/vr/ - Retro Games

Lack of loading times, if we're talking about carts.

no cutscenes or tutorials

Well, I barely play modern games because I decided to focus on older consoles... So, I think, the greatest advantage for me is I can play retro games everywhere on every modern piece of hardware.

>>3334428
Yeah, online stuff is pretty ridiculous. But a lot of servers are immediately brought back up by fans. The Wii is already back online and has been for years.

Immediacy, challenge and respect to my own intelligence.

>>3334428
no dlc

>>3334440
but even retro games have cutscenes and/or tutorials

>>3334484
dreamcast had dlc! And for physical dlc see Sonic and knuckles.


Retro games had to work around limitations by hand-drawing effects often rather than relying on 3d models and engines for a lot of things. Often times that kind of stuff looks better in my opinion.

I hate these threads. There are good and bad modern games like there are good and bad retro games.

>"muh online, muh tutorials, muh lack of challenge"
Listen, you're playing the modern equivalent of animal mascot games. They're trying to appeal to trends. Find a better game that you enjoy. They are out there.

As for the OP, retro games are free so you can try any game you want without paying for a game you hate.

Mostly the simplicity and tightest of the controls which add to to a test of skill.

A lot of modern games have kind of floaty controls and it just feels like you are button mashing with no real challenge.

>>3334430
Lots of cart games have loading times, because of data decompression with slow CPUs.

>>3334428
>What would you say is the #1 advantage retro games have over modern games?
Interesting graphics that leave things to your imagination. Catchy music that doesn't start with some bloated, slow, orchestrated intro.

2d art

>>3334512
> And for physical dlc see Sonic and knuckles.

If anything Sonic and Knuckles would be an expansion pack not DLC.

>>3334428
>that pic
O shit nogger what are you doing

>>3334428
You weren't consistently hassled about season passes and DLC, the game you bought was usually the full version; arcades were a good place to spend an afternoon and had the best stuff.

Of course it wasn't perfect: censorship was nasty under Nintendo's rule, there was just as much console-warring and shitposting judging by old Usenet posts, PC gaming was eye-watering expensive compared to today, and console games cost more sometimes not even adjusted for inflation.

>>3334724
No, it's literally the second half of an unfinished game

>>3334765
Putting knucks in sonic 2 was kinda cool tho

>>3334774

Not really. The game wasn't designed with Knux in mind, so he was basically piss easy mode, until you get to the final boss and realize he's just a gliding Sonic with a gimped jump.

Sonic 3 was intended to have a Knuckles campaign from the very start, which is why his route through each level was usually different, hence Sonic and Knuckles being the second half of the game.

>>3334428
Keeping my interest and having a personality/character of its own.

>>3334428
pacing is usually better because they didn't have to force movies into every game that didn't really need them to appease lorefags that weren't satisfied with story being in the background.`

>>3334428
They can be easily emulated even if the old consoles stop working and the company that created it goes bankrupt. Whoopee Camp anyone?

Games from the PS4 era and up will be impossible to emulate and impossible to play in any way 200 years from now.

>>3334428
A beginning, a middle and an end.
No paywalls, "extended" editions, content lock, interminable post-launch DLC, etc.

Game Over. Here's your credits screen. Goodbye. See you on the sequel.

>>3334428
Accessibility. Two buttons and a D pad are infinately more intuitive compared to two analog sticks, D pad, touch pad, four face buttons, bumpers and triggers.

>>3334428
Soundtrack. Modern game music often sound really uninspired. Games from the third generation to the fifth have the best songs.

simplicity, and I mean that you have more conceptual space with older sprite based games and even the more primitive polygon based ones. Modern games are too bloated and complex sometimes, not that that's bad but there's a reason I still enjoy old games

>>3334428

Instant gratification.

>>3334428
Developers focused on creating an actual fun gaming experience rather than trying to look pretty.

I avoided Ultima VII for the longest time b/c I thought it looked like garbage. I got it for sale on GOG and i'll be damned if it isn't a masterpiece.

>>3334428
>online servers
Are only relevant to MMOs with first party servers. Quake had onlinr and you'll always be able to host a server for it even if there's no other server up. Online play does not mean online focused and they're two different issues Online play can and does benefit retro games where you can play them with people over the internet with one another, though the latency is more of an issue due to the way you need to sync the games. Though some retro games did play online and have the same issue you're talking about, for example go play some club caribe or INN red baron 3D, or Neverwinter and you'll come up a bit shy on accomplishing that.

