engrossing experiences are for losers who have too much time on their hands.

For every good game, there's a ton of garbage. It has always been this way.

I find people that rave about how much better retro games are tend to forget that only a small percentage of games are actually good. The overwhelming majority of games were shovelware, horribly designed messes, or just flat out unplayable.

You can't just generalize a massive group of games.

>>1367478
>old school JRPGs for instance. Sure, they told a nice story and had immersive graphics, but gameplay consisted of nothing more than flipping through menus and selecting attacks

That's a huge oversimplification, and not every JRPG was like this. In fact, I find a lot of SNES and PS1 RPGs try various ways of making combat either more fast paced or more strategic. Action RPGs and Strategy RPGs got their start fairly early on that mixed things up.

You actually find a lot of innovation in JRPGs back in the day. It's just that it all eventually just sort of stopped. There are still even NES RPGs that manage to impress me with how ahead of the curve they were.

Yes mainly for the fact that they don't take fucking forever to start. I swear every modern game now has some shitty starting scripted event where the character is walking on their own and all you can do is move the camera around while they talk and then a forced half hour tutorial. I don't care if this makes me sound like I have ADHD because I am sick of that shit. You get more in the first five minutes of Contra Hard Corps than you do in the first half hour of most modern games.

>>1367506
>I find people that rave about how much better retro games are tend to forget that only a small percentage of games are actually good.

What would you say if I told you that the small percentage of good retro games are much better than the small percentage of modern games?

>>1367516
I would but then that opens up a whole new can of worms labeld "games that don't age well and nostalgiagoggles"

But we're on /vr/ so what does it matter

>>1367516

That's fairly subjective.

Modern games right now (still counting 360, PS3, and Wii) up against ALL of retro games?

You know what, I still say modern beats retro in that ratio. There were a lot of companies trying to get in on video games that put out complete shit. And I mean literal shit, not "boohoo this game isn't hard enough why aren't more of my bones broken".

Like, as much as people like to bash AAA media hyped shit, and say it's complete garbage, I'd rather play that than, say, Barney's Hide and Seek or The Advetures of Bayou Billy.

I don't think you truly appreciate the sheer volume of garbage that came out in the 70's and 80's.

>>1367519

Yes, of course. And if I had said modern games are better than retro games, you would've disagreed with that and would've came up with some BS argument. You basically just admitted that you're here to argue for the sake of arguing. Go fuck yourself, loser. I have better things to do than to jerk you off.

>>1367534
Wow, rude.

>>1367534
>I have better things to do than to jerk you off.

Buddy I checked your schedule and it turned out you're full of shit. Get that hand ready cause I'm ready to burst.

The thing about modern video games is not that they are like movies, it's that they are mix movies and video games while leaving out everything that makes either good. The stories are all bad, the acting is crap, it's all bad CG so any suspense is killed outright, the gameplay is subpar, there are almost no options and they all rely too heavily on Hollywood cliches. You won't see imaginative games like Mario Bros. or Pac Man ever again unless the game specifically markets itself as "unique" or "quirky", and those games almost always end up being trash that relies to much on artsyle or humour without being any good as a game.

The worst part is that the games that are actual games tend to be way too self depreciative or pretentious. If someone made R-Type today it would either be filled with "what doth life" bullshit or "lel look at me I'm a video game ;p" bullshit. RPG's in particular have gotten really bad with this, as you get tons of shit like those 1 dollar joke games on Steam or those not too serious JRPGs and the complete opposite such as, well, almost any gritty WRPG. There are almost no more Lunars or Dragon Quests.

I suppose it comes with the social standing of games and the culture within. People saw games as this exciting and new thing back in the 80's and 90's, so their output was filled with sincerity and passion. Nowadays, I find that most people are completely jaded with the whole thing, including those who make games, and the people that are excited are so in a really obnoxious "US GAMERS HUH" kind of way. The respect that Hollywood commands when it comes to the average person is so tantalizing and glamorous, that I can't really blame most big-name game makers for emulating ; most of them have spent years being monoliths in the industry and want that mainstream celebrity status and fame that really just doesn't come with the territory. I wonder if video games based on actors will ever becomes commonplace.

>>1367573
You nailed it in your last paragraph. Gaming went hollywood, and we're left with vapid AAA blockbuster stuff or pretentious indie games with retro graphics.

>>1367457

Stop playing AAA trash you read about in Game Informer

Buy a fucking handheld

>>1367582
also watch Classic Game Room. They might not be particularly informative in their reviews, but they cover so much shit that you are bound to find some goodies.

the structure of how video games are produced, sold, and profited has changed

in the past games were sold primarly in small mom and pop stores. There wern't as many big name retailers carrying them.

The store owner would buy a few copies of a game, if it sold well he would buy more. Game companies had much smaller budgets and not as much went to advertising. Hype did manage to sell some games but you couldn't consistantly top the charts by buying advertisments. In the arcade scene this was even more extreme (as mentioned by a very famous article) arcade games that did not make customers happy did not make money and were replaced by other newer machines.

