/vr/ - Retro Games

>>2697195
NOT RETRO
O
T

R
E
T
R
O

>>2697195
I generally hate the meta threads, but if we could settle things once and for all it would be fucking nice.

I would not mind at all if ps2/gc/xbox and gba were allowed here.

To me, they aren't "retro" but I generally see /vr/ as more of a /v-alt/ then /vr/. I like the slower pace of the board, and I feel like most people here probably play games from all eras, outside of a select few who -only- play retro who I believe to be the most vocal posters on the board.

Take it as you will.

I have no problem with PS2 games being allowed discussion on here, as long as it is restricted to PS2 games that are literally 15 years.

>all that good stuff
>that atrocious custom NES
absolutely terrible

>>2697195
>i don't understand the point of this board

just go back to /v/ please

>>2697195
So in 5 years xbox 360 and playstation 3 should be discussed here? You have completely missed the distinction made on this board. Turn off the internet and play more games until you figure it out.

>>2697242
Not him, I don't think Xbox 360 and PS3 would be retro in 5 years. But I also don't think retro is a classification that is determined by its aesthetics such as strictly being 2D sprite based graphics. However if you had said anything prior to the high definition era of gaming can be considered "retro", then I'd agree. Meaning 480i standard definition and prior, encompassing Dreamcast and PS2, then it would be better justified.

>>2697195
Oh look, this thread again.

Two years ago people like you were clamoring for discussion of games that are older than 13 years old.

Current rules are completely fine and logical.

Maybe allow pinball regardless of the table's age, because pinball will never work on /v/.

>>2697248
You have missed the point as well. What you consider hidef now will be outclassed in the future. Children born today will look back at PS4 games as 'retro'. By OP's definiton xbox 360 will be retro in 5 years.
>Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier
What part of that is confusing for you?

>>2697248
That would also include the Wii, though.

And if I can talks about muh Wii I should be able to talks about muh 360 and PS3.

Meta threads are not retro video games. Fuck off.

At least based Hiroyuki will understand the rules of /vr/. Hopefully we get some good moderation here too :^)

>>2697195
>Decide here:
No, you're not, you'll have to put with whatever decision the moderation takes. Just deal with it or make your own board on reddit or infinitychan.

>>2697195

Gaming changed in the 6th gen, I will fight the inclusion of them on this board as long as possible

This ruleset also disallows homebrews

>>2697220
I used to have this, and played it often. I once saw a kid playing a demo of this game while eating icecubes out of a macdonalds drink cup at walmart.

>>2697258
Just for the sake of discussion: if this board can draw a cutoff line right through Dreamcast and PS2, then I'm sure we can draw it between PS2 and Wii too.

Personally I don't think there is a rush to include PS2.

So, Sonic Adventure is retro.
And Sonic Adventure DX is not retro.
Shenmue 2 DC is retro and Shenmue 2 Xbox isn't retro.
Headhunter is retro and Headhunter on PS2 isn't retro.
Well.

>>2697289
>well
go fuck yaself

I think the best solution would be /vr2/ or /nqvr/ (Not Quite Retro Video Games) where you can just put everything besides whatever the current gen is. There are plenty of PC games from 2000-2010 and you could allow discussion for consoles from that period.

The main reason I wouldn't want that on this board, despite loving the fuck out of Gamecube and GBA, is because there'd be a huge influx of newfags and it would probably contaminate the board.

>>2697195
kill yourself

>>2697282
Gaming changed in the 5th gen first, what with the advent of 3D graphics and CG cutscenes. Alas, people whined for the inclusion of the 5th gen and then whined for the inclusion of the Dreamcast.

>>2697297
>Alas, people whined for the inclusion of the 5th gen
No they didn't. They were included from the beginning. The Dreamcast wasn't excluded either, the rules were very vague. Games on systems from 1999 or older, but no 6th gen. So it was very unclear whether the Dreamcast counted as "retro" or not.

I would accept the 15 years rule for GBA, PSP and DS games, because those consoles were like a second fourth and fifth gen, kinda like how the Game Boy Colour in the late 90s had Nes style games.

But I disagree with discussing PS2 or Gamecube games here.
Those games look good enough for modern gamers just getting hd remasters.

Hiro please hear me

do not change /vr/

please

>>2697303
The original rules were games released 1999 and before. It was like a week or two after the board was created that it was changed to games and games on consoles released 1999 and before. That only happened because people complained about the vagueness of the rules so you are sort of right. Still, don't be revisionist about it.

>>2697195
Please kill yourself.

Just move it up a few years every time a new generation happens. PS2/GC when when the PS5 is released, ps3 when the ps6 is released, and so on.

>>2697324
>u
Go fuck yourself

There's a clear divide in terms of the gaming industry and video games before the original Xbox and after.

The design philosophies changed, the audience changed, pretty much everything changed.

/vr/ is about old games and the old way games used to be enjoyed and made.

As soon as we let Halo be discussed here we are completely fucked.

Guys! Guys! I have this great idea. So many of us underage faggots want to talk about newer systems. Why don't we just allow it?!? We could just remove the retro r from /vr/ and discuss everything. What do you think? Do I have a great idea or what?!?!

I say wait a few years and then introduce a gen 6-10 board or something. Pic related.

>>2697341
>As soon as we let Halo be discussed here we are completely fucked.
As circlejerky as it seems to deem a single game as the cut-off point, I pretty much agree. Microsoft + Xbox + their flagship franchise = a different era. An era that isn't /vr/ in the slightest.

>>2697348
You know, I would like a board on here for discussing more modern video games. Also why do we have two random boards?

>>2697351

People would have said the same thing about sony during the ps2 era. If it has nothing to do with the actual age of a game that you might as well let games like shovel knight be discussed here.

Halo is gonna look pretty retro once we have photorealistic graphics on our holo lens.

>>2697360
Modern games are getting less and less impressive. Too many remakes and they're getting hit more and more with diminishing returns in the graphics department.

The present is pretty disappointing based on what we thought would happen 20-30 years ago. The computer age was anticipated to a degree, but we still don't have immersive Lawnmower Man type virtual reality. We're partway to becoming a dystopia, but without the ultra high tech cyberpunk stuff.

/vr/ pretty much covers the golden age of gaming. I don't get why people would want to change that. If you want to talk about Kingdom Hearts or Guitar Hero then by all means do so, just not on this board.

polite sage

>>2697387
>/vr/ pretty much covers the golden age of gaming. I don't get why people would want to change that. If you want to talk about Kingdom Hearts or Guitar Hero then by all means do so, just not on this board.
This should be in the sticky and should be law

>>2697360
I am 31 and think we should be able to discuss console games older than November 22 2005 (that day the first HD console was released)

And PC games older than September 13 2003 (the day Steam begun to operate)

And I would be consider the DS to be the last Retro console. But its games shouldnt be allowed here for at least a decade more.

This forum is for old games that were designed to look good on crt's with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

>>2697387
Graphics have been steadily improving, you may say we're capping out, but if you look at a game like Heavy Rain vs. Until Dawn, you see we've come and continue to go a long, long way. Graphics will get more and more impressive. We will have bustling towns that look amazing soon, as opposed to empty streets. Detail in MC's will continue to rise, and we'll probably even reach realistic battle damage with parts breaking off and being crushed and shattered, paint breaking, etc maybe even in this generation.

Get fucked

>>2697395
Bullshit. Genesis had High Definition Graphics. It says it right on the case. Right behind the cart slot above where the blast processor is.

>>2697341
>As soon as we let Halo be discussed here we are completely fucked.

This. I don't think people who are asking for 6th gen realize what they're bringing in.

6th gen includes Halo, Persona 4, Smash Bros. Melee, God of War, World of Warcraft (if we include contemporary PC games) and so forth

Look at these threads on /v/ and tell me you honestly want to invite that shit here

Include ports and pretty soon we have waifufags breaking down our doors to tell us something like pic related is best /vr/ girl

this board is dedicated to the discussion of video games that were released before the year 2000. it's not about how old the game is, it's about the years they were released. get it through your thick fucking skull. what's so hard to understand?

This is retarded. A game doesn't just suddenly get retro once it's 15 years old. This is a board about the very early days. The retro days of gaming. Make a new board for post-retro games that aren't modern. But keep that shit away from here.

PS: Is the WonderSwan Color retro?

>>2697195
>5559022

I would like ps2/gc/xbox discussion. IMO it's retro as fuck now.

>>2697303
>They were included from the beginning.
Except they weren't. The original rules stated that /vr/ was for 4th gen consoles and below and PC games released in 1999 or earlier. 5th gen was excluded.

People whined because of the 1999 rule and 5th gen systems were allowed. People whined about the 1999 rule again and the Dreamcast was allowed. People have been whining about how the GBA "feels retro" and how 6th gen systems are now "old enough" to be considered retro. If the rest of the 6th gen are allowed, then people will whine that the Xbox 360 should be allowed because it was released in 2005 and "feels like an in-between system just like the Dreamcast", a year when 6th gen systems were still getting games. Do you not see how this sliding scale causes problems?

If the line keeps moving, what is the point in /vr/'s existence at all? Why have a board for retro games if the definition of "retro" keeps changing?

>>2697649
>I would like ps2/gc/xbox discussion. IMO it's retro as fuck now.

>2014 licensed games
>retro

The only PS2 discussion here should be regarding using it as an emulator for retro games. PS2 is not retro and won't ever be for me.

>>2697643
This guy gets it. It's not about age, it's about the spirit of the times.

It would be like trying to argue that music from 2005 counts as "oldies."

>>2697643
>PS: Is the WonderSwan Color retro?
I think so. It's just the same thing as the regular WS but with colours, right?

I made a post on /v/ last week in this thread about the N64:
>>>/v/310203221

Instead of trying to reword what I originally said, I'll post OP's question and then include my answer.

OP: Question for oldfags: were people already calling the N64 "retro" (or borderline retro) in 2006?
If someone said at the time "I'm 20, N64 was my childhood! Nostalgia!", would the responses have been along the lines of "Fuck off underage", "The 90s are too recent, wait four years", "80s kid FTW", "Anyone born after 1980 should be shot", "Pokemon is gay", "You're cancer", "The last good console was the Genesis", etc.? Obviously the 64 is very much retro NOW, but what about when it was only 10 years old?
I'm asking because it seems that whenever someone says PS2 was "my childhood" on here, the thread gets derailed with people calling him underage, despite the PS2 being 15 (almost 16) years old. Yeah, I know, something isn't truly "cool again" or "retro" until it's 20 years old, but some of these posters think the 6th generation will never be retro for the rest of time. Do you agree or disagree with them?

Me: I don't know what people were saying back in 2006, but one could make an argument for the N64 being seens as retro that early on just for how different the games were. Everything was low-poly, the controller had only 1 stick, camera controls were nowhere near decent for most games that had them, lots of collect-a-thons to make up for the lack of content they could fit into their games due to small storage space because cartridges, pre-rendered cutscenes and decent sound fidelity on voices were incredibly rare -- tl;dr there's been a greater leap forward between 5th and 6th gen than there ever has been since. How much has happened since the PS2? Heavily integrated online bullshit, games coming out incomplete at a much higher rate, HD graphics, and what else?

>>2697773
But in 40 years, music from 2005 most certainly will be considered "oldies" Just the same way that we now consider music from the 60's that way, but obviously not in the 70's.

>>2697796
I think there have been continual changes through gaming's entire history. Were the changes between 5th and 6th gen huge? Most certainly. Were they bigger than the ones between 2nd and 3rd? I'm not so sure. And 4th to 5th was massive as well, almost ditching 2D entirely.

And you know what, in another 10 years the MGSV and the likes will be looking dated and archaic. That's just how things are.

>>2697803
"Classic rock" hasn't changed since the 90s. Nirvana will never count.

>>2697818
11 years separate SMB1 and Mario 64. There are 4 years between Galaga and Space Harrier. The rate of change in either graphics or gameplay today isn't remotely comparable.

>>2697823
"classic" is different from "oldies"
Retro means old, not classic or golden age. What is currently old changes with time.