Equally bad is a game whose entire premise revolves around multiplayer with no suitable stand in, mods for HL for example with no bot support do not hold over well. However supposing a game is archived long enough that may not be a problem in the future as we may very well see a day where we can integrate botplay in every game by simply placing controls in the hand of a computer and then having it tweak. It may not be the same as a live environment in the way multiplayer scenes generate emergent strategies and tactics though, at least not without giving the bots an environment to do that in.

Not needing a day 1 8 gig patch

Everything else mentioned here that isn't related to hardware is some rose tinted glasses fantasy.

cheap development costs. you could make all sorts of stupid weird games because they didn't cost anything to make. lots would just be thrown out because the carts were more expensive than the games themselves.

The biggest reason I got into retro gaming at all was the price. I'd rather spend $60 and get a handful of gamea instead of just one.

>>3335191
You could ask mom and dad to buy you some

Quality 4 Hour games that don't pretend to be shitty 20 hour ones.

>no loading times
Carts are great
>no online
Dubious, but it breaks my heart to see that so many modern games barely even have a single-player mode
>No patches
What I mean is that back when you could only have one print run of cartridges, you honestly had to make ABSOLUTELY sure there were no game-breaking glitches. Sure, even the best of the testers couldn't nail everything down, but every player in the developer team knew that a revision 1.1 print run would bite them in the ass financially.

>>3334687

>lots

Eh, I never came across any myself.

I'd say it's a very, very small percentage and a rare thing, most carts don't have loading times.

>>3334428
I think the biggest advantage is the difficulty, gamers crave difficult games, hence why a lot of modern critically acclaimed games like Hotline Miami, Super Meat Boy and the Dark Souls series are all extremely difficult

>>3334818
>tfw history student
>tfw have actual nightmares where i'm a historian in the future trying to show what entertainment was like in the 2010's

It will be like how we only have a few of the plays of Sophocles x1000

>>3334814
>lorefags that weren't satisfied with story being in the background.`
Aren't "lorefags" the ones who prefer the story being in the background?
I really love reading documents as a way of providing background for the ones who are interested and it also serves as a compromise because it can be easily ignored by the people without taste.
And as far as I know there are still a lot games being made who do that.
Talking to people is also an option.

That being said I also don't like this focus on multiplayer nowadays.

>>3334902
>>3335101
Modern games aren't complex. If anything they're even more stripped down and simplified for a casual audience as opposed to serious gamers.

>>3335774
Those games you just mentioned aren't hard. They're extremely easy. Play some Defender or Robotron 2084. Turn those games up to their highest difficulty setting and learn how people rolled in the old days of arcade games. You will go from being a boy to a man.

>>3334765
it wasn't unfinished, retard

the game was completed and ready to ship but the manufacturing costs/cost to the end user would put it beyond something like $100 for the cartridge. so they split it up.

>>3334428
>SF5 doesn't even have a single player ladder

It's very sad what's happening to games these days.

No shitty voice acting.

>>3337415
>No shitty voice acting
>What is Resident Evil?
That said, at least it's the charming/funny type of shitty voice acting instead of the "no one gives a flying fuck and we're going to be completely lifeless drones" type. Makes it more memorable tbqh.

>>3334428
I like the simplicity of them, and the comfortably underwritten stories. I also really like the varied aesthetics, everything today mostly looks either like CoD or Mario and that sounds cliche but I swear it's the only way I can put it.

>>3334742
That the price of videogames never adjusted for inflation is an advantage, I think, somehow it's 18 years since Final Fantasy VIII but I remember that videogames costed me exactly as much as they do now in raw numbers, but inflation has advanced by leap and bounds, but in practice that means they're cheaper.
Although prices seem to have jumped up by about 15-20% with PS4/XBONE.

Well, the most modern console I've played is a PS2. And I've only played a few games on it. I just never got into newer games.

>>3334428
too many things to narrow it down to one

>>3338512
They're cheaper even in raw number terms.