Nowadays most physical copies of games are sold by nation-wide retailers. These retailers buy games in bulk: signing contracts with big producers and agreeing to buy thousands of them before the game has even been finished. The profit is made in this way before the consumer even decides if they are happy: in other words you dont need to make the consumer buy your game you just need to get your slick sales man to convince gamestop to buy a few million copies of your game. Advertising budgets for games are also huge: in many cases more $ is spent on advertising than on the actual game. A game can earn back the $ from production in just a few weeks of early sales all made from hype. DLC is also another way in which companies can make loads of money while offering a bad product. Pay some tech monkey a few hundred $ to make gold pallete swaps of the games guns, slap on a $5 price tag and you make tons of profit because your expenses were almost zero.

In this generation, more than any other, you can make tons of money without needing consumers to be satisfied.

This is why games were better back than. Its not nostalgia or genre preference the way that game are made and sold has fundamentally changed.

I feel like people treat video games the same way they do music: Everything was better in the past. Which really isn't true, it's just all the garbage that was around then has been left behind, while everything worthwhile remains in the present. Having a mindset that all modern games are bad is just as stupid as the 12 year old who thinks all old games are bad.

>>1367593
>Which really isn't true, it's just all the garbage that was around then has been left behind

Nigga, Imma make sure we all remember Bubsy.

>>1367592
Yeah, back in the day, you had to go to Toys R Us or something like the Montgomery Wards catalog. Gamers in small towns were pretty much forced to go the catalog route unless there was one of those aforementioned mom n' pop shops.

Just more proof of gaming going hollywood.

>>1367604
>Gaming going hollywood
>Video games are available at Toys R Us

wat

If anything that means games already WENT hollywood a long time ago.

>>1367593
>it's just all the garbage that was around then has been left behind

As compared to nowadays when garbage gets put on a pedestal, marketed like all hell, bombs and then gamers are told they are monsters for letting it die. God, I don't hate modern games that much, since heavily marketed games were almost always crap, but the modern gaming press is pure cancer.

pure

fucking

cancer

>>1367608
>As compared to nowadays when garbage gets put on a pedestal

Happened in the past, too. Ducktales ain't that great. Yeah, I went there.

Darkwing Duck is legit, though

>>1367609
Eh, that's what I meant. I just messed up my grammatical tenses or whatnot

>>1367612
Did you even read his post?

the problem is modern AAA titles are shit sure there are a few gems but back in the day most games from big companies like konami, capcom, sega, nintendo, and the likes were actually AAA quality. Same can't really be said anymore. This is is one aspect of modern gaming I really dont like. That isn't to say there aren't lots of good modern games though.

>>1367619
Making a AAA game back then took more skill, since everything was in Assembly. Nowadays, you just get some kid fresh out of a gaming school, that you profit from!, to slap something together using unoptimized third-part engines.

to be honest,i gave up in the modern gaming because it became like the hollywood industry with sports fans

The industry flat out failed me. Most people insult games like Wii Sports for "bringing in the casuals", but to me, even Wii Sports is still a videogame in the traditional sense of the word. A compilation of arcade-y games for fun and high schore.

No, where the industry failed me was when it became pseudo-deep movies with some little gameplay:

When Metal Gear Solid debutted, it was innovative but people even called out it was too much plot, but little gameplay by comparison, despite the fact said gameplay was topnotch.

At some point, during this brown-and-gray generation, videogames followed the MGS model the wrong way: They became mediocre CGI movies, with mediocre plot for flat characters you're "supposed" to care for, while the gameplay is non-existant. To bring an example, The Last of Us is all mediocre plot, SUPER mediocre gameplay.

And yet the industry gives cancer games like these scores, and insist it's because "muh vidya is mature art for mature people like myself".

The ESRB rating is broken, the "M for Mature" games aren't "mature", they're amazingly immature. Blood, tits and guns, and swearing, oh yeah that's some life lessons there, such maturity.

But what REALLY killed my faith in current gaming was fucking Heavy Rain.

Fuck.

When Dragon's Lair did it, it was different and innovative, considering the limited technology available at the time.

When Shenmue did it, it was a nice throwback, but nothing special.

Then, here comes the HD 7th generation, so much raw power and potential to make expansive worlds to be explored, no limitation to the imagination of the developer and...

Welp, a fucking glorified Z-movie that's painfully pretentious with non-existent gameplay. NON. EXISTENT. GAMEPLAY.

FUCK.

And then there's the fucking online multiplayer killing local multiplayer, fucking micro-transactions AND the worst of it... The FPS generation.

Uuuuugh....

To me, these AAA GOTY glorified mediocre movies are the real "casual" games.

>>1367627
that and AAA dev teams are so huge games dont really have any personality like you would get with a small dev team

>>1367663
I'm sure you've seen this picture tons of times but this is what people mean when they say cinematic. Things are dictated not by player interaction, but the screenplay and plot. Length of the game is determined in hours, not levels of areas. Characters are referred to by their archetypes as seen from a story perspective rather than a gameplay perspective. Things like that.

>>1367739
Halflife 2 was sinfully boring. That bridge part is like the only memorable part of the entire game.

>>1367739
First time I've seen that pic, but heard/seen the general idea plenty of times, yes, and it's partly what I meant, but my train of thought derailed as I got frustrated remembering things like that.

It became meaningless and banal, its the same as watching several hours of TV now. You're no longer playing the game, just watching the game.