OP doesn't seem like a mod but I do like the idea of there being a specific "years after it's birthday" rule that way there would constantly be new games becoming retro for us to get excited about and discuss. Would help the freshness around here.

>>2697195
>we're revising /vr/'s rules
No you aren't. You're not an admin, now go back to /v/.

>>2697823
I would say Galaga and Space Harrier are a hell of a lot more similar than SMB and Mario 64.

>>2697785
But released in 2000 and supported till 2003. I was surprised to see that the NeoGeo Pocket Color came out in 1999. Barely retro. I think the WSC should be retro since it's a revisited hardware version of a retro system.

>>2697216
This. I just want to be able to discuss some of my childhood favorites. Yes, I'm a 6th gen babby, deal with it. I'm also 21, born in late '93 to be exact so inb4
>you must be 18 to post here

>>2697818

in 10 years the last Metal Gear (which is a cross gen game, not a pure next gen game) will get an 4K HD remaster with updated texturs and look perfectly fine for young people of that time.

You cant do the same with Retro games, Ocarine of Time or Final Fantasy VII will never look good for young gamers because of how low poly they are.

>>2697901
I was born in 94 and consider 5th gen to be my first gen.

>babby
>deal with it

For japaneses PS2/GC/Xbox are retro.
For europeans PS2/GC/Xbox are retro.
For americans juste before 2000 are retro.

>>2697901

You can discuss such games on /v/

I like talking about books but I'm not going to do it here.

I would leave things as they are currently. It's too soon to revise the rules of the board, but clarifying some things like a bunch of lawyers would be nice.

The only "real" change I want to see is to officially allow certain PC games released in the first few years of 2000. Not all, because that would open the floodgates, but seeing things like Diablo 2 and Deus Ex be officially ok'd instead of simply not being deleted would be great.

As it is, certain things I want clarification on, with most likely allowed to least likely:

>Romhacking
Romhacks seem to be ok as they are, even if the Romhack came out in the last month even. The reasoning being is that it's a game released on a retro system.

>New games released for an old system (Battle Kid, Pier Solar, etc)
Again, still released for a retro system, and they're in such low volume that it doesn't seem to be an issue anyway.

>PC game patches and expansion packs
Official addons to a game that came out in 1999 or prior, so I guess they're ok?

>PC game mods released after 1999 for games 1999 or prior
I'd ok them, some would not because it leads in to the next topic. They seem to be allowed without incident judging by Doom Thread's WAD releases.

>Total conversions made for retro game engines
We're starting to tread on thin ice. Although Counter-Strike seems to be generally accepted on /vr/, it's unclear if it technically fits the rules of the board since it eventually became a standalone game released after 1999. And if it's ok because it was built for a retro game engine (GoldSRC), then by that logic Wolfenstein: ET (Built on idTech3 and released in 2003) would be retro as well. Even more humorous is that it would also allow the first Call of Duty since it was also built off of idTech3. In this line of thought, what constitutes the difference between a simple mod and a total conversion?

>>2697910
I wasn't even talking about graphics necessarily. There will be various things that happen over the next decade that will shape gaming and make the games of today seem dated. It has always been this way.

Kind of ironic that you picked two games which are getting remakes already.

>>2697949
The Call of Duty engine is far more different than idTech3, so that's stretching the line too much.

>>2697957

That wasn't ironic, he chose those intentionally because they got remakes that included a hell of a lot more than updated textures

>>2697834
Retro doesn't mean old at all, it means something recent that evokes the popular style of something from the past.
Technically, /vr/ should probably be called something like /vc/

>>2697195
God damn this bitch is ugly

>>2697958
Yeah, but it makes an interesting point. If you take a game engine and modify it, how heavily do you have to change it to have it no longer considered the same engine? If I take DarkPlaces, make a total conversion that plays like a whole new game, is it allowed on this board since it's technically a modified Quake 1?

There's no good answer for that, so the best we can do is allow/disallow games on a case by case basis rather than attempt to create a global rule that covers everything. For instance, Halo came out in 2000 but feels a whole lot less retro than Wolfenstein: ET. Warcraft 3 came out in 2002, but is on a whole other level than Rise of Nations that came out two years after it.

Is Soul Hackers for the 3DS retro? It's a remake of a Sega Saturn game that didn't get released in the US.

>>2697973

It's not even a remake, it's more of a port, so it should be allowed.

Even if it wasn't, just say "Soul Hackers" and it doesn't matter which one you're talking about

>>2697961
Well that's fair, but my point is pretty much the same. Graphics aren't going to be the big thing that changes.

I believe it should be things 18 years or older, that way the game or console or whatever could post itself and fight it's own battles

>>2697195
If anything, vr should throw out that one shitty dreamcast thread. I think /vr/ should end with 4th gen. Perhaps a /v90skids/ board would be more efficient for the ps1/64/saturn through recently retired 360/ps3/wii. Might even help stabilize the shit posting on /v/... but I should be realistic.

>>2697823
>>2697834
oldies 50-mid60s
classic late 60s-early 70s
what the fuck late 70s-80s
90s
wait I should stop derailing a shitty thread

>>2697968
In that case I would judge it by the year the content was made. Sure, let's talk about Quake or Malice on Darkplaces, not about Xonotic or Nexuiz, both relatively new games based on that engine based on the Quake engine.

Same with Quake III Arena and Call of Duty, and so on. We all win.

>mfw the board rules will never ever change no matter how many polls you fags make or how butthurt you get

Rules are rules and they are not changing

>OP is a picture of a 3D female

Don't even have to read to know that poster has the worst conceivable opinion and is straight from /b/

>>2697248
No, you're young and an idiot

>>2697835
That's a shit idea because there is no way you can play and discuss every good game already deemed to be retro, and they're in general far superior to those that currently aren't. There's no point in waiting, and that whole eagerly awaiting for a game to become retro just outs that games fans as literal children for enjoying it in the first place, as is the case right now with 5th and 6th gen babies

>>2697195
eh

NO, just NO! There is no fucking way we should let PS2 babbies shit up this board even more. Imagine all this God of War and Kingdom Hearts and FFX faggotry, fucking disgusting. PS2 was the beginning of the end for retro games, and that's where the line for retro should be drawn

Just look at this shit, do you really want to have those people on the board? This turns to just another /v/ is this happens. The rules are fine as they are.

/rant

>>2698076
The beginning of the end started when Half-Life was released. It wasn't that HL was bad in itself, it just brought a shift in design to modern gaming.

>>2698092
I always considered Halo to be the game that killed gaming as a whole. Which is why I wouldn't be too upset if PS2, GC, and GBA was allowed and alongside non-FPS PC games strictly before 2004 and then that was the END. Period. But as it stands the current rules are second best.

>>2697341
>>2697351
Agreed. Avoiding mudslinging and subjective opinions, there is a clear divide in both the mainstream accessibility of gaming and the general content of video games that occurred during the 6th gen.

Sure, we saw the advent of cinematic 3d games during the 5th gen, but during the 6th gen those games became the main focus of developers and gamers. The 6th gen also brought online console gaming to the mainstream. Those consoles have much more in common with the consoles we have today than the n64/ps1/dreamcast that preceded them.

>>2698076
Kingdom Hearts general on the front page 24-hours a day.

Can't wait.

>>2697195
The poll phrasing isn't clear at all. Am I voting for the new rule or the old?

15 years sound like a good enough span.

Its called time you fucking faggots, shit will become retro whether you like it or not.

>>2698219

Thanks for not reading the thread, faggot

the GC and some titles can be considered retro, but the ps2 xbox will NEVER be retro.
specially not GC multi plats like NFSU

>>2697195
Allow GBA is all I think we need at this point in time. NGC/XB/PS2 need at least another 5 years before /v/ needs to cut down on the amount of consoles flooding the board

I'm going to post some examples of OPs of the types of threads you would be inviting onto /vr/ if it was opened up to 6th gen games

>>2698389

I know she's a slut but I love her anyways!

ITT: Rise thread.

>>2698389

>rip m2k hands

You could tell he was visibly frustrated by it last week. How much longer does he have left before he can't even get top 8?

>>2698389

>Not erping as a hot young draenei prostitute

I'm free now if anyone's up for it

>>2698389

>that kid who wavedashed to school

>>2698390
>>2698392
>>2698396
>>2698401

If we allow 6th gen because of you fags then these communities and shitposters move here, I am going to scream I TOLD YOU SO in your face until I turn blue and pass out

>>2697195
I think it would be nice to have 6th gen discussion eventually and the cut date should move up with time, but having it 15 years for each individual game would just be more of a hassle than it's worth. It's easy to tell what's retro and what's not on this board based on system, if we switched to 15 years for game you would have argument between release date times and people checking constantly to make sure that a game is actually 15 years old. Eventually people would get sick of that and not-retro stuff would start creeping in.

Let the ps4 gen die first. We want this board to average 25+

>>2697195
There is literally nothing with the way things are done now, except for the fact that a Sixth Gen system (Dreamcast) is allowed to be discussed when the rest of the Sixth Gen is banned.
It should be one or the other. Either allow all Sixth Gen systems, or disallow Dreamcast. My personal preference is that the entirety of Sixth Gen should remain disallowed.

>>2698449
>sixth gen
>dreamcast

lol

>>2698449
>lel ebic generation maymay

>>2697248
Fuck you the dreamcast can do native 480p which is HD.

>>2697195
That just seems like a recipe for the newer retro to crowd out the older, forever.

>>2698690

480p is not hd

the Vita is 540p and it is considered quarter hd.

I would agree with applying the 15 years rule to GBA, DS and PSP games here. People wouldnt be able to discuss Pokemon Black White 2 until 2027 (the last Pokemon game made with sprites, 3DS had the first Pokemon with polys).
Since they were like a portable SNES, Playstation 1 and N64.
But I will never consider PS2 or Gamecube games retro.

>>2697927
I take it you havent been to /v/

>>2697195
If you're going to include SOME 6th gen games, but not ALL of them then that's just retarded.

I don't understand some of you people who would vote yes because I see posters on /v/ talk about 6th gen all the time which makes sense because their demographic is much younger than ours.

I might be speaking for myself but I believe this board should cater to our demographic (aka people who grew up with Atari through 5th gen including the oddball Dreamcast) only.

However if there are younger people on here who legitimately like what we consider to be retro games that's cool but I dislike seeing these "Why can't we talk about (anything 6th gen) threads" because even though we hate it there's a place for it already and it is /v/

>>2697220
Why did Acclaim hate kawaii dragons so much?

>>2698076
jesus that looks awful. yeah vr seems to work pretty well as it is. i prefer this board as a slow burn where actual discussion is encouraged.

>>2698804
thiiis.

>b-but I want to talk about PS2 games!!

You can.

On /v/.

>>2698791

I've been to /v/ plenty. The state of the board is not my problem. It's a designated place for you to talk about the stuff you want to talk about.

Just because /vr/ is a relatively good board does not mean it's here for whatever you want to discuss.

>>2698804

Legitimately this

This is part of the issue as well. Changing the rules doesn't help the current members so much as it encourages others to post here. Ask any 4chan board if they want to attract a new demographic and see what their fucking answer is. We're no different.

It's not about the title of our board being accurate, it's about what's good for the board and it's users.

>>2697341
>>2697351
>>2697426
>>2698098
Idiots.

the though of kh threads are pretty scary. although i don't frequent /v/, i'm on /co/ everyday and i've seen what that franchise can draw out on boards.

>>2698825
explain?

Retro video games are not only tied to age, but to limitations. These limitations include storage and hardware graphics (2D and 3D). PS2 onward, games were generally scalable across hardware, granted you don't mind bumping down some sliders. Devs seldom had to do circus tricks to make a game work, unlike say making Resident Evil 2 work on an N64.

I'd say the last retro console would be the Gamecube. It didn't have DVDs, so a lot of the "cinematic experience" games skipped the console in favor of the PS2 and X-Box. Its library was particularly heavy in arcade-style games. It favored couch multiplayer and netplay was virtually nonexistant, bar a single niche title. The Gamecube in general does not have all the features common in modern video games.

>>2698850
The normal one definitely couldn't, but the Panasonic GameCube could play DVDs, right?