>>3338512
Visual entertainment doesn't follow the same rules of inflation as everything else. People tend to forget that video games were already being sold at a massive profit. That's why the industry knows that $60 still doesn't hurt them. In addition, video games are more expensive than most home entertainment, so if they drive their prices higher, they risk making their sales lower. But the industry is starting to see that idiots will spend over $300 on a single game and DLC if you trick them enough. And it's working. Sad days.

>>3338741
>DLC raped his mom and now he has an eternal vendetta against it

>>3338758
DLC raped everyone and is the cancer killing the industry.

>>3338762
I never get tired of how butthurt you are over it. I love DLC and think it's overall a good thing. But then I also like the way the industry in general is going.

I don't think it will ever stop being funny to me just how upset some people are about it.

>>3338787
>I love DLC

Please return to /v/ and praise that overwatch in game cash shop is a good thing

>>3338787
>I love DLC
>I also like the way the industry in general is going
You're a monster, or worse, a publisher

>>3338791
Sorry that game doesn't interest me and I'm not going to go away because you tell me to.

>>3338794
I'm neither, just a life long gamer. Seriously, there's never been a year that goes by that I haven't had at least a handful of new and awesome games I ended up loving.

>>3338801
Being a life long gamer doesn't mean you're not 15 years old. Just means you've been playing games maybe for the majority of your childhood.

>>3338801
>just a life long gamer
then you should know better

>there's never been a year that goes by that I haven't had at least a handful of new and awesome games I ended up loving
they pop up despite the state of the industry, because some developers care and refuse to give in to it

>>3334428
what would you say is the #1 disadvantage retro games have over modern games?

>>3338803
>Being a life long gamer doesn't mean you're not 15 years old.

True, and not that it matters, but I'm in my 40's. I've been into this hobby for a long time and in my opinion and for my tastes it's still getting better.

>>3338787
DLC is good in some cases, like if it's an unrelated story set in the same game universe with a different protagonist or something like that. But the way most publishers use it to put in missing parts of the main campaign or fix details that should have been checked on day 1 is horseshit. Nowadays, DLC is basically an excuse to put in shit that should've already been implemented.

>>3338808
>they pop up despite the state of the industry, because some developers care and refuse to give in to it

I'm a super picky gamer and have always disliked at least 90% of the games that get released. So maybe I'm just used to not being catered to perfectly and having to dig to find the stuff I really like, but it's no different to me. If anything, the volume and variety of games being made today makes it easier. Heck I don't even have time to play through all the good looking 7day Roguelikes each year anymore. Not a bad problem to have though.

>>3334428
you really want to win that portable atari 2600 huh?

>>3338818
It means you're getting old-timers if you believe games today are just as good or better than the past.

>>3338827
what games have you enjoyed recently that had a strong focus on dlc and online features?

>>3334728
not gonna lie I really like that interpretation of Mario
I wonder how things would have turned out if big N made him look like that instead

>>3338832
lol

>>3338835
Monster Hunter is a pretty big jam of mine. Amazing action game, tons of fun both single player and with a group and it has a bunch of free DLC quests and things.

I also play a lot of fighters and think DLC is great for those. More characters can get added and if you want to play as them you can do that but otherwise you still fight against them in multiplayer matches.

>>3338850
>monster hunter

opinion discarded. Monster hunter is for the candy crush gamers of console gaming.

>>3338850
I loathe DLC with a passion, but you happen to bring up two examples where it works. One's free after-sale maintenance, the other is a game that is modular by design. Explains at least why you are ok with DLC, you're avoiding the trash, intentionally or otherwise. While it may be cool that you manage to do that, it also makes your position a bit dishonest. Many gamers associate DLC with all its forms, and unfortunately most of them are pretty destructive. It might help you and others to get along better, if you don't intentionally maintain a misleading stance.

>>3338859
>Monster hunter is for the candy crush gamers of console gaming.

Explain what you actually mean by this.

>>3338861
Like I say here >>3338827 I've always been super picky and have often thought that large parts of the industry are shitty so I'm used to just ignoring what I don't like.

I thought Horse Armor and the stuff in Mass Effect was pretty lol worthy DLC, but I was never going to play those games anyways.

>>3338868
there is nothing wrong with being picky, at all. There's plenty wrong with brushing off development trends though, pretending they don't exist, just because you manage to navigate past them, and have the actual opportunity to do so. That's not the case in some genres, where you're stuck with the shit.

Depending on the game, they are cheaper. I can get a copy of Sonic 1 for 5$ on Ebay.