It dissapoints me how the length of the game is determined for hours and no actual gameplay...

Stop being a shitty consumer.

I've been playing Mount and Blade Warband and fucking loving it. My friend and I beat Bayonetta the other day and found it to be one of the most enjoyable fighting games we've played in a long while.

I've got a good list of recent games that are excellent. Thing thing is, as time goes on, people tend to remember the good and not the bad. There were FUCKLOADS of bad games. Go through the NES list of games and tell me just how shitty most of it is.

Don't forget, most people didn't deal with the internet back then. If a game was shit, you got shit on. These days, we can find out if a game is shit almost before it comes out. If all you're playing is bad modern games, then I've got bad news for you, you're a shitty consumer and need to stop looking to the biggest studios to give you excellent games. Most of the great games I've played in the last two years have game from small to mid sized studios.

>>1367663
You could, you know, just not play games that say "EA" or "Activision" or "Squareenix", or whatever, on them.

>>1367757
>>1367759
These niggas get it. Don't act surprised when the big name megacorporation publishers only shit out a bunch of bland games that appeal to the lowest common denominator. There are devs and publishers out there who put out great games, and it's not hard to find them if you look. Not every game made in the last decade is Call of Duty.

>>1367759
I do, I actually do. I've ben playing Pandora's Tower lately, and I really enjoy it, as well Rune Factory: Frontier and No More Heroes 2. But that's neither here nor there to be discusse, nor being retro and all that.

It just saddens me, you know? In the old days, the big names were a symbol of quality software, that you were gonna get an amazing experience.

It's like with Hollywood...

>>1367759
I've also observed this. 90% of the time people talk about how "gaming sucks now" they're referring to business practices from a handful of companies.

>>1367765

It's just how it goes. They found stuff that really worked for them, and have milked it for all their worth. Now, they're struggling to find some new money makers.

I used to love Square, Capcom, and Sega, and they've fallen so far from what originally made them great.

>>1367457
I only like a few genres(CRPGs and whatever you would call LGS inspired games)although recently I've started liking SRPGs and TBS.
Anyway cRPGs and WRPGs have definitely got worse the only RPGs from last gen that are around the same quality of the classics are MoTB and KoTC.
With LGS type games none from last gen are anywhere near as good as stuff like Thief or System Shock although HR was pretty good and I haven't played much of dishonored although it's supposed to be pretty good as well.Anyway lots of games have become dumbed down compared to their predecessors compare Skyrim to Daggerfall ,the new Thief to the originals,Bioshock to SS2 etc.
There were some great games recently but at least in the genres I like there seems to be less than before and the trend of dumbing down games is worrying.

>>1367828
Old Elder Scrolls games aren't "deep", they just fucking clunky and broken. Daggerfall is even more empty and lifeless than fucking Oblivion is.

In modern games the developers could have given the gamers more freedom, instead they choose to limit and trim the experience.

Unskippable tutorials and cutscenes are CANCER.

"Mainstream" gaming for the most part is shit. I feel like recently video games are trying to become something they're not. People so badly want them to be seen as "art", because they feel guilty or some shit for playing them. It's fucking ridiculous. It's stupid to say "read a book if you want a good story", because I believe video games are capable of good storytelling, just don't fucking sacrifice gameplay for it, and instead use it as an asset.

Despite this, there's still been a lot of good shit coming out lately and you're really missing out if you pigeon hole yourself into either "retro" or "modern" gaming. They're fucking video games, some are shit some are good, just play them. I have favourites from every gen.

>>1367457
Why would you ever mention single player when talking about who the best gamer is?

>>1367842
Video Games are like Z grade films. And films aren't real art, either.

>>1367847
I agree with this.

You can create "art" via film, but that doesn't make film inherently art.

I feel the same about drawings/paintings.

I may be biased because in the modern era of consoles I only have Nintendo consoles, so I don't know about the 420noscope XBox Live kiddies or whatever else people complain about with XBox and Playstation, but I feel the best of retro games and the best of modern games are comparable to each other in terms of quality. There's a ton of shovelware in both areas, and there are great games buried in them.


The main difference, and probably the reason I mostly stick to retro games, is that gamers have excavated most of the retro game library and know just what games are great/good/mediocre/bad/shit (in general opinions, that is; of course individual opinions will be all over the place), while not enough time has passed for that to happen to modern games, due to them being modern. You don't have to take as much of a risk playing a retro game because you have the ability to find whether a game is good or not before playing it, while with newer games you have the problems of rating inflation. I typically don't buy a modern game until it's been out for a year so a general consensus on its quality can be reached, unless it's a game I know for a fact I'll enjoy, like Link Between Worlds. With retro games, you have that consensus already, so it seems like there are more good retro games than modern games.
There's also the fact that retro gaming is a longer period of time than modern gaming, so retro gaming has better statistical odds of having more great games.

>>1367841
You can't always blame the developers. I don't think they go into a game thinking "let's make this game as lazy and linear as possible". Most times they have an executive breathing down their neck to make their game sell a billion copies, so that means they have to be dumbed down to be as accessible to as many people as possible. I remember seeing something on the development of Dishonored, playtesters got to a part where a guard told them they weren't allowed up some stairs. So instead of figuring out how to get past the guard, they just stood around doing absolutely nothing.