>>2698389
>>2698390
>>2698392
>>2698396
>>2698401
>>2698410
Good posts

I agree

I want /v/ to leave and stay go

>>2698825
Good point. Well made.

>>2698857
No games used DVD, but that model did play video DVD.

There has been a small handful of people constantly trying to circumvent the rules over the past month or two by continually posting games past the cutoff date and trying to justify it in some stupid/confusing way.

>Arcanum - retro because 2000 doesn't apply to PC games even though the sticky says it does
>GBA is fine because it takes mods weeks to delete threads
>Super Mario Advance for GBA thread - retro because remake
>Chrono Trigger for DS & PSP thread - retro because remake

I was perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to remakes until they became an easy avenue for people to break the rules. Faggots ruining things for everyone.

The idea is they saturate the board with these threads and then make this pointless meta thread. The results since the beginning of the poll have been split down the middle, which is fine since we already have two boards; one for everything before 2000 and one for everything else.

I find strange that typical /vr/ user would stricty follow the rules of being retro but won't follow other rules like not being racist, not being or not provoke flame wars.

I think the rules are fine the way they are. I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but I got in a retro vidya discussion with my cousin once and we came to the topic of what is retro and what's not. He said that the console you grew up with is where games stop being retro, which made sense to me. Now, if we consider that the average user here is 20 years old, that'd make them about 6 years old when Gen 6 came out, essentially saying that these people grew up with Gen 6 gaming. Since they grew up with Gen 6, this means Gen 5 and everything before it is seen as retro (at least according to my cousin). Until the average 4chan user had a 360/PS3/Wii as their first console (truly a scary thought) Gen 6 games will not be seen as retro.

>>2698876
>I find it strange that users of a dedicated hobby board would follow the rules that restrict the board to discussion of said hobby yet sometimes break global rules such as racism or flame wars

>>2697254
This. Besides pinball, I'd add mechanical and redemption games. Anything arcade-oriented.

What if we just have 6th gen generals as a test to see how bad things would get if 6th gen is allowed, and if they turn out to be good then 6th gen would be allowed to be discussed as long as the game in question does not already have a general in /vg/.

That would eliminate anything that's popular enough to destroy the board and let people talk about obscure 6th gen games just like how people can talk about obscure earlier gen games here.

Fandom talk has already existed on /vr/ and continues to shit up the board, but not enough for it to be a problem. Really the only problem with 6th gen is that the fandoms for the bigger games are more likely to shitpost than the fandoms for the older games on here simply because they're younger and haven't fully gotten all the shitposting out of their system.

>>2697254
rules are good as they are mods.

Why does /vr/ only have one janitor and why do they not give a shit about the rules?

The moderation is the problem, not the rules.

best case scenario is make another board for "ps2, xbox, gc, ps3, 360, wii" all together.
allowing ps2/gc/xbox here would ruin this board beyond repair.

>>2698825
back to /v/

/vr/ is a good board and we should make it unfriendly as possible to anyone that claims that a Ps2 was their first console.

>>2699086
Shut the hell up bunghole.

>>2697195
In the Dark Future of 2040 AD
PS2 & GBA Still no retro

to me, the end of the 16-bit era and transition to 3D games in the mid 90s marks the end of the true retro era

but thats just me personally. I don't really mind younger gamers discussing post 16-bit systems (though adding the PS2 to this is really pushing it) as they're not threads I partake in anyway so have at it

tbh I rarely ever post in any threads here, even ones that do appeal to me, at all. I hardly ever even play video games, new or old, these days. still enjoy the threads though

Nothing post-dreamcast, ever.

I vote No.

I like this board because it celebrates a golden age of video games that we wont ever see again.

Gamers that started with PS2 and beyond is a very different type and I don't think it mixes well with true retro.

It sucks, because gc/xbox/ps2 is obviously an amazing generation and deserves to have serious threads away from the /v/ bullshit but I think it would ruin this board eventually.

a different question
how about allowing the discussion of ps2/gamecube/ds that had at least 2 installments in the retro age.

that way it would be possible to discuss mario, megaman, metal gear, civilization or might and magic, but not GTA or Smash Bros Melee. Or Franchises that debuted in that age like Halo.

By the way, I completely disagree with ever allowing the PS3/360 gen, except perhaps the ds and psp.

>>2699112
People are going to see thread involving one semi-modern installment and then we'll have a shitload of similar threads regardless of what the rules say. It's basically the remake/port scenario again. Did you see that thread about that 2010 Pacman game on Steam that people were trying to pass off as retro?

> /vr/ - Retro Games. Same rules as today. MAYBE +GBA, but I don't hold too strong of an opinion on that one.
> /vceleb/ - Video Game Celebrities. Youtuber e-celeb's and individuals in the industry (creators, owners, voice actors, etc)
> /vemu/ - Video Game Emulation. All emulation discussion. This'll stop the anti-game trolling and stealth PS2 threads around here
>Leave /v/ and /vg/ they are

A man can dream.

>>2698219
you are literally retarded. have you even bothered to read the thread?

>>2698804
fucking /thread

there is a very clear distinction on what is to be disscussed on this board.

>>2698825
case in point. this is the kind of shit /vr/ will be flooded with, if we let this happen

>your face when we started discussing those disgusting new FPS games that are literally just rehashes of each other

>>2699397

reading your whiny shitposts isn't enough to warrant "reading the thread"

the original post said nothing in contrast to this.

You can whine all you want, eventually, these things will be considered retro, but to me, not for another 12 years or so.

Your board is safe from it for now, and rightfully so, however, you need to get getting so hopped up on your own pretentious bullshit.

You aren't retro authority, buddy.

deal with it.

eventually /vr/ if it still exists within that time, will be talking about it. Maybe by then you'll sperg out hard enough to not come back.

>>2699413
You're too stupid to even be on /v/.

>>>/tv/

>>2699435

Read the thread

Retro as a word does not mean "Early" or even "Classic". It more closely means "Throwback."

>FFX feels like a game from a bygone era
>KH does not
>Etc.
I would put a cutoff on the year 2001 for now. Then change the year after the next big paradigm shift of gaming occurs, which is still pretty far off.
But hey, that's just me.

>>2699435
>wahhh! i got called out on my dumb post

all this discussion and you still fail to understand the point. we are discussing video games released before the year 2000. it is in no way about how old the game is. get it through your thick skull.

>>2699465
>>FFX feels like a game from a bygone era

It really doesn't

>>2699469
I mean, it's turn-based with random battles. It has way more in common with jrpgs before it than after, even if there's voice acting and facial expressions. I would say the kiddies aren't exactly discussing Jak&Daxter or GTA3, either.
Again, if everyone disagrees, I don't really care.

Just rename it to "20th century video games" and lay this to rest

There are two definitions to the word "retro" and this board only consider one definition of it, and not the first at that.

Either this board needs to allow "retro games" as in "games made in the style of old" (as vague as this sounds... 'cause you'll always have a jackass claiming whatever next gen game has the same style has an old one), or it needs to be called "Old Games".

>>2699484
"Old" is even more vague than "retro".

>>2697195
how bout no.

How about we move it back… PSX and N64 are no longer considered retro.

>>2699489
It's not if the sticky specifically says "games that are at least 15 years old" or "games made before 2001".

"Retro" is misleading. Shovel Knights and every other recent game built to look and feel like old games ARE retro games, in the first meaning of the word, but they are not allowed here.

>>2699490
:3

/vr/ should only go up the second generation consoles.

Get out, you NES kiddies.

>>2699490
Replacing 2000 in the sticky with say, 1992? Interesting...

That might be sound for consoles, but it might end up being a bit screwy for PC games. No more Doom threads for one.

Just to clarify, 1992 cut-off would eliminate GBC, NGPC, PlayStation, Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, Jaguar, 32X and even the Virtual Boy. Probably a few others as well.

>>2698097
Halo wasn't that popular. The culprit was the success of goldeneye and perfect dark. They paved the way for making console FPS games.

>>2699497
If Shovel Knight is retro then so is just about every flash or mobile game ever made.

Allowing 6th gen would kill this board.
Allowing all that other shit would be worse than death.

>>2698076
The beginning of the end of retro games was the N64 and shift into full 3D played with an analog stick.

The PSX and Saturn are technically the same gen, but were released 3 years earlier. They had hardware limitations that made developers use faux 3D most of the time to fake it, or just not use 3D at all.

>>2699506
That's exactly why I'm saying the name of the board should be changed.

You can't be called retro and forbid the half of "retro games" that deserve that name the most.

>>2699507
>faux 3D

>Saturn
Yes.
>PSX
No.

NOT RETRO

NOT RETRO

>>2697282
Elaborate as to how it "changed"

>>2697195
It shouldn't be called retro. Spelunky is retro. Super Mario Bros. is not. Street fighter 4 is retro. Street Fighter 2 is not.

We should have a /ve/ board for 16 bit and earlier consoles and PC ganes released before 1994.

/v3/ board for PSX/N64/Saturn gen through PS3/Xbox360/Wii

Then /vc/ for whatever gen is current. Old gens get added to v3.

>>2699508
Retro is a bit of a catch-all for what's allowed around here.

Older consoles often look the way they do because of the limitations of the hardware at the time, whereas most flash, mobile or "retro themed" games available today are that way for other reasons. Seeing the word retro used to describe almost any game available on a modern platform is insulting, since it's usually just a synonym for low budget or crap.

If Shovel Knight came out 20 years ago I'd definitely consider it retro.

>>2699519
That's a pretty cool opinion I'm sure most people around here share, however it doesn't change word definitions. By the definition "Retro games" refers Shovel Knight first and foremost, and it only refers to actual old games by extension.

>>2699532
Opinion discarded.

>>2699501
1994 seems like the best cut. CD32 and Marty were just variants of computers that died shortly afterwards and Jaguar and 3DO were fairly shortlived. It also gives a good cut for computer games since afterwards Windows 95 came out and Mac switched to PPC.

32X and PC-FX seem so irrelevant that nobody would care whether they're retro or not.

the cutoff should either be 1999 or 2001 - either keep out ps2/xbox/gamecube or keep them all in.

as for retro, is super mario maker allowed in retro discussions? it's new, but it draws heavily from the older games. it's like official romhacking.

I don't get this controversy. What happens in 2020 on 4chan, when there are no XBox or PS2 threads on /v/? Hell, they don't even exist now? I'm not enamored with that generation (I was a GCNfag) but just because those systems had franchises you don't like should exclude them from being discussed for boogeymen reasons. We discuss Mario games on here even though Mario is still having new games released, as is Zelda. I get the sense that this argument against moving the goalposts to allow the next generation is manchildren throwing their toys out of the pram. "Waaah, stop posting what I don't like". As I said, /v/ doesn't even discuss Gamecube anymore, as it was two generations ago. At what point can it become retro?

>>2699546
If it's on a platform released on or before 1999, then sure otherwise no.

>>2699542

this is already one of the slower boards. an early cutoff would gut this place of half its content.

>>2699546
See, perfect example or what I was saying. Super Mario Maker is retro. In the first meaning of the word. Yet it is not allowed here. This is why this board should be called "old(er) video games" or something.

>>2699550
>Super Mario Maker is retro

>>2699549
There are boards a lot slower than /vr/.
I think a third of the content is a more reasonable estimate. There isn't a lot of talk for pre-85 games but 85-94 are still the mainstay.

>>2699550
>the first meaning of the word
Just shut the fuck up. You don't know anything about the "first meaning" of the word because all you did was do a quick Google search for the definition. "Retro" is a Latin root that means "backwards" and is used in words like "retrospective" (to look at the past which is exactly what this board's about).

>>2699557
>"Retro" is a Latin root that means "backwards"

That guy is retro.

>>2699557
I have a degree in "literature and language". I had classes at the university specifically about words, where they come from, their etymology, how their defintions evolve, etc

Just look at what you're saying
>backwards
>to look at the past
Apply this definition by adding the words "video game". A retro game would be a game that is like "backwards", a game which "looks at the past". Super Mario Maker and Shovel Knight are "backward" games that "look at the past". Super Mario Bros 3 isn't, because when it came out it was everything of a present and even future video game. Super Mario Bros 3 is just old.

