/vr/ - Retro Games

compatibility mode, run as administator.

it runs on my windows 8 x64, dunno wtf your issue is.

... also technically not /vr/

>>2216319
Yeah, it's from 2001 but i thought this would be the better place to ask about compatibility issues, since I couldn't find any helpful tip on any forum...

I tried all the usual stuff, compatibility mode, administrator... I can't even open the game :/ a pity, the game looks promising at least

>>2216331
This whole pre 2000 rule is retarded as fuck.

Arcanum is retto. So retro.

>>2216316
>also technically not /vr/

Neither is Deus Ex, Diablo 2, Banjo Tooie, Thief 2, Majora's Mask, Perfect Dark, Max Payne, Conkers Bad Fur Day, Silent Hill 2, Red Faction, or Grand Theft Auto 3 (all released in 2000-2001)

The 1999 rule is fucking stupid and makes no sense.

>>2216459

I agree for PC games games using the same engine as pre 1999 games should be included. Since Arcanum is just an infinity engine game, like baldurs gate, the thread probably won't get deleted.

>>2216459

GTA 3 and Diablo 2 are when games stopped being retro. Halo put the final knife into gaming as it was.

>>2216462
The whole rule should be revamped to be more relative in its association. There should be a decade+ limit, where the game has to be older than a decade old in order for it to be retro.

I mean, are we going to still be calling Halo 1 a "modern game" in 2020?

>>2216464
>Halo put the final knife into gaming as it was

>not COD4

Oy vey!

>>2216467

There are different eras of gaming. Classic gaming, which ended during the crash. Retro gaming, which endured until right around the cutoff date for this board. Modern gaming is going on now. In 2020, with things like oculus rift, and other /vr/ devices, we will move into post modern gaming.

It's a time period, and a type of game for each period.

>>2216316
get GOG version nigga

also, unofficial patch is great

>>2216473
Retro is utterly and completely relative to the generation which is born. If someone is born in 2000, they'll of grown up playing the Xbox/PS2, but by the time they're 18-20, they'll consider both of those consoles retro.

There's a whole page on wikipedia also detailing the definition of "retro", and they quite specifically mention that it's in reference to obsolete/discontinued gaming systems.

The term "post modern" is also ridiculously stupid, so, what comes after "post modern", "post post modern"?

>>2216459
Banjo Tooie, Majora's Mask, Perfect Dark, and Conkers Bad Fur Day ARE all retro according to the board rules. Please take the time to read and understand the sticky.

Thief 2, Diablo 2, and Deus Ex are pretty retro, but miss the cutoff date. It's a shame, but there will always be things released right after the cutoff date no matter what the cutoff date is that feel like they should have made the cut. Raising the cutoff date would only mean different titles take that position.

Max Payne, Silent Hill 2, Red Faction and Grand Theft Auto 3 really aren't retro.

I understand that they might feel like they are retro if you are a younger poster since they comprise your childhood, but they are not retro and allowing discussion of the gen they come from (PS2, Xbox, GameCube) means games which came out as late as 2013 would be discussed on this board.

>>2216547
>It's a shame

Yea, it is a shame, since we're going to talk about them regardless of the shit rule.

>Raising the cutoff date would only mean different titles take that position.

Not really, considering those games ARE retro, irregardless of this boards specific rules, which also raises the hypocrisy of the boards rules where games released on retro consoles after the cut-off date are retro, but games that aren't released on those consoles are arbitrarily "not retro".

You see, I understand the rules, I just think they're fucking retarded.

>>2216562
>Not really, considering those games ARE retro, irregardless of this boards specific rules, which also raises the hypocrisy of the boards rules where games released on retro consoles after the cut-off date are retro, but games that aren't released on those consoles are arbitrarily "not retro".
>You see, I understand the rules, I just think they're fucking retarded.

Dude Diablo 2 was definitely NOT retro. It's what killed retro PC gaming.

>>2216569
>It's what killed retro PC gaming

Lol, right, just like Halo? How many times can retro gaming die?

>>2216562
>Not really, considering those games ARE retro, irregardless of this boards specific rules,

But if the cutoff date was raised to 2000 (or any other year after) there would be games released a month or two into 2001 (or year+1 for later years) that just missed the cutoff date and are very similar to games on the other side of that cutoff. This will happen regardless of what the year is.

>which also raises the hypocrisy of the boards rules where games released on retro consoles after the cut-off date are retro, but games that aren't released on those consoles are arbitrarily "not retro".

It isn't hypocrisy and it's not arbitrary; platforms are static and so games released on one platform are more similar to games released on that platform, even when released years apart, than PC games.

>You see, I understand the rules

I do not believe this is the case since in your initial post you believed that Banjo Tooie, Majora's Mask, Perfect Dark, and Conkers Bad Fur Day were disallowed by the board rules.

>>2216362
>>2216459
Agreed, it should be lifted to 2000/2001.

>>2216579
>It isn't hypocrisy and it's not arbitrary

Well, lets see.

Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

Now, if you have a game that's released on a dead console, which is "static", as you so described it, it falls into the "retro" range irregardless of its date of development, is that right? So that would mean that Sturmwind, a game for the Dreamcast released in 2013, is more retro, than game released in 2001. Still not seeing the hypocrisy? Okay then, allow me to elaborate. Even though consoles are static, the products developed for them are NOT. See what I'm getting at yet, or are you too thick to tell? If you base retro-games on the static consoles that they are made for (which can have games developed for them at any time, regardless of their static nature), then then it becomes arbitrary, where you artificially select what is retro and why.

>I do not believe this is the case

Funny, considering according to your own logic, even you don't understand the boards "actual" rules. So why don't you kindly fuck off with your pretenses, kay?

>>2216602
>Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform
>Now, if you have a game that's released on a dead console, which is "static", as you so described it, it falls into the "retro" range irregardless of its date of development, is that right? So that would mean that Sturmwind, a game for the Dreamcast released in 2013, is more retro, than game released in 2001. Still not seeing the hypocrisy? Okay then, allow me to elaborate. Even though consoles are static, the products developed for them are NOT. See what I'm getting at yet, or are you too thick to tell? If you base retro-games on the static consoles that they are made for (which can have games developed for them at any time, regardless of their static nature), then then it becomes arbitrary, where you artificially select what is retro and why.

Since the game is restricted by the hardware of the Dreamcast, and games released in 2001 for PC can and did make use of better hardware than the Dreamcast, then it would be more retro. Just as a hypothetical game made for the Atari 2600 in 2020 would also be more retro than a game released in 2001.

This is also not a case of hypocrisy, as there is no moral standard or belief being violated. You may disagree with the board rules, and think they are inconsistent, but in order for it to be hypocrisy the person setting the rule or standard would have to be violating them themselves. For instance, if moot or mods/janitors were discussing non-retro games on /vr/ but prevented anyone else from doing so.

>Funny, considering according to your own logic, even you don't understand the boards "actual" rules.

Nothing I have posted regarding the board rules is erroneous.

>So why don't you kindly fuck off with your pretenses, kay?

You are being very rude and hostile. I do not understand why.

>>2216562

>irregardless

Just stop posting.

>>2216319
>... also technically not /vr/
Practically it's not /vr/ either. It's a recent game.