That's not really an excuse to make a shitty game, but there are reasons games are made like this today. That's why it's really best to avoid anything made by the big names and look to smaller studios who don't have as much pressure to make a profit for their shareholders.

>>1367612
>Ducktales ain't that great

You take that back.

>>1367761
But see, the AAA games of the past were generally GOOD.
You didn't HAVE to do any digging whatsoever to have a good time. You could generally count on the big names like Capcom, Nintendo, SEGA, Konami, Square, and so on producing great games, and stuff that was popular and got rave reviews and showed up in magazines a lot generally deserved it.
You cannot say the same today. You can't count on any game from any of the developers I mentioned above being good, to say nothing of companies like EA or Activision.
The big names used to be big names because they constantly innovated and made extraordinary games, now they are best avoided at worst, and treated with very cautious optimism at best.
How can you act like it's the same?

>>1367860
...I didn't say anything about it being the same. I agree, those companies used to be good. Now they're not. The industry has changed. Buy games from companies that don't suck. That was my point.

>>1367860
Not to mention, ever since the big names got the money, and play it safe/over-do micro-transactions and the like to milk it out, part of the "budget" goes directly to buy the score from reviewers at websites.

Gaming journalism is a joke, and a huge reason why also gaming is going down the crapper. AAA title isn't anymore "the innovative extraordinary one", but "the one that paid the reviewer for the score".

>>1367457
>
Nowadays vidya has turned into a bunch of interactive movies that you can play while half asleep

this is what nostalgiafags really believe. i bet you thought the last of us was bad.

>>1367876
wtf how did i fuck the formatting up so bad.

>>1367876

>>1367860
>But see, the AAA games of the past were generally GOOD.
They are today, too.

Rockstar, Nintendo, and Sega (yes, Sega makes more than just Sonic games) are all safe bets for good vidya in 2014, for example.

>>1367880
anon please tell me your copout egoraptor argument on why modern vidya sucks. i'm not trolling i just hate how gaymers on the internet can't seem to enjoy both retro and modern vidya when they both have their merits.

>>1367886
>both have their merits

I agree. If you want to have an actual discussion on this, don't come into the thread and act like an idiot. Present an intelligent argument instead of insulting everyone and trying to start shit.

>>1367862
>...I didn't say anything about it being the same
Sorry, I meant the same in terms of quality. I do apologize for that, it was very unclear.

Most of the good games available today being middleware or indie titles rather than the projects of industry veterans with the biggest budgets like it was in the past IS a very real issue to me.
Most of the time, you have to do a little bit of settling to enjoy a good modern game. Often the presentation really ain't up to snuff because the budget or skill just isn't there, and you have to be content with JUST pretty good gameplay.

>>1367876
Shit AI REALLY hurts the game. If TLoU offered everything they showed off in E3 demos and whatnot with no glaring issues, it would actually deserve all those 10/10s it got.
As is, the best I can do is probably a 6 or 7/10.

>>1367886
Ugh, that annoying cunt, with his "holier than thou" attitude, I fucking hated how he dismissed 3D Land for having a location to grind 99 lives jumping from a koopa shield despite that being a thing since THE FUCKING FIRST GAME.

>>1367882
nintendo is very mediocre now sorry but the new mario games and zelda games do not stand out as anything special at all

>>1367895
Mario is better than ever (ignoring the 2D games) and Zelda: LBW was great.

>>1367898
>ignoring the 2D games
So what you're saying is that modern Mario is better than retro Mario... as long as you ignore the retro games.

>>1367898
To be fair, even the "New" Mario Bros. game have their charm and fun factor, it's amusing to screw with your friends progress.

>>1367901
I think he was referring to the 2D modern Mario games, like NSMB, as opposed to say 3D Land.

>>1367903
Ah, yeah that would make a lot more sense.
Committing sudoku as per the rules.

I was thinking about making a thread about the word "hard" for video games. People on the video game image boards often say it needs to be hare to be good.

But what does being hare entail in a video game?

A video game is interactive entertainment, and to be good at entertaining a player something always has to be happening. If nothing is occuring, especially having the threat for the layer to die, then nothing entertaining is happening. Hard games often pressure you and/or have a very short break for the next up coming sequence so the player can quickly collect themselves fro the previous challenge. You are almost always threatened, there is always a need to be engaged to the game to progress because it will either be you winning or the game winning.

Possibly a good example would be Robotron 2084. Someone new wouldn't last long in the game and it takes practice to be competent at the game and survive. You are constantly pressured by tons of enemies from all sides with a short break which would be the wave transtions. It is just an intense and adrenaline pumping experience.

I like both, though I find that modern games often did 3D better than older ones. Older ones struggled a ton with how to implement the camera, and all of those control schemes to how the characters behaved when being controlled.

I love Metal Sug X, Rocket Knight Adventures, and SaGa Frontier, but I also love the Burnout games, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, and Earth Defense Force 2017. There is no winning if you just restrict yourself.