>>2699554

there are, but /vr/ still isn't very fast. maybe a third is more accurate, but there's no need to slow down discussion. besides, then there'd be a "donut hole" where you couldn't discuss mid-late 90s games anywhere. /vr/ should be the catch all for older games. like I said, either 1999 or 2001.

>>2699564
The whole purpose of this thread is to start a fight about what can and cannot be discussed here, while you alone are trying to start a fight about a word.

You wouldn't happen to be an Indian from KY by any chance?

>>2699571
>The whole purpose of this thread is to start a fight about what can and cannot be discussed here, while you alone are trying to start a fight about a word.

Except that word should define what can or can not be discussed here.
I find that more on topic than crying a river because the things that marked the end of your childhood (Halo and Xbox) will soon be old enough for this board.

>>2699564
Shovel Knight is "retro" in the sense that it imitates the past and Super Mario Bros. 3 is "retro" in the sense that it came out in the past. If you want to be really pedantic about it, Mario 3 isn't inherently retro but the discussion of it definitely is.

>>2697195
I personally believe /v/ should be merged with /vr/,/vg/, and /vp/ like the old days.
>But that's not my call.

>>2699579
... And that's exactly why I'm saying the name of the board should change because the (better) half of the definition of the word "retro" isn't allowed here. But I've said that already, too... We're just turning in circles here.

Besides, this whole thread is stupid. As time goes by, of course the release dates of things considered "old" go up as well.

For the definition of the board, whether you go up a year every year, or whether you say "any game at least 15 years old", it's exactly the same damn thing.

>>2699578
I knew it was you. By this point in your life you need to start realizing when you are wrong, like now.

>>2697216
>to me, they aren't "retro" but I generally see /vr/ as more of a /v-alt/ then /vr/
except that isn't what this board is, you dumb fuck.

as soon as you open it up to the next gen over, you'll get a flood of people and it will just be /v/ all over again.

>>2699586
I have to ask, is that OKCupid profile real? It looks crazy even by your standards, but it's hard to tell. Either you've pissed off someone else really badly or you're more nuts than I thought.

>>2699586
Retro doesn't mean to us what you think it means. It's not just a case of age, but vintage. I think most of the people who want to let in newer stuff just don't get that concept at all.

Modern stuff that is designed to look old isn't retro, just retro styled.

>>2699601
I have no idea what you're talking about

>>2699605
>Modern stuff that is designed to look old isn't retro, just retro styled.

That's... like the snake biting its tail. Retro means "in the style of old". Now you're saying retro means retro-styled... okay.

The first definition of retro was something new made to look like a throwback to a period of the past.
Confusion and definition of words evolving with time, people started to get confused between what was actually old or just made to look like it's old. Thus why retro (officialy) became use-able to define things that are ACTUALLY old as well.

Except this board will only accept the 2nd definition of the word, which is why I think the name is not appropriate.

>>2699613
Put it this way, if I put on a suit of armor that doesn't make me a genuine 12th century knight. If someone makes a crap 2d game in 2015 and decides to call it retro it doesn't feel the same to us.

Anyone looking back at us in a thousand years probably won't make much of a distinction between a 2d game released in 1985 or 2015, but it matters to us old folks. If you take the meanings of old or retro too literally you end up missing out on the magic of the time.

>When will the World War be considered part of the Victorian era. It's been 100 years. It should be Victorian by now.

>>2699624
A given era is a given era, and that won't change.

"Retro" (or "Old") is not a given era, it changes with time. In 20 years, you'll be 20 years older. So will be the PS4.

>>2699624
It was Victorian until the other nations involved started using conscription for mass recruitment. Until that point the British army was volunteers only. That was the turning point and wars were never the same again. I don't think wars since then can really be considered the same, if you want to talk modern wars you can, just not here. Although I suppose if a large majority of people wanted that to change I wouldn't oppose it:

http://strawpoll.me/5570204

>>2699625
This is what you're not getting. Retro is what we call our classic era of video games. In twenty years we can call the stuff from 2000-2035 something else.

>>2699625
sorry m8
but this guy >>2699629
is correct
wish you understood that

It should be on a case-by-case basis for each console, not entire generations.

For example, a lot of people seem fine with allowing GBA discussion on here since it's a basic platform, got killed off midway through the generation, and wouldn't bring shitposters to /vr/.

On the other hand, the PS2 kept getting big-name releases all the way up until 2008 and ushered in a new era of games, allowing discussion would undoubtedly bring /v/ shitposters here.

But what about the Xbox and the Gamecube? Allowing Xbox discussion wouldn't be terrible since the system got killed off early and is pretty obscure overall, but then /vr/ would have to deal with Halo threads. As for the gamecube all people would talk about are first-party Nintendo titles which isn't bad discussion. But it's still too early for the system.

>>2699547
I saw at least three sixth gen threads last night. Hell, I even saw a N64 thread.

>>2699629
A handful of people don't change the definition of words, everyone does (some tried, it never worked, or at least never for very long).

You need to find another word for your board then. What you want is a board called "video games from generation 1 to 5th".

That's an idea though, but even if you do that, split up boards between different sets of generations, it will cause endless arguing about which gen which be part of which group.

>>2699639
I don't know or care what they do in India (other than shitting in streets according to /pol/), but literally the only person who has such a serious problem with our usage of the word retro is you. We're not getting rid of the word because literally one person is on a crusade against it.

Some of the people trying to push for newer consoles in this thread do so because they use "retro" as a synonym for "old". The logic being that if a console such as the PS2 can now be considered somewhat old it can surely be considered somewhat retro.

The other major viewpoint is that retro isn't and shouldn't be tied so strictly to dates as described above. That our usage of retro defines an unchanging era of early gaming, which makes the developments towards the end and after that point something else entirely.

The final viewpoint is held solely by you, who is terribly upset that people are using an a word in a way that is slightly different than the meaning it originally had a thousand years ago. I'm waiting for you to tell us that despite the fact a PlayStation can be played, it cannot be considered a station according to the original definition of the word. PlayMachine just doesn't sound as good, buddy.

I wouldn't care.

/vr/ gets kinda stale.

Metathreads constantly, there is usually multiple final fantasy threads up at a time, failed mascot threads, console war threads, collector vs. emulator threads, etc It gets tiring seeing the -exact- same shit posted daily.

The same discussions, everyday. "Recommend me a game!" "I think Final Fantasy 8 is a terrible game!". Meanwhile threads that are unique and interesting die, or get deleted because someone posts some non-retro game or observation and it derails the whole thing.

I'm honestly going to leave /vr/ I think for real. Its such a circle jerk at times. The shitposting is on a whole other level because its shitposting thats actually enforcing the rules so its fucking everywhere.

>>2699693
>Metathreads constantly
Wouldn't exist if we actually had a shred of decent moderation.

>Meanwhile threads that are unique and interesting die, or get deleted because someone posts some non-retro game or observation and it derails the whole thing.
Or because the janitor arbitrarily deletes even on-topic threads.

Ps2 games are the exact same as modern games just with shittier graphics. Is dynasty warriors 8 that different from 4 other than looking nicer? Not really, ps2 is just the first era of modern games and have shit graphics. Fuck you ps2 kids, I love me darkwatch but I don't need to discuss it on /vr/. There is enough Mario Zelda posting we don't need more mainstream shit of course this place is mostly underage plebs who just got into playing old games so that's to be expected

>>2699693
And you think opening the floodgates would help? Just report shit threads and posts. Don't expect the board to work for you, you have to work for the board.

>>2699721
Not that guy, but it gets a bit discouraging when you have to wait in between reporting threads and they end up staying until they die naturally anyway.

I think the limit should be raised by 6 months every year.
I think 2000 should be allowed for 2016, but not this year. This way the retro limit is always at least 16 years ago. Also, games must still obey the time limit, just because a system is allowed does not mean a game released later in the system's lifespan is considered retro.
Behold, autism:
2016: 2000 allowed (PS2) [16 years difference]
2018: 2001 allowed (X-Box, GBA, Gamecube) [17 years]
2020: 2002 allowed [18 years]
2022: 2003 allowed [19 years]
2024: 2004 allowed (Nintendo DS) [20 years]
2026: 2005 allowed (XBox 360, PSP) [21 years]
2028: 2006 allowed (PS3, Wii) [22 years]
2030: 2007 allowed [23 years]
etc

>>2697195
5/10 doesn't pass

>>2699727
People aren't going to bother checking the date specific games were released before they make a thread and it kind of fucks with generals for a specific console as well. I don't see mods updating the sticky every six months either, or is this some kind of rolling thing?

Wait. why the fuck am I giving constructive criticism? I want things to stay as they are.

>>2699721
I dont know, it might get an influx of new people in here that are more willing to discuss games instead of meta-threading and trying to "enforce" the rules by shitposting.

It seems like so many people are shit posting or "hate millenials" or whatever else and it ruins threads. We need stricter moderation, we need -reliable- moderation (as in, why a shitposting extravaganza like this stays open for weeks, where as another thread that actual discussion is taking place in gets deleted because someone mentioned a ps2 or xbox game)

Why are we discussing how to change /vr/ and not the actual elephant in the room, how to fix /v/? If anything needs to change, /v/ needs to be split into a /pc/ board and a /console/ board, possibly even adding a /handheld/ board. That right there would eliminate a ton of shitposting and doing a lot to slow down the busy board on 4chan.

/v/ is shit and unsuitable for discussion because it's entirely too large to be moderated or to have lasting discussion on anything that's not very popular right then when your threads 404 in roughly 10 minutes and stay on page 0 for less than 10 seconds. Either the userbase needs to change or the ability to monitor threads needs to change (Or just eliminate massive amounts of threads on the same game, for instance I saw literally 40 threads for MGSV last time I was on there, 1/5 of the entire board).

10 years is old enough

>>2699749
You have to be 18+ to post here, champ.

>>2699693
It gets stale cause you little shitters only talk about mainstream crap cause you're all underage who started retro.gaming last Thursday.
>hurrrr why is links hair pink
>artificial difficulty (an underage favorite)
>x game is shit I only play le patrician snes games :^)

>>2699753
we need better janitors on /vr/, they are never around, and when they are they delete good threads

scumbag shits

It's going to be great when this once unique and interesting board is full of kingdom hearts/GTA/devil may cry threads.

You know, like all the other gaming forums? yuck.

>>2699756
>these games have aged badly
>you only like this game because nostalgia

>>2699759
>hating on GTA and DMC
Kingdom Hearts is even alright if you ignore its fucktarded Sonic-tier fanbase.

>>2699752
I'm 32, kid

>>2699782
>I'm 32, kid
kek sure

>>2699765
Dmc is a wet dream of one of those hot topic goth pants wearing faggots. Dante just needs a fedora. Fuck Dmc fuck you ps2 kids and your shit taste if you think that's good.

>>2699693
Then leave already you whiny bitch

>>2699473

Plenty of modern games are turn based, man

I think we should have a poll made by a MOD to see if we allow GBA, and no more polls asking for changes at least until this modern generation ends, which should be around 2020.

Why people don't want to discuss 6th gen because it has some bad games? retro games had shitty games and consoles too.

>>2699821
What mods?

>>2699830
because 6th gen games are the exact fucking same as modern games just with shittier graphics. If you think that era had something special or different worth talking about its because you grew up in that era, or have shit taste and want to talk about your faggy shit like ICO.

>>2699547

/v/ discusses 6th gen plenty

I also don't give a fuck what /v/ discusses. This is not "threads that are too slow for /v/."

>>2699578

That word has no bearing on what our rules should be. The goal is not to make our board's name dictionary accurate for fuck's sake, it's to do what's good for the board and the community.

>>2699830
I don't think it's about shitty games, I think if you added Xbox and PS2 they'd squeeze out a huge amount of the current content.

I never played those games and I would visit a board that discussed them, but they would overwhelm /vr/ in its current form.

What's so hard to understand about the rules of this board?

1999 is the cut out date.

Dreamcast was released in 1998.
PS2, Xbox, GC and GBA were released post 2000.

WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Retro doesn't mean "my childhood".

I have nothing against 6th gen, but I agree it's not the spirit of this board. Halo started the mainstream online console FPS and in general helped online gaming to become popular, which is one of the big things of modern gaming, and is as far away from /vr/ as it gets.
GTA3 on PS2 (one of the best selling titles on the system) started the craze about sandbox and open world, which is very much one of the stapples of modern gaming and, again, as far away as possible from what /vr/ is all about.

I get that you want to discuss your favorite childhood games on this board, but as another anon said, this board, just because it's relatively good, doesn't mean it's to discuss "anything I want to discuss". The rules are clear.

>>2699872
What seems hard to understand is that the Dreamcast is not retro despite being released in 1998 since it is a sixth generation console.
Even some mods apparently don't get that but it won't become retro until Hiroyuki says so since moot never did.

>>2697195
No.

Piss the fuck off neo /v/.

>>2697692
2013 is when that game came out.

>>2699879

Forget about the word "retro", what matters here is the cutout date.

I agree it doesn't make the most of senses to allow DC and not the rest of the 6th gen, but I prefer to have the 1999 rule instead of a generational rule. If we ban Dreamcast from here, the 1999 rule will be flawed, because DC was released in 1998.
If we allow the entirety of 6th gen, that the DC is part of, then we're fucked.

Between the 2 evils, I choose the lesser one.

Why can't we just have another board for Dreamcast/ps2/gamecube/xbox/gba/ds/psp? There's enough content on all of those machines combined to have a board with steady traffic. I feel like people here want to discuss them but can't, and people on /v/ want to discuss them but the board moves too fast to have a decent conversation about them. There are successful threads on there, but it's always just a general "Xbox thread!" One-off kind of thing.

All of this "ps2 games allowed but ONLY before a certain date" stuff is too much. I don't want to go through the trouble of looking up release dates when it's simple enough to just bring up a game by console. I feel like it'll also turn this board into an elitist shithole.

If we go by the 15 year rule, we face the same problem. Nobody will be happy and this board will fall from grace after people get used to shitposting about halo vs chrono trigger or something stupid.

I propose a new board.

>>2699903

People can already discuss all those consoles and games on 2 other boards, /v/ and /vg/

>>2699906
Yes. But people clearly want to discuss them regularly and not just on a special occassion. The people on this site won't just do it. They need a designated place handed to them to do it.

>>2699912

/vg/ is a relatively slow board like /vr/, you can make a general thread about anything you want there, a PS2 general, a Kingdom Hearts general, a GBA general or whatever.

>>2699912
gamefaqs lots of people there willing to

>>2699915
/vg/ is not a slow board. If a thread there goes an hour and half without being bumped it dies.

>>2699639

How are you this dense

The meaning of the word retro is irrelevant

>>2699743

Because this isn't /v/, I don't browse /v/, and /v/'s problems are not our problems, they are /v/'s problems

>>2700034

But people bitch about not being able to discuss PS2 and the rest of the 6th gen on /v/, when it should be perfectly fine to do so.

Fixing /v/ would include a couple of new rules. Segmentating it even more won't help, the whole /pc/ and /console/ doesn't make sense as many modern games are just homogenized x86 games so they are available for most platforms, including PC and consoles.
I think a nice way to clean /v/ is banning any e-celeb/Youtube discussion, that eats up a LOT of the board and I think it would help if we removed that, allowing for more space and time for actual vidya like PS2, Xbox or whatever. And in turn, that would help /vr/ too because we'd have less "/v/ refugees".

>>2699743
hesrightyouknow.jpg

the worst things about /vr/ are /v/tards and the occasional inflexible rulesfag

>>2699903
hi wally
PacAttack

>>2699902

Dreamcast is 5th gen though

Have you ever wondered why /vr/ has actual discussions and not endless shitposting? Have you ever wondered why /v/ is considered the worst discussion board in the history of anything ever?

It's because of pic related. /v/ is filled with 18-20 year olds (and even younger) whose first console was the PS2 (by 2018, that'll have been changed to the 360), whereas /vr/ is generally level-headed 21+ adults who grew up on the SNES, N64, PS1, or Genesis.

Don't open the floodgates.

>>2700223
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW

Fucking kill yourself faggot. Jesus Christ.

>>2700248
Nah he's right. Generation z could be wiped off the face of this earth and it would be a better place. They are responsible for sjw shit, entitled shitty whiner attitudes and are generally etarded socialist scum cause of the retard socialist teachers made to program them that way.

>>2700289
Now tell us how you really feel.

Why is this off topic thread still open. Keep the kids off /vr/.

>>2700308
I'd rather not feelings are for the ladies, learned that having a cool world war 2 fightin grandpa. Unlike you gen z shitter draft dodger hippy grandpas. I don't sit around whining about boomers taking muh jobs when grandpa didnt whine about going to shoot krauts in italy.

>>2700248
Your response validates his arguement. Keep /vr/ mature and focused.

>>2699879
But it is considered retro on the sticky.

>>2700320

Because /vr/ is a slow board and a moderator might breeze through here once a week if we're lucky.

>>2700223
>Putting a stereotype on a certain group of people
Please grow up.
>>2700289
What if I told you it's your generations fault for not teaching them better and letting them get away with that shit?

>>2700223
>Have you ever wondered why /vr/ has actual discussions
It doesn't, it's mostly people complaining about people not following the rules and console wars.

Remember to submit your feedback about the lack of moderation on /vr/

https://www.4chan.org/feedback

>>2700320
The new massa was big on user-driven preferences in his QA so more meta is being allowed across boards

>>2700457

So have you just not clicked on any thread but this and the JP one?

>>2699902
We have both a year and a generational rule that supplement each other. As long as both remain in place there's obviously no way that the PS2 becomes retro any time soon. Allowing the DC means that sooner or later you'll have to allow the rest.

>>2700605
The generation grouping scheme is total garbage. It's crazy that so many people not only take it so seriously but try to use it as the end all way of justifying their position, as if it proves anything.

I didn't consider DC the start of a "new generation" when it was released and haven't seen anything to change my mind even now. The PS2 on the other hand was the start of something different. When the PS2 came out where I lived, everyone I knew lost interest in the PS1, N64 and DC simultaneously.

>>2700675
SG1000 -> Mk3 -> MD -> SS -> DC

>>2700684

>Skipping CD and 32X

I understand why you did but I still think it's silly

>>2700686
The 32X came simultaneously with the SS, supposed as a budget entry into a new generation.
The CD was just an addon and never replaced the MD.

>>2700691

Yeah, I understood that.

>>2700684
Then DC is the fifth block of Sega, whereas PS2 is the second block of Sony. That doesn't mean DC and PS2 belong together.

It does seem to be the existence of the Saturn that makes people want to place DC in the next gen though.

>>2700675
How's it feel to be both wrong AND stupid?

The generations are very clearly delimited. Architecture paradigms are how everyone viewed it back in the day (see 8-bit -> 16-bit -> etc), but there was some flexibility allowed when new systems didn't quite match their contemporaries (eg. TurboGrafx as part of 4th gen, PSX and N64 sharing a generation, etc).

>>2700703
>I don't know why the commonly used generations are numbered the way they are

>>2700705
If the generation thing considers the TGFX separate from the Genesis it's even more broken than I thought. Having played a load of games for both they almost seem like siblings.

So the N64 is the only console of the 5th generation to contain a 64-bit CPU? Yet your explanation is that it is given some leeway to be considered part of the same generation as the PlayStation or the Saturn. Then comes the Dreamcast with its 32-bit CPU. It's an okay idea at first, but I don't think architecture is the right way to go about this. Going by release date is also flawed, but still probably better.

I'm not trying to be obtuse just for the sake of it, I just think generational grouping isn't good enough for us.

>>2700706
Please explain the wisdom behind it, oh wise one. To my feeble mind it just seems like some guy threw it together without thinking about all the edge cases and got it published on a site with a lot of publicity causing it to spread and stick despite its flaws.

>>2700717
>>2700726
First gen: The first consoles; integrated games, non-reprogrammable
Examples: Odyssey & clones

Second gen: First consoles with removable, interchangeable game media
Examples: Atari VCS, Intellivision, Colecovision

Third gen: 8-bit machines become market standard
Examples: NES, Master System

Fourth gen: 16-bit becomes market standard
Examples: Genesis, Super NES
Notable exceptions: TurboGrafx, which was actually an 8-bit system, but it competed directly with the 16-bit consoles; also, 32X, as this was an add-on for the Genesis and was never released as a dedicated system

Fifth gen: 32-bit becomes market standard
Examples: PSX, Saturn
Notable exception: N64, as it competed directly with the 32-bit systems, and it was clearly a successor to Super NES
Other notes: This generation proved that dedicated disc-driven consoles were viable

Sixth gen: Successors to major companies' previous wave of systems
Examples: PS2, Gamecube, Dreamcast
Special note: At this point, CPU architecture as an identifier does fail, but recognizing the new systems as successors (plus direct competitors) serves well

Later gens: Just keep using the "successor/direct competitor rule"; we can't keep broadening architecture throughput indefinitely, all the earlier rule completely breaks down

>>2700769
I feel like anything that's Fifth Gen or earlier can be counted as Retro, but I'm not sure if this is counting by year, or by tech. specs.

>>2700769
Addendum to Second gen: The advent of the microprocessor in consoles

>>2700769
Thanks for writing that up.

From what I see, the successor rule starts to cement itself around the fifth gen.

I think my view of the DC can be summarized as something like: if the Saturn is taken out altogether the DC doesn't get placed into sixth gen by way of the successor rule. I don't think the same can be said of the PS2 or the Gamecube though. i.e. The GC wouldn't be considered fifth gen even if there were no N64.

>already defined rules that more or less work
>change them because I don't like them!

If you want to talk about Halo or Kingdom Hearts you already can on /v/ with all the other children

Generations are stupid fuck off

>>2698401
>that kid who wavedashed to school

Motherfucker, you made me laugh.

>>2700784
Little late to the party, are we?

>>2700789
>I've only been alive long enough to remember one generation

>>2700784
They don't work. A couple more years down this path and /vr/'s communication ability will have been reduced to nothing but hoarse cries of "noooot retroooooo..."

>>2700784
>More or less work
That is not good enough for rules.

Why does Halo and KH triggers /vr/ so much? isn't like they are the only 6th gen games that exist.

>>2701393
I don't know, the Sonic fanbase is way worse then teh KH fanbase and they're welcome here. KH has a rabid fanbase that eats up every garbage thing that Square-Enix puts out with the KH name on it, as does the Sonic fanbase. The nintendo fanbase to a lesser extent, they aren't nearly as vocal as the sonic fanbase (or as autistic) but still annoying)

Halo is commonly accepted with dudebros and chads, but its not a bad game, especially co-op with a buddy. I think mostly guys who started out on Quake, Wolfenstien and Doom think its casual and babys first fps.

I think its just "muh secret club" at this point. They don't want change they don't want an influx of new posters who could breathe new life into the board, instead they just want to keep having the same threads day in and day out about the same games all day every day.

>>2699356
If more people were willing to go to hotwheel's chan it would be possible (make your own boards), but every damn board there is at least as slow as /vr/.

I miss /vr/.

>>2699441
>proving his point

>>2697195
>after 15 years has passed since their initial release date.
That's even more arbitrary than "Nothing after 2000"

>>2701393

Of course they're not. But chaning /vr/'s rules would mean we'd have to let them in-and we'd see a lot of them.

They're also indicative of the grouos of people we'd be inviting here.

>>2697195
SAVE /VR/
kick out all gamecube ps2 xbox babies

BEGONE

>>2701489
>at least as slow as /vr/
are you kidding
more like "three posts a day at best, except /b/, which is /b/"
also they're happy to have child molesters there, which i mean there's a lot of truth in the saying that you're judged by the company you keep
if you're cool hanging out with chomos then, you know, good for you, i guess?

>>2701607
Why cant people just make ps2 threads on /v/? Is /v/ really that far gone?

>>2701617
Do you know of 4chan's history?