>>1367513
>Yes mainly for the fact that they don't take fucking forever to start. I swear every modern game now has some shitty starting scripted event where the character is walking on their own and all you can do is move the camera around while they talk and then a forced half hour tutorial. I don't care if this makes me sound like I have ADHD because I am sick of that shit. You get more in the first five minutes of Contra Hard Corps than you do in the first half hour of most modern games.

Check out what TotalBiscuit says here from the 1 minute mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q6UQ2QlRH0

People on this board who say the best modern is equal to the best retro are cancer that need to get the fuck out. I can see how passionate they are about this bullshit, too. It's disgusting. Back to /v/ you retards.

>>1367857

Reread this. Back in the days, games encouraged more of this:

Problem solving
Curiosity
Attention span
Not giving up

And, completing a game was never a given

Try marketing that to this generation. I'm sure people today feel like fucking Sherlock Holmes when they complete a level in skylanders, but I can't remember the last time I was stuck In a modern game.

hey uhm anyone, uhm how are you right now?

DaS is so much harder than any old games.

>>1368162
>the people I disagree with are cancer and need to leave

Heh.

>>1368418
Zelda 2 is the Dark Souls of NES games.

>>1368454
A game that's not as difficult as people make it out to be and also has its quality overblown?

>>1368418
It is AS hard as SOME retro games. I love it dearly but it only seems CRAZY hard to you because your standards have been lowered by other modern games.

Try The Immortal or Tower of Druaga or Wizardry 4

>>1368463
>any wizardry game
>good
It's mindless dungeon crawlan.

>>1367457
Is a pund of iron heavier than a pound of feathers, dear OP?

/vr/ has truly become a kindergarten.

>>1368463
Wizardry 4 was intentionally made to be complete bullshit, though. Dark Souls is hard but also perfectly fait.

>>1368472
I dunno, some people like mindless dungeon crawling. You could say that Ultima Underworld was just mindless dungeon crawling, but it's still lots of fun.

There are good and bad games and shitty developers throughout all of video game history.

There are plenty of good modern games, you just need to look past the "summer blockbusters" and overhyped AAA garbage.

We remember all of the good games we played back then, but none of the godawful messes.

You can't just say "All retro games are better than all of modern games". Because you're including all the unplayable shit, and games that just blatantly copied what more popular games were doing.

Even back then, developers were doing what people criticize them for now. Finding the easiest ways of making money with the least amount of effort.

You choose to only remember and highlight the greats of past generations, while ignoring the mountains of actual shit they are on top of. And I'd rather play Call of Duty than some of the dogshit that came out on the NES and SNES.

Just because a few developers managed to make some clever games doesn't mean the overwhelming majority had absolutely no idea what they were doing.

There are no good games after 2006. The seventh generation basically killed video games for me because nearly everything, nearly EVERYTHING has been catering to the Call of Duty audience and causalized to death. Here's a list of franchises that died this past generation:
Hitman
Tomb Raider
Thief
Final Fantasy
Deus Ex
Mega Man
Castlevania
Metroid
Street Figher
And a multitude of other franchises not /vr/ related. This is why I believe that even the worst broken NES game is better than any single game from the seventh generation because at least the NES game TRIES to be a FUCKING GAME and not a shitty-gritty casualized interactive movie.

Even if you manage to find one single solitary good game from this putrid abomination called the seventh generation, I can name at least 10 others that did everything that game did but better. Video games are dead, and the eighth generation is still leaning towards cash-grabs and ripping people off. There is no hope or future for video games except for the classic ones, a.k.a. the only games that actually show that video games can be more than one-hit Hollywood wonders.

>>1368582
>There are no good games after 2006.

lol

>>1368582
>Mega Man

But Mega Man 9 was one of the best games in the franchise, and it was released after 2006. I do agree with you that it's dead, but that's not due to quality (though the last Megaman "game" released was shit), it's more of Capcom being idiots and not making any Megaman games that aren't iPhone shovelware.

>>1368472
As if Dark Souls isn't a "mindless" dungeon crawler

>>1368479
Wizardry 4 is every bit as fait as Dark Souls

>>1368592
>wizardry
>fair

>>1368079
>But what does being hare entail in a video game?
Seems pretty obvious to me.

>>1368474
I don't understand this comparison. Are you suggesting iron and feathers are the same, and one couldn't possibly prefer one to the other? Are you suggesting iron doesn't have a greater mass, meaning one needs less of it to get the pound of material they desire?

>>1368582
FF was arguably starting to suck with VIII.
Human Revolution was decent.
Mega Man never catered to the CoD audience, and quality never really even declined, he just stopped getting games.
Castlevania died back on the PSX for me, so whatever.
Street Fighter didn't die.

Can't argue with any of the other games though.
In general, everything is turning into Uncharted and Call of Duty. Everything is becoming these homogenized generic first and third person action shooters. It's pretty telling when Thief of all series has a generic actiony reboot on the horizon.

>>1368645
>and quality never really even declined

You what

Have you ever played the X series? Hell, even MM 5 and 6, while fun games, are weak compared to their predecessors.

>>1368612
He's suggesting a pound is a pound, doesn't matter if it's a pound of rocks, a pound of fathers or a pound of coins.

>>1368647
Mega Man is much more than just the X series, and MM5 and 6 are perfectly fine (even if you have issue with these things, they happened when the series was what would be considered retro, so >>1368582 still isn't right)
The Zero series was fantastic.
ZX and ZX Advent were fantastic.
9 is considered by a lot of people to be the best of the 'classic' series.
10 is also really good, but not as good as 9.
And there's that Battle Network series I know nothing about personally but a lot of people seemed to love.

>>1368647
I'd disagree on your claim partly; 6 is my favorite game in the series, and I played them all in order the first time I played through the series.

New games don't provide the same experience as old classics. There are very few new games that you can boot up, get 45 minutes of nonstop awesome action and music, and beat the game straight up.

But I play both. Been mostly playing Sonic 2 and Capcom classics on the PS2 on the retro side and Dynasty Warriors 8 on the modern side.

>>1368650
And I'm suggesting it's a dumb comparison and doesn't make any sense.

First off, it's dumb because it presupposes that modern and retro games are equal in quality or some other standard. I shouldn't have to explain why this is an issue.

Second, it's dumb because like I already pointed out, iron has more mass than fucking feathers. You'd need a shitload of feathers to equal the weight of a little bit of iron, therefore iron and feathers are not even close to equal. This is a problem because he sounds like he's trying to say there's no meaningful difference between iron and feathers.

...Actually, hold up. If that was point from the beginning: if iron is supposed to represent retro games, and feathers modern games, and the pound is some quantity of quality gameplay or the like... then never mind, the comparison is SPOT ON.
You WOULD need to play a shitload of modern games, or at the very least need to dig through a shitload of modern games to find the stuff that's worth a shit, to get the same amount of quality gameplay you'd get out of just a few retro games.

>>1368459
I like dark souls but I do think the difficulty is overblown but you have to remember its probably all people pampered by new games saying that how hard it is.

>>1368709
>First off, it's dumb because it presupposes that modern and retro games are equal in quality or some other standard. I shouldn't have to explain why this is an issue.

Actually, yes you should explain.

>>1369010
It's begging the question.
If your comparison which is meant to suggest that modern and retro games are equal only makes sense if we start from the assumption that modern and retro games are equal, that's an issue.
It's sort of like saying, "Since modern and retro games are the same, modern and retro games are the same".
And the question of whether or not retro games are actually better is what the entire thread is about, so there is clearly no consensus whatsoever here. The entire premise of the comparison is up for debate.

Play more handhelds OP, the 3DS, DS, and PSP have many great games that are much more like older generations. I haven't really paid attention to the Vita though but I know Sony was marketing it on everything I dislike about modern console games.

>>1369082
I worry about the day handheld systems are so comparable in graphics to consoles that game developers try to make movies out of handheld games.

>>1369082
Sony marketed the PSP the same way. They market ALL their stuff the same way. Fact is that the Vita is pretty awesome, and given time it will get the same sorts of awesome stuff the PSP got (PSP had a super slow start, I barely used mine the first couple years).

>>1369097
That's what Sony was trying to do with Vita and it flopped.

>>1369082
Handhelds are for children.

>>1367892
Devil's advocate here, In SMB it was 99 and in 3D Land it's something like 1,020

>>1369137
So are games like Pokémon, Mario, Zelda, Megaman, pretty much the majority of retro games are also aimed at children. That doesn't make them bad.

>>1369140
You're a child.

>>1369141
In SMB, if you had the ability to store 1020 lives (I thought it was 1110 actually), you could get all of them, not in the first try, the timer would end, but you could just replay the level over and over again, and you can do the same in 3D Land.

>>1369145
If you say so.

>>1369149
>1110
Yeah, I don't know why I said 1,020
Fucking crowns

My point is that 1109 retries is a fuckton more than 98
At least like 10 times more

>>1369161
You wouldn't need 99 lives in a Mario game anyway.

>>1369170
Then there's no reason to have 1110, is there?

>>1369172
There isn't, I agree. I think something aesthetic changes when you get all those lives, since the numbers on your life counter change to crowns (I didn't get that many in 3D Land but I did in NSMB2), but beyond that there isn't, so I don't see the reason for Egoraptor's complaint.

I'm not the one who originally complained about Egoraptor's complaint in this thread, by the way.

depends on the genre. some have clear advantages over their classic counterparts (racing, sports, fighters) while other things like platformers and puzzle games are still better on the older systems. some genres like RPGs even vary

i have noticed, though, that a lot of games that everyone touts as amazing and classic and get all groupthink about as HARDCORE like dark souls are generally insanely overrated. whereas a lot of the massively-touted games on retro systems are held up and beloved for a reason

>>1369178
I believe that what Egomeister was trying to say was "UGH YOU CAN GET SO MANY LIVES SO EARLY ON BAD GAME FEEL FLAWED DESIGN WHY CAN'T I JUST RUN TO THE RIGHT OH BTW LOOK AT MY HENTAI BACKGROUND :333333333"
However, if we are to assume that getting 99 lives in the first game is overkill, then we must assume that getting 1110 lives in 3D Land is mega overkill. I've played both, and I must say that 99 Lives would've been plenty in 3D Land, as I only lost maybe 30 lives consecutively at once in the game. Not to mention, sitting in that level and waiting for over one thousand lives to rack up over multiple timers must get tedious at some point, hence Greasyhairdickbagraptor's sighing.