>>2699356
Or even better, we put all those shit in a general on /vg/ and keep those fuckers out of here and /v/

>>2697195
I couldn't give a shit either way. I come to /vr/ mostly because I want to talk about games, and by a happy coincidence, 90% of what I play is /vr/ material. I'm not really interested in the fact that ____ is retro, it's just most of what I play regularly is Genesis, Neo-Geo, and PS1 games.

>>2701489
8gag's system is retarded. Instead of allowing for splits when a board reaches critical mass, it allows for splits long before a board can get traffic and encourages hugboxing (so people will go to your board and feel good instead of them going off to some other board).

>>2701623
talking about games on /v/ is hard because /v/'s board culture is pretty shit
you could do it, but it'd last all of half an hour though and get a decent bit of shitposting

>>2699903
I actually did like the idea of a /v2k/. Dunno if it'd be successful, but as long as it isn't /v/ speed, it'd probably be.
/v/ is the fastest board on the site (barring /b/ and barring /sp/ during shit like the World Cup) by a country mile. Average post quality is inversely correlated with board speed.

>this thread

>>2701495
Then help us fight for it

>>2701540
>more arbitrary
>you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means
It's just another date. The main problem is you then have to age check every individual item so it's never going to work.
The other problem is you have things like the PS2 that was popular and still selling nearly 15 years after it's release that would become retro shortly after things like the DC which had a much shorter life span is wasn't nearly as popular

>>2701926
>you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means
I never said that.
>Use greentext properly or don't use it at all.

>>2701992
>I'm wrong so I'll sperg about how to greentext
Up to you kid but it doesn't you look any smarter

>>2697285
>eating icecubes out of a McDonald's drink cup at a Wal-Mart
Shit. All my nostalgia.

>>2702316
>Up to you kid but it doesn't you look any smarter
>doesn't you look any smarter
>smarter
>What am literacy?

>>2702348
>oh noez someone on the internet made a typo
>better post about that than address how I was wrong to begin with
Some serious /v/ tier shit you've got going on there

>>2701512
God damn now he's stupid enough to think samefagging will work.


>>>/pol/

>>2697195
Look what a shitpostfest thread you've created just by suggesting this. Now imagine this is how every thread on /vr/ is every day. Fuck that. If anything you've strengthened the argument for moving the date backward as opposed to forward.

>>2699629
I agree with you, but I also think that without a wind of change this board will end up devoid of meaningful conversation. Maybe not in the immediate future, but it is bound to happen

like I said, leave the cutoff as is or move it to 2001.

>>2699090
Don't call him a bunghole you donut.

I think /vr/ should allow discussion for any console or handheld that is no longer being manufactured.

>>2704049
they still manufacture bootleg nes clones in china.

I'm radposting and there's nothing you can do about it!

>>2697195
No, because the console clause is pretty fucking important because we want to discuss everything about said console. That shuts hacks and homebrew out, though in reality it would be allowed by mods like remakes it wouldn't stop people from bitching about it. /vr/ is cursed in that way, so the rules need to be exact.

That said, it also excludes PS2 from the console clause because it ended pretty damn late. Look at all the versions of PS3 games it got.

Maybe we should just like ban nintendo shit from the board because nintendrones are fuken gay and retarded.

>>2699514
Micro$oft released a console and I hate them because they're not doing it 4 the players.

>>2697195
There's a thread for this in /qa/.

In fact this is a /qa/ thread right down to the useless strawpoll.

>>2704071
Also this, the rules are pretty damn restricting to the original board intent.

>>2704060

Obviously I meant by the original manufacturer you fucking autist.

Tell me what is wrong with the cutoff point now, /v/ discusses ps2, gba GC etc games constantly. Please stop trying to fuck up the best board on 4chan

>>2704081
This.

What we need are janitors, damnit.

>>2704083
>What we need are janitors, damnit.
Wow I reported this thread days ago. There's no hope for /vr/ if we ever get invaded.

>>2704083
We used to have at least one janitor who would check up and clean shit once or twice a day. I guess he quit or died or something.

One of us is going to have to do it for free next time there are applications.

>>2704109
We're pretty much like /m/ at this point. Slow and shitty enough on janitors to actually discuss meta and be comfy if we really wanted to though here we don't really like meta and you would run into NOT RETRO, but with enough sense to keep on topic most of the time.

>>2697796
>were people already calling the N64 "retro" (or borderline retro) in 2006?

Some people were. It's a pretty arbitrary label so like a lot of terms different people use it differently. I remember one the first episodes of the Retronauts podcast in 2005/2006 was about the Nintendo 64 and they talked a lot about the late-90's era on the show.

Technology was accelerating at such a huge rate at the time that even stuff like Super Mario 64 looked antiquated 5 years after it was released, so these things were considered old pretty quickly which probably made it easier to call them retro when you had games like Gears of War and Dead Rising now coming out

>>2704080
So if a company switches to a different factory after a year those consoles produced in the first year are retro?
>b-b-but
Your idea doesn't work. People much older and wiser have considered and rejected it long ago.

I dont want to change the definition of the forum, but I think it could be acceptable to discuss 2d sequels of retro 2d games in handhelds that were about as powerful as retro consoles, like the GBA, PSP and DS.

By that I mean, stuff like Wario Land 4, Megaman Zero, or the GBA/DS Castlevanias that actually get discussed in most Castlevania/Metroidvania threads.
Never allow PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, but dont be anal about discussing Contra 4 for DS or Gunstar Super Heroes on the GBA.

I am 31 and have no nostalgia for post 2000 handhelds btw.

>>2704695
He clearly wasn't referring to the company switching production factories.

I agree with him, should be a last official production year + x years and exclude 2nd/3rd world countries

3D consoles will never be retro.

>>2704726

By this logic the Gamecube would've been considered retro in 2007, but the PS2 would only be considered retro in 2013 despite being released first. The Dreamcast would've been considered retro one and a half year after it was launched and the Vita will be considered retro in 2-3 years.

What about mobile and PC games? I guess it would be fine to talk about a game for DS that was released in 2014 since the console was discontinued that year, so why should we not be able to talk about a PC or mobile game from that year? Why should I not be able to talk about a 2006 Xbox 360 game if I'm able to talk about a 2012 PS2 game?

It's a bit of a flawed criteria.

>>2704708
>I am 31 and have no nostalgia for post 2000 handhelds btw.

That's you anon, any human being can get nostalgia even after 2-3 year.

>>2704752
No. I said last production date + x
X being whatever people want, 10 years would be my guess.

It only applies to consoles I know, but that's what everyone is crying about.

The ps2 should be the last of that generation to be allowed on, it maintained relevance for much longer.

>>2704797
Nintendo stopped the production of the Famicom in Japan in 2003.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-to-end-famicom-and-super-famicom-production/1100-6029220/
You're basically suggesting the NES shouldn't have been retro when this board was created.

>>2704797
>No. I said last production date + x

I know, but that logic still applies even if you add more years. If that number is 10, it would mean we would be able to talk about the Gamecube in 2017, but it would take until 2023 to be able to discuss PS2 games, despite the fact that you have games like DMC1 that came out before the Gamecube was even released, and that was more than a year after the PS2 launched too.

If we were to ever allow PS2/GC/XBOX in the future, we'd need an additional rule to forbid any games released in 2006 and onwards.

>>2699501
>No more Doom threads for one

I fucking wish. /vr/'s Doom general belongs on /vg/.

>>2697195
It should be based on year, but not the year the console was released. It should be based on the year the last official game on a console came out. They were still putting out PS2 games in 2013, are those retro now?

>>2697195
>trying this hard to sneak in PS2 and xbax in here

Everything before ps2 is considered "retro" to me.

I'm not really going to have a shit-fit if xbox or ps2 is here, but they just don't feel retro to me at all. Dreamcast barely does.

>>2704726
>clearly
Then why wasn't he clear about it. kek.
He was clearly coming up with a convoluted system that won't work.
Just like you just did.

>>2704989

I'd say 2007 is a better cut-off point.

The PS3 and Wii only came out at the tail end of 2006, so the 7th gen really went in full swing the next year. 2007 was the year game like Halo 3, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Modern Warfare, Portal, Bioshock, and things like the growth of social media and the start of the Global Recession really changed the landscape of gaming.

2006 still had good 6th gen games like Okami, God Hand, Mother 3, Wild Arms 5, Valkyrie Profile 2, Baten Kaitos Origins. Hitman: Blood Money coming out every month.

a game should be retro once someone has beat it because then they might sell it on ebay and retro means a game you can buy on ebay that someone has already played so even if they don't beat it and sell it on ebay then it's still retro and it doesn't have to be ebay it could be any site or maybe even a garage sale but my mom won't drive me to a garage sale or a swap meet but maybe some other mom would drive their kid there so those games should be retro to

>>2706075
Still trying to decide if you're a retarded underage or just pretending to be one.

>>2706075

>>2706075

>>2697195
Underage pls go

>>2697387
If there's no snake eater, there's no golden age.

Sorry mate

How can anyone seriously consider discussing PS2 games retro is beyond me

I don't even care about GBA because it was always a console limited by it's technology that cashed in mostly in games following aesthetics and gameplay rules from retro era (and the games that tried to be 3D failed horribly and looked worse than a fucking PSX) but if ignoring the GBA is the price we have to pay to avoid discussing ps2 and xbawks here then i'm ok with it

the only reason discussing DC games feels okay is because it died so quickly (and all the dreams and hope of Sega died with it). Modern kids don't even have a clue Sega used to be a major player in the game industry instead of being a company chugging bad sonic games every year

>>2706112
This is what scares me. /vr/ has got so bad that you have to stop and ask yourself that.

>>2708250
It's just /v/ flooding the board again
They got upset with some Undertale-MGSV stupid childish shit and flooded /vr/, /vp/ and /vg/ to shitpost

>>2708252
It's chalk it up to poor parenting skills
>but mom! I've been shit posting on 4chan all summer
>ok sweetie. one last shit post but then off to bed. youve got school in in the morning eric.

>>2697773
Just because PS3 and 360 would be allowed in 5 years doesn't mean they should. PS2 and GC should definitely be considered though. Many games in the 6th gen still had "the spirit of retro."

>>2697426
>samefagging your own fallacies
No Halo or Persona fag will come to /vr/ when they have /v/, /vg/, reddit, neogaf, gamefaqs, etc. Especially because those series are still alive and you wouldn't be able to discuss the new one here.

Look around this board, I don't see people who are obsessed with waifus or generic action games, at the same time I don't see how retro is only a select 2d style and color palette.

>Shenmue allowed but not Yakuza
>PS1 From games (King's Field, Armored Core, Shadow Tower), but not PS2 From games (King's Field, Armored Core, Shadow Tower)
>OOT and MM allowed but not WW or even Okami
>Harvest Moon but no Animal Crossing
>PS1 Ace Combat but not PS2
etc

>>2709385
>OOT and MM allowed but not WW
and?
seriously, what's your point? any series that started in retro days should be allowed discussion regardless? so because we talk about A Link to the Past here Twilight Princess discussion should be allowed too?

> PS2 and GC should definitely be considered though. Many games in the 6th gen still had "the spirit of retro."
this is wrong and you know it
this is the generation that made the large jump towards the modern gaming industry. few games still have a retro feel lingering around them, they are a microscopic minority in the middle of all the shit that sprung gaming as it is today (which we're doing just great without - leave that shit to /v/)

>>2709385
>"the spirit of retro"
What does this even mean? Clearly you don't understand what the word retro actually means. I assume you mean they had the spirit of 8 and 16 bit games. But even at that, Street Fighter V isn't even out yet and is in that spirit.

>No Halo or Persona fag will come to /vr/
Not now, but in a few years time those will be as outdated as many of the games we talk about here.

In 15 years, PS2 and 360 will be lumped together in the same way we lump NES and SNES/Genesis together.

>>2709395
No one likes TP anyways. TP and SS would likely be contained to /v/ where most of the modern Nintendo fans are.