>>1369182
I find demon's souls was a lot better than Dark Souls, I wish it got more attention.

Anybody who thinks modern vidya is better than the old needs to fuck off back to /v/, FACT.

>>1367478
You're supposed to beat arcade games with every character on a credit limite (usually 1), on the highest difficulty if you're playing the home port and finally aim for the highscore if you're still interested by then.

Same deal why some magazines credit scum on a shmup and then complain they're short lived.

>>1369231
Dark Souls 2 is gonna be an epic mix of both brah

inb4 it's a major disappointment

>>1369236
>people that disagree with me need to leave
>Also, putting "FACT" at the end of my posts make it so

Heh.

>>1369267
Heh, yeah, you're a faggot.

>>1369274
>resulting to insults for no reason besides being mad

Heh.

>>1369281
Heh.

>>1369287
Can I join? I love laughing!

>>1369260
I really liked the level set up of demon's souls compared to darksouls, but I'm sure I'm in the minority and most people want the interconnected world.

>>1369293
blow it out your ass

>>1369267
>>1369274
>>1369281
>>1369287
Saying "Heh." on the internet in an effort to look stoic and level headed, having a laugh at the person who is probably just baiting you is a gamefaqs as fuck thing to do and only makes you seem neckbeard/autistic as fuck to those that aren't huge fags. all of you either pick a chatroom to be fucktards in or express your opinion like a big boy. Okay? cool

>>1369334
>filename

>>1369334

I like how you try to call out people for attempting to appear levelheaded (when in reality, "heh" is a bit of a chuckle) and then proceed to have a meltdown in the same post.

Heh.

>>1369334
Heh.

>>1369267
>>1369274
>>1369281
>>1369287
>>1369292
>>1369334
>>1369341
>>1369342
>>1369364
And then the thread was derailed to hell

>>1369302
ok Duke.

How the fuck did this
>>1369267
Lead to this?
>>1369334

What's gotten into you tonight, /vr/? I think there's a troll among us.

>>1369848
Stay away from >>1365723. You have been warned

>>1369850
No that's the one that made me paranoid in this thread.

>>1368582
>Deus Ex
Oh dear lord, this! I'll never forget how disgusted I was when I first played Human Revolution when it launched, my jaw dropped in fucking disbelief.

>>1369137
Games are for children, they're toys after all. I'm not sure why or when people forgot this simple fact.

>>1370161
Nice bait, but if your serious then you're a retard. What are you even doing on this board?

>>1370163
Name-calling isn't very clever, anon.

>>1370165
Sometimes you have to resort to name calling to get through to people.

>>1370170
What makes you think that videogames aren't toys?

>>1370174
Because some of them are not fun, the kind that sacrifice gameplay for story. These games usually have a rather complicated plot so gameplay is rather linear. There are exceptions of course.

>>1370185
Some toys aren't fun either.

>>1370187
I know, like Johnny Switchblade or Bag of Glass.

>>1368582
What's wrong with SF4 exactly?

>>1370187
Ball in a cup for example.

In b4 "but I love ball in a cup"

Fuck you, no you don't. That shit is shit.

>>1370197
Ball in a cup has a complex metagame.

>>1370207
Not really, because the ball is on a string attached to the cup, so there's no worry if you don't catch the ball in the cup.

>>1370201
Oh I don't know, maybe that it encourages bad play with it's stupid fucking revenge gauge, and it somehow feels even slower than older games in the series?

>>1368582
>>1370157
It wasn't that bad, jesus you guys...

>>1370240
That opening was horrid, waist high walls everwhere, that constant and idiotic shift between first and third person perspectives, that ugly yellow tint, those horrid boss battles, that mass effect esque ending, that boring plot. Fuck Human Revolution, I can't believe I was excited for that piece of shit.

>>1370241
>maybe that it encourages bad play with it's stupid fucking revenge gauge
What? If you're playing bad people online.

>it somehow feels even slower than older games in the series
That depends on what character you're playing. The current top tiers are all rushdown characters. I think they wanted the pacing to be around ST, without the insane damage in that game (cmon 20%+ off a fucking throw is ridiculous).

>>1369835
eat shit and die

>real talk

Jontron, please go to bed.

Also, we need more fan art for this.

Due to how easy it is for people to make and distribute games in particular nowadays, is it possible that people at large could be missing entire chests full of diamond games?
I mean going by the articles on hardcoregaming and wikipedia, some of the earliest RPGs like ultima, temple of apshai and wizardry didn't even manage to sell 100k copies between them yet were all considered massive successes. Meanwhile the new tomb raider was considered a failure after selling 5million copies I think it was. With how big gaming is today the ultimas and wizardrys could well be practically unknown because so little of the community is picking up on them today.
Sorry if this is kind of off topic but it seemed somewhat related and it doesn't feel like it needed its own topic.

OT: I think more context is needed to what people mean by "older games" before a discussion can really go anywhere, as comparing a couple of decades of games to that last few years is hardly a fair comparison.