>this is wrong and you know it
Nope. Look at the games I listed. None of them are that far off from their 5th gen counterparts. The idea of retro is some arbitrary date that some autists made up is completely retarded and can't be backed up logically at all. There are many modern games that have basic arcade gameplay and pixel art, why aren't they allowed? "Cuz it's not retro." Well what does retro mean? "Well, uhh, it's a style of old school game where everything was harder or had a strong emphasis on puzzles or exploration, but NO PS2, GameCube, or GBA GAME HAS EVER DONE THIS!"

>>2709408
I agree with your general sentiment, but it also didn't stop with GC, GBA and PS2. There are still games being made like that.

The reality is that retro really just refers to something outdated and what's outdated is constantly evolving.

>>2709408
>>2709418
are you being dense or purpose or just trolling? "retro" isn't an aesthetic or genre of gaming, otherwise half of the indie shit released yesterday should be game to be discussed here. as someone previously said retro for this board is related to the beginning of gaming, the golden days in which it became a home activity instead of something arcade only, which had a defined point of ending with the dreamcast and the 32bits era. and that's fucking it, that's not going to change, no matter how many years pass, even when we're on playstation 29 or something. and apart from you and two other idiots, everyone else agrees with it, because it keeps the /v/tards away. we don't want to discuss PS2 here. we don't want to discuss Wind Waker here. YOU want it. find another board.

>>2709408
>what's outdated is constantly evolving.
Exactly.

People here act like the rules can't be changed with self-moderation, which has been how 4chan has worked since its inception.

If Zelda, KH, Persona and Halo fans swarm and shit up the board, /vr/ would definitely get tired of it and some change would be made. Some mod can just make another sticky, ban a few franchises, and the board will be fine. It seems you guys are just worried about the same 5-10 PS2 games getting all the discussion, do we go on the same board?

>>2709421
I'm talking about the actual meaning of the word, not the board rules. Retro does not denote a certain era in history, it's not a synonym for "golden age" or anything like that.

You are indeed correct that if this board was actually devoted to "retro" games and not games from 1999 and before that new games in a retro style would also be allowed here. Not that that's what I want, but you have to admit there's a fundamental problem that the name of our board does not accurately describe what the board is devoted to.

>>2709421
>which had a defined point of ending with the dreamcast and the 32bits era
Defined? Show me where in writing the dreamcast's entire library is analyzed and has an average closer to retro games than modern games. I already got a bunch of examples of other 6th gen games that are pretty much like the PS1 ones but look better, in fact I think Silent Hill 2 and 3 are almost or just as good as the first, and they all play the same. Why isn't Silent Hill 2 and 3 allowed?

Retro isn't a date, it's mostly a feeling which is genre+spirit of gameplay.

>that's fucking it, that's not going to change, no matter how many years pass, even when we're on playstation 29 or something. and apart from you and two other idiots, everyone else agrees with it
Sorry professor but I don't agree. And neither does the "everyone else" seeing as the strawpoll has more yays than nays, despite this staggering amount of autist samefag in this thread.

>>2709430
>in fact I think Silent Hill 2 and 3 are almost or just as good as the first, and they all play the same. Why isn't Silent Hill 2 and 3 allowed?

Because the separation of /vr/ from the general gaming board /v/ is not about good or bad games you dense motherfucker. PT was also good but it's not fucking retro in any fucking sense. DURRR WHY AINT P.T. ALLOWED? Because we're not fucking retarded like you.

Jesus fucking christ

>>2709438
How the fuck is SH2 and 3 more like PT than they are SH1?

It seems you're the retard, and so fuck off and get an actual argument.

>>2709440
your "argument" is BAWWWW THERE ARE GOOD GAMES IN THE PS2 WHY ARENT THEY ALLOWED IN A RETRO BOARD with no goddamn reason other than "durp they're gud"

Which is painfully stupid just to read, let alone bothering to answer

Just fuck off back to /v/ already for fucks sake. You will never discuss fucking PS2 here no matter how many times you reset your modem to vote on this stupid strawpoll

>>2709445
My argument is logical, your argument is a complete emotional reaction to what you consider retro. AKA you're an autist.

I'm done arguing with these broken records, retro elitists are some dumb motherfuckers when all their arguments come to either console limitations or gameplay when there are many indie games that have similar art and limitations and many 6th gen games fit much better being discussed with older games than they do modern games. Not that I want indie games here, style of gameplay is much more important than art style.

considering you yucks are still arguing about it shows that you're not ready for that change.

>>2709445
What's retro has nothing to do with quality. There have been great games and terrible games in every generation and there always will be.
Retro just means old, out of date. What that is, changes with time. I remember almost these exact same kinds of arguments in the early PS1 days, people complaining like there's no tomorrow how ruined gaming is. It never changes.

The reality though is that times will continue to change. If this board still exists in 10 years, I would bet you virtually anything that by that time it will include at least the PS2/GC generation, if not the PS3/360.

And in 20 years Metal Gear Solid V will look like an archaic relic compared to what's current.

why can't people just make threads about newer games on /v/

The Xbox and the audience it brought with it absolutely destroyed gaming, along with the PS2 being a cheap DVD player and the mountains of shovelware produced for it. People always forget that 80% of the PS2 library was pure fucking shit. Dreamcast should be retro because it statistically shares more titles and time on the market with the 5th gen rather than the 6th, and it dies just before Xbox and GameCube are launched to really kick the 6th gen into gear. PS2 may have been contemporary with DC for about a year, but that by no means makes it a retro console.

>>2709568
>The Xbox and the audience it brought with it absolutely destroyed gaming

I laugh at people like you who are so embroiled in nostalgia that you can't find good games in the modern era. I've been into video games pretty much since their birth and there have nearly always been people like you.

The people who said 16 bit made games too much about graphics are just as stupid as the ones who said 3D was ruining games are just as stupid as the ones who try to claim the 360 ruined games. You're idiots, you'll always be idiots.

Don't take that as an indication to stop though, your frothing rage has given me many happy chortles over the years.

> People always forget that 80% of the PS2 library was pure fucking shit
Also, 80% of the library of every console has been shitty. Nice goggles.

>>2709593
Actually, I think gaming is finally starting to get back on track with the PS4. There are very, very few games from the 7th gen that I enjoyed, and I think that has a lot to do with the 360's reign and its audience, the seeds for which were sewn with the original Xbox. But please, keep projecting because I dare to say that the Xbox brand has completely destroyed gaming, or at least did for the past decade.

As for the PS2, most of its shovelware was targeted at non-gamers in a very similar manner to the Wii, which is the only console to have more shovelware than the PS2. At least the shitty games of previous eras were still targeted primarily at gamers and children instead of grandmas and trailer park trash.

>>2709602
Meh, as a life long gamer, the PS3/360 era has had some of my favorite games of all time. They're mostly not the big name, AAA selling titles but then my tastes rarely seem to align with what's most popular.

The thing about gaming now is that it's freaking massive in comparison to even as few as 10 years ago. So while on one hand it looks like it's full of a million FPS clones because there are so many of them, there are also magnitudes of other games being made.

I am somewhat biased though in that two of my favorite genres are roguelikes and fighters which are feeling a particular resurgence over the last few years.

Part of the reason I liked the 360 so much was making playing fighters online vs tons of other opponents from the comfort of my living room a reality and that alone was wonderful.

>>2709613
360 era is the first where I didn't like the popular games at all. There were still a lot of really good games on that system, though.

>>2709624
Ahh, see that was NES for me. I've never really cared for straight up platformers, even in the hay day of Mario's popularity I played it because it was there and others were into it. But to this day Mario 2 is the only one I really like or have bothered to beat.

Simon's Quest, Bard's Tale, FF1 and Gradius were all top faves though.

>>2709424
>If Zelda, KH, Persona and Halo fans swarm and shit up the board, /vr/ would definitely get tired of it and some change would be made. Some mod can just make another sticky, ban a few franchises, and the board will be fine. It seems you guys are just worried about the same 5-10 PS2 games getting all the discussion, do we go on the same board?

THIS

Plus if we just quietly changed the rules to allow GBA/PS2/GC/Xbox discussion, /v/ would never find out or would find out slowly enough that the culture of this board wouldn't change at all.

Also,
>implying 90% of /vr/ doesn't already post on /v/

>>2709548

Read the thread, your question has been answered a dozen times over. But because I'm feeling nice, I'll sum it up for you. Basically if you're posting on /v/ about anything other than a handful of the newest releases, your thread will die in a matter of hours, well before any meaningful discussion was had.

>>2709797
>>2709424
This overlooks that if you allow those things and they do become popular, there's a good chance that they overwhelm the comparatively small userbase of /vr/.

Once they are the new majority, trying to aim for the greatest good for the greatest number (as a mod) to keep things calm is simple: Tell the original /vr/ users to shut it and appeal to the new crowd. Ban their threads and you have to deal with their whining.

I'd be alright with 6th Gen so long as /vr/ doesn't become goddamned PS2 Games General. There are a few games and series from that era that still get harped on a lot (Persona comes to mind) and that shit belongs in /vg/ with the rest of the aspergers sufferers including me

>>2710146
This is why I reckon if PS2 was to ever be allowed, we'd also need to ban PS2 games from 2007 and onwards.

The board should be changed to /vv/ for vintage games.
/vr/ will be for virtual reality games which are gonna be big soon.
PS2 games are exactly like modern games except worse textures and not widescreen.
Seriously, God of war being retro? Fack your mother.
Of course Dreamcast is out since it's in the same gen as PS2.
Gen 5 is the borderline. Crash Bandicoot is a long way from Galaga.
Handhelds have different generations than home consoles. Reject the GBA because it had an overwhelming amount of shovelware only surpassed by the DS and had a slew of markedly inferior ports from earlier gen consoles.
It was also the platform on which the pokemon series began its unending decline.

>>2710260
Don't forget its abominable screen which forces you to emulate if you want to see anything.

>>2698876
Racism is retro now.

>>2697195
Goddamn the idiocy of:

"let me into your designated area for talking about x so I can talk about y!!"

Can we just up and found a retro imageboard? One dedicated to their respective topics as they were prior to this century? Seems to me it would work well for video games, movies, music, literature, anime & manga, even technology could use a retro board... Or maybe such a chan already exists?

Seems like everyday these threads are being posted now. Never see them anywhere but the top of the catalog either.

May as well face that a day of reckoning is probably inbound. The fact is the young will always out number the old given enough time. /vr/'s collapse into post-/vr/ is probably inevitable.

It's been a good(ish) run though.

>>2710262
>Don't forget its abominable screen which forces you to emulate if you want to see anything.

Or you could buy an SP or a Micro.

>>2710272
>Seems like everyday these threads are being posted now. Never see them anywhere but the top of the catalog either.

I doubt you've ever posted on /vr/ before today. This board is so slow that if one of these threads was posted every day, it'd fill up the entire catalog. Hell, tomorrow this thread will be a week old.

>>2710274
*Seems like everyday these threads are being posted in now.

Sorry

Please sperg less over the details and realize what point I am trying to get across here

Thanks

>>2710280
>can't even green text properly

Fuck off back to reddit, we're full.

>>2710284
That wasn't a quote you fuckwit it was a correction, note the asterisk.

Get some reading comprehension skills and then please do feel free to tell me about reddit.

>>2710287

I didn't see the word "in" in your correction. I blame you, you're the faggot who told me to sperg less over the details.

>>2709593
>I laugh at people like you who are so embroiled in nostalgia that you can't find good games in the modern era
Thinking gaming got worse after a certain point, or that some factors changed things in a way you didn't like doesn't mean you can't a find a single good game worth playing. It's possible to find games to enjoy and still be critical of the state of things.

>I've been into video games pretty much since their birth
While that's great, I know people like my father who have been playing since the Atari 2600 and Pac-Man, and the guy just plays cheap mobile games and the occasional blockbuster game now. I don't think he's ever pondered about whether gaming was getting worse or if he cares at all, and even if he did I don't think I would trust his judgment.

There's quite a bit of difference between saying 3D technology ruined gaming, and pointing out that the change in audience, business demands, game design over the last decade has made some things worse. Stuff like the death of the mid-tier category of games, some genres outright disappearing, business practices like microtransactions, day-1 DLC, huge marketing expenses, F2P game design being popularized, increased casualization and homogenization, lack of innovation, the decline of the Japanese economy and the 07-08 financial crisis affecting gaming are things that can be objectively measured.

Anyway, as someone who's favorite era is still the 6th generation, I would wait at least 2-3 years before opening up the floodgates, with some restrictions.

>>2710134
>there's a good chance that they overwhelm the comparatively small userbase of /vr/.

In my opinion that would be a good thing. Honestly /vr/ is slow compared to /v/ and I come here more because I'm into older games, but this place has pretty similar proportions of shitposting. Stepping foot into any Castlevania or Final Fantasy thread will show you that pretty quickly. There are days when it just feels like the exact same conversations being hashed over and over by the same handful of people.

What's more, a lot of the shitposting is over the rules, what's retro and what's not. Evidenced by this very thread. The reality is that /v/ cares very little about sixth, and almost seventh gen at this point. They're embroiled in what's new and happening currently.

Fundamentally the purpose of retro is to talk about old games, the games that /v/ isn't interested in so they should fit here. From my perspective, allowing at least sixth gen consoles here bringing some new members would be good. The notion that allowing them will make this place worse is a fallacy because some of the most vitriolic shitposters here are the old guard already. If anything it would at least stop threads like this.

And as for the proposal that they make a fourth board for sixth gen is ridiculous. This is already one of the slowest boards on all of 4chan, there's no reason we couldn't handle the increase in traffic.

>>2710556
>Thinking gaming got worse after a certain point

I think this is fundamentally the thing I disagree with a lot of people on. I never saw this happen. Sure I saw new markets open up, I saw phone games explode, Halo and Call of Duty brought swaths of new gamers into the console space, even Farmville and facebook games that everyone lost their shit over. I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Maybe it's because my tastes have always been more niche so I don't expect the top selling games to appeal to me, but all I saw was markets shifting. Not necessarily anything bad happening.

From my point of view, the 360 becoming as insanely popular as it did just made things better. Even though I wasn't into the FPS games at all, just the size of the userbase meant that they could take risks releasing weirder games. (the greatly hated Fez says hi)

Also finally having digital distribution be a viable option for consoles created an entirely new market of "arcade" games that allowed for smaller games to actually be possible to make.

Which isn't to say there weren't also shitty games, but that's been the case in every generation. There's a lot of middling to bad games, and a few great ones.

Maybe I just got lucky in that I've always had more games coming out that I want to play than I have time for, but if anything I think the industry keeps getting better and better.

>>2710940
>the games that /v/ isn't interested in
No.

>This is already one of the slowest boards on all of 4chan, there's no reason we couldn't handle the increase in traffic.
Yes there is, that reason is
>This is already one of the slowest boards on all of 4chan
By allowing PS2 discussion, you flood out the majority of the original userbase.

/vr/ is a great place despite one or two /v/isitors every now and then, everything works and people usually get along

Why are you trying to change that?

>>2710940
>Honestly /vr/ is slow compared to /v/

That's not a bad thing. That's how niche boards and especially image boards are supposed to work. Look at the format of image boards without the catalog, you're supposed to be able to browse through the 10 pages, page by page without missing a thread.

People get spoiled by boards like /v/ or /b/ that are basically unbrowsable without using the catalog, and they think that's how image boards work but it's not. I think it's great that you have small dedicated communities like CRT threads, old computer threads that are able to stick around because there aren't a a dozen new threads to push them off the board constantly and make them invisible.

I can't browse 4chan 24/7, I have other things to do, other boards and sites to read on the internet, even just on 4chan, so I find it great that I can come here less than hour a day without missing a thread. Again, it's how this is supposed to work.

>but this place has pretty similar proportions of shitposting
Absolutely not. Think about what you say and then go back to /v/ and look at the off-topic threads, /pol/ threads, waifu threads, e-celeb/e-drama threads and come back. The sheer speed of the board makes it hard to even hold a prolonged conversation. Your definition of "shitposting" must be pretty broad.

>Fundamentally the purpose of retro is to talk about old games, the games that /v/ isn't interested in so they should fit here
That's ridiculous. Just because /v/ is too cancerous nowadays to even have people who can talk about fairly recent cultish games like Vanquish intelligently, that doesn't make them retro by any definition.

>The notion that allowing them will make this place worse is a fallacy because some of the most vitriolic shitposters here are the old guard already.
How would you even know that? I imagine there are some old vitriolic posters, and new vitriolic posters.

>>2711021
(cont.)

Occasionally being an asshole doesn't make one a bad poster, it's all about the level of contribution you can bring to the board. Bringing people in who can only talk about Halo, GTA, DMC, Melee and have no interest in anything before the 5th gen might completely change the board. Once that happens, there's no going back.

By the way, I'm the guy who said 6th gen is my favorite era. I just think we can wait a little before allowing it.

>people dont talk about x game i like on /v/ so shove them on /vr/

That's the dumbest reason ever

>/vr/ is slow so you can chug /v/'s leftovers there for MORE MOVEMENT

Wait no this is

/vr/ is slow. and we like it. discussion here isn't motivated by who screams the loudest or who gets the flashiest image. no one races for the first post on the next new thing. no one keeps posting shit after shit hoarding for attention. this is how the board is supposed to be.

>>2711021
>That's not a bad thing.
No, but nor is allowing for a little more traffic and more varied conversations.

>Once that happens, there's no going back.
Again, I don't see this as a bad thing. Yes /v/ is faster, but this place can be pretty awful as well. All of 4chan can, but that's the price for anonymous conversation.

I should be clear that I'm not itching for gens 6 and 7 to be added here. But I think at least gen 6 does belong on a board devoted to "retro" games. Because as we've gone over time and again, retro is not a synonym for "golden age" or anything like that. So while I'm fine with them not being allowed here, I would also be fine with them being added. That's it really.

>>2711003

Stop being stupid. The vast majority of posters on /vr/ also post on /v/.

>>2711050
>a little more traffic and more varied conversations.

You're phrasing this in a vague way intentionally right?

Look, the reason /vr/ was created is partly because it became really hard to discuss older games on /v/ because of "more traffic" and more "varied conversations" which translated to "changing demographics" and "more shitposting". By opening up the floodgates, we might just turn /vr/ into /v/ 2.0, at which point people who want to discuss 80's computer games or NES games, followed by 90's computer games then 16-bit games will have nowhere to go or thrive on 4chan, and then it's over. Not even a huge fan of 80's games, but I think they should be given priority here over the huge wave that would probably end up pushing them off the board if we allowed everything else.

>>2711052

I think his point was that the majority of /v/irgins don't post on /vr/.

>>2711000
>By allowing PS2 discussion, you flood out the majority of the original userbase.

Not really. There aren't a bunch of crows in the rafters just waiting to shit up the board with PS2/Gamecube/Xbox discussion. /vr/ is basically /v/ except that the subject matter has more or less restricted out video game related current events, viral marketing, and meming. This board is really more about video games as a hobby than video games as a phase.

>>2711024
>Bringing people in who can only talk about Halo, GTA, DMC, Melee and have no interest in anything before the 5th gen might completely change the board.

Its not like eligibility for discussion is what drives the user base of this board. I cant imagine Halo creating much more of a bump in traffic than Golden Eye or Perfect Dark other than "oh yeah, the next step in the FPS genre. Neat." Anyone looking for fast, furious discussion on still-relevant franchises goes to /v/ for that type of thing.

Hypothetically, if Gamecube were to be opened up as fair game, what REALLY comes of it? We get a few more Zelda and Mario games to discuss, Resident Evil REmake and 0, Smash brothers? The worst that comes out of that is that we get MAYBE a little nostalgia spillover from the smash general on /vg/.

>>2711076
No, I was being completely serious. I obviously don't want this place to be as heavily populated or vitriolic as /v/ is these days, but I think in terms of board population and speed we're a long way off from there.

I honestly think there would be plenty of room here to discuss both the things we already talk about and the next generation of consoles and I think it would be a good thing for the board. /vr/ is one of my favorite places on 4chan, but at times it really reminds me of what the text baords were like, very insular and with the same fights over and over.

I know you disagree and I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind, but that's how I feel.

>>2711080
>what REALLY comes of it
We set ourselves on the slippery slope to the Xbox, then the PS2.

>>2711083

Like I said, I actually love the 6th gen. I miss having threads where I could talk about F-Zero GX, God Hand, DMC almost every day on /v/. I'm just worried about the long-term consequences.

It really is a slippery slope. You allow the next generation, and then people wonder why they're not allowed to talk about the sequel of that game on the following, gen, etc. More people come in because they've realize they can have more successful threads about Melee or Halo here without having to compete with other more popular subjects on /v/, and they stay here instead. I personally think it's better to wait a while.

>very insular
Not a bad thing. I imagine it would stay that way even if we allowed the 6th gen.

>with the same fights over and over.
That pretty much describes every board on 4chan.

>>2711101
>It really is a slippery slope

I don't think it has to be though. As you've said yourself, 6th gen is too old for threads about the games to do well on /v/ now. They really are primarily concerned with what's happening currently in gaming and fairly recent games.

If we just had a blanket rule that anything a decade old was considered retro it would solve a lot. There would be regular room for new discussions to be had, it would keep people from asking when X or Y game was going to be allowed.

I don't think the small population here is a problem per se, but I don't think it's something that needs to be vigorously defended either.

I love, love, love games from the earlier generations. But they're finite, and our discussions of them are the same. I don't think being able to discuss Wind Waker, Okami or even Halo, a game I've never had interest in and never even played would be any worse for the board than the endless and identical Castlevania and FF threads.

>>2711083
>but I think in terms of board population and speed we're a long way of from there.
You could say that.

Anyway I personally think we're between a rock and a hard place here. If we keep the age where it is now we don't have a place to discuss games too new for /vr/ but too old for /v/. But if we allow those on /vr/ then eventually games we discuss now will become to old for /vr/, and then what? /vrr/?

Perhaps we should reconsider allowing the 6th gen in when the 8th gen is over. By then the games will be old enough that we can maybe avoid shitposting.

>>2711052
What I meant by "/v/isitor" is that guy who shitposts and bitches around, just like you.
Obviously most people post on more than one board, it doesn't matter.
There is /v/ behavior and /vr/ behavior, and that's what I meant.

>>2711135
That's why I think 10 years is a good way to do it. That way there would always be "new" games to discuss, but they'd also always be relatively old. And it's safe to say that /v/ isn't generally interested in having serious discussions about 10 year old games.

Of course there's also the option for another offshoot board like /vp/, but given how small the population is here I don't think that's actually necessary.

>>2711142
That's a nice thing to say, but even now some of the most incendiary shitposters are the ones who complain about /v/ and "/v/ style posters." The problem isn't people from /v/, it's people who troll. Garbage posts like,

>Go back to /v/ faglord

Are both common and every bit as shitty and derailing as any other. The problem is that people will get it in their head that they're "defending /vr/" or something similar and use that as an excuse to be complete assholes. But shitposting never ever helps anything, ever. Real talk.

>>2711151

Go back to /v/ faglord.

Honestly I don't hear it that much. It was a thousand times more common for months after /vr/ was created.

>>2711153
Maybe not specifically with the faglord part, but the general sentiment "go back to /v/" gets thrown around here constantly and really doesn't help anything. No troll ever read that and took it to heart and decided to stop trolling here. All it does it make the thread worse and encourage the person you're bashing to shitpost more.

>>2711135
If you're going to draw a split for video games, the split between 4th and 5th is about where the largest changes take place. The jump from cartridges to optical disks, the switch from sprites to polygons as the major format of graphical presentation, external memory storage vs battery powered saves, etc.

If you had to split it farther, you could also toss in 5th and 6th being their own subset before hard drives and network connections became standard equipment, and then 7th and 8th generations being "modern" gaming.

The thing is, I'm not sure 1st through 4th generations have enough discussion about them to justify their own board, and I'm not sure the 5th and 6th generation would either.

When you get down to it, its basically going to be whether Hiroyuki gives a shit about the board, and since he probably doesn't, he'll delegate any such call to the local moderator/janitor, who also don't seem to give much of a shit beyond treating /vr/ as a containment board.

fuck off back to /v/ newfaggots