>>1367741
More like that whole section with the car on the coast (which culminates in the bridge part). It was really well done for a game released in 2004, and there were no NPCs you had to meet along the way; just you exploring abandoned houses and driving along roads killing combines and zombies was pretty immersive for me. But then it's the only chapter I ever replay because the rest gets boring after the first time you play.

>>1367608
> but the modern gaming press is pure cancer.
This so much.
I stopped giving a fuck about gaming press a long time ago. Unreliable reviews, spineless shilling, often the quality is subpar... luckily with the internet it is fairly easy to circumvent them and find sources you can trust.

Pic somewhat related.

>>1367592
>(as mentioned by a very famous article)
lel

>>1367612
I some of the hype was in games but I remember so many perhiperals that were absolute complete shit. Most of them didn't even work properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXHM1I8wgtc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lboeQSimFFs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrzTfP-PNt8

I could go on and on...

>>1368709
>...Actually, hold up. If that was point from the beginning: if iron is supposed to represent retro games, and feathers modern games, and the pound is some quantity of quality gameplay or the like... then never mind, the comparison is SPOT ON.
>You WOULD need to play a shitload of modern games, or at the very least need to dig through a shitload of modern games to find the stuff that's worth a shit, to get the same amount of quality gameplay you'd get out of just a few retro games.


Bingo

When I see people say "video games naturally get better over time" I think they are being idiotic. No other art form treats its art in such a fashion.

>>1371031
All other art forms have treated themselves in such a fashion. Cave dwelling humans weren't rubbing ash on walls because they felt it was the appropriate artistic direction of their piece, they did it because they had no other means. Tools and materials were made to give artists better means to create something, well, better.

You're also fooling yourself if you think certain aspects haven't gotten better over time.

>>1371106
There's better tools available to create what a developer or publisher wants made, sure. I don't think anyone would argue that point.
The issue is what developers or publishers want made these days, which is generally not nearly as good as what was made in the past.

>>1368582
>Street Fighter

Except 7th gen was when it came back from the dead.

>>1371106

Really, is right now, this generation considered the greatest era of music, dance, literature, film?

>new tools don't equate to better content

>>1368418
Do I have a different definition of hard as these people? I didn't get very far in the game (I played it at a friend's house), but every death I had was my own fault. Meanwhile, some games can still fuck you up even when you know what you're doing, and I consider those games to be hard.

>>1368680
>Dynasty Warriors 8
I know it's not /vr/, but how are the newer ones? I dropped out at 5.

Good gaming died roughly around 2005.

Hi sad/vr/gins, /sp/ here, going to give you some advice.

All video games are shit. You play them because you don't have lives. They function as both a method of escapism and artificial fulfillment. I suggest you all grow up and take your lives back. Unless of course you only play them ocassionally and live otherwise productive lives. In that case it's fine.

However, if you don't have a girlfriend then you definitely shouldn't be playing video games. Just saying.

>>1372350
None of them are /vr/.

6 sucks (no combos and terrible animu costume design), 7 was ruined by lack of free mode. 8 is the best since 5, and is in the top 3 with 3 and 5. All characters have unique weapons and movesets. The 360 version is a poor port, though, unfortunately. The effectively free DLC, which is all really cool, makes it freeze. But other than the freezing issues on the 360, its the best since the ps2 days. First time I've been really into a DW game since 5.

>>1373031
>having a gf
>productive
Nice try, /sp/.

Also, we are /vr/others.

>>1367457
>Are the best retro games truly generally better than modern games?

It depends.

Example: Yoshi's Island is better than any 2d Mario that came after it.

>Do you play both or only retro exclusively?

Both. Retro or PC, since I've skipped the last 2 gens of consoles.

>>1373041
perma/vr/gins

>>1373154
Yep, that's more like it.

>no image repost of sadfrog and feels on the /vr/ archive.

>>1373031

>/sp/ think their betaness is relevant.
>/sp/ think they know the word productive's meaning.

Retro isn't better per-se. But it's the amount of details they put it in. You really can't expect a PS3 game to have PSX level of details. They think they can con you into buying a GOOD GRAFIX GAEM while all you want is decent game with working mechanics.

We are literally stagnating.

>>1373154
>implying I don't still play Super Mario Bros. with my 28-year-old gf

>>1373031
>if you don't have a girlfriend then you definitely shouldn't be playing video games.

1) I have a girlfriend
2) Having a girlfriend really isn't a rubric to determine if someone has a handle on their life and is productive. The most worthless freeloading bums I know all have girlfriends.

>>1373186
>>1373240
Why are you responding to an obvious troll?

>modern day gamers scream 'nostalgia goggles" at us
>mfw gamecube and ps2 always win "best system" polls, which they grew up with

gamer of nearly 3 decades. generation 7 and 8 laughably bad. total jokes

>>1373247
Why am I responding to an obvious troll?

>>1373186
Does your baby sitter think it's cute when you say she's your girlfriend?

>>1373240
Though, it is really easy to get to people who don't have girlfriends by being all 'at least I have a girlfriend', even if you are an unproductive sack of shit.

>>1373240
>having only one girlfriend

>>1373552
ahahahaha so much #rekt

>>1373032
>8 is the best since 5, and is in the top 3 with 3 and 5.
Sweet titties, a new DW game to get into...
>The 360 version is a poor port, though
Dammit.