For some dreamcast games, it's the free online that has a very dedicated fanbase keeping the servers up.

>>3338787
>But then I also like the way the industry in general is going.
Me too. It's going into the grave.

>>3338873
See, it's that I fundamentally don't think it's a bad development trend and I don't think I'm that much of an outlier in being able to take the good and avoid the bad.

The two things I mentioned for example, horse armor and ME bullshit caused a massive backlash for the company. You don't see things on that level very often.

I will say that FPS games these days seem like a bit of a clusterfuck with the DLC. Maybe you need to buy into that to get the popular map packs or something, but it's not a genre I play so I don't really know.

>>3334428
I agree with you, OP. Too many modern games are loaded with DRM and online activation and microtransactions and reliance on servers.
I haven't felt like I've owned a game I bought in years. Every official, physical copy of something leaves me completely at the mercy of the company who licensed it. Same goes for the consoles. Nintendo can literally remotely erase things off your 3DS/WiiU anytime they want through the internet.
When I buy something, I want it to first and foremost be mine to do with as I please. Sony never kicked my door in when I modded my PS2, and Nintendo never gave a shit when I used a Gamegenie or Flashcart until recently.

>>3338903
>I fundamentally don't think it's a bad development trend
what is?

>I don't think I'm that much of an outlier
you have no idea

>You don't see things on that level very often
they're more subtle now and more nefarious. horse armor was a trial balloon, designed to be one

>it's not a genre I play so I don't really know.
that's a bit of a trend with you. Nothing wrong with being a focused player, but it makes statements like
>I love DLC and think it's overall a good thing. But then I also like the way the industry in general is going.
look very different. I dare say in particular the usage of "overall" and "in general" is grossly misleading. You just said yourself, you're ignoring a huge number of games. Games that people immediately think of when they deal with these subjects.

>>3334428
NO FUCKING ALWAYS ONLINE UPDATES WITH DLC AND SHIT

Yes I mad

>>3338915
That's all fair I guess. But I'm just a happy gamer. Even ignoring vast bulks of the games that get released I always have more stuff on my plate than I have time for and literally not a single year goes by that has disappointed me in terms of games.

So when I see posters around here who act like the entire industry is in freefall, there are no worthwhile games anymore and DLC has ruined everything, I just can't help but laugh at it. Then too often for my own good I can't help but poke and mock their being upset.

I'll go do something productive now. I am at work for fuck's sake, I probably should.

DLC has only one major worth - keeping people in jobs longer. With costs of big budget games increasing game developers make the choice to add DLC at the end so they can make a profit with the core game and then keep people on in the long run.

Granted for a lot of games this shouldn't be necessary if the game is complete at the end "e.g. Zelda: Breath of the Wild, if there's no DLC) but worthwhile, cost-effective DLC is very rare.

At least when games have free updates I don't get pissy. It gives you something new and fresh to look forward to when the update arrives.

>>3338905
> Nintendo can literally remotely erase things off your 3DS/WiiU anytime they want through the internet.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ohh that's a good one!

>>3338926
>But I'm just a happy gamer
because you happen to like the right genres. That's why it's so important to keep the perspective

>when I see posters around here who act like the entire industry is in freefall, there are no worthwhile games anymore and DLC has ruined everything, I just can't help but laugh at it
For some genres what these people describe is EXACTLY what's happening. They may not be your genres, so you got lucky. People suffering the problem though are probably not as amused

>>3338932
>>3338932
Which genres would you say are affected the worst?

>>3334782
not the one you replied to and i don't really disagree with your reasoning of it being the second half of the game but need to mention, that you would have called that expansion nonetheless, since DLC is a term that only came up with systems you could hook up on the internet. downloadable content and all ..

>>3338938

DLC?

casual mobile games, as they've come to rely excessively on impulse purchases. May not be what people here play much, but the so called "whales" are where the money is at the moment, people shelling out thousands of dollars through microtransactions. These are intentionally used to get past the impulse purchase threshold and disguise the true value spent.

action games with some modularity, designed for "season passes" right out of the gate. That's stuff like CoD, Fallout,Witcher. That's the kind of game where that old Mona Lisa pic is from. Instead of going for a well rounded game, developers design their game with an upfront minimal modularity, and include a few modules in the game proper. The rest is already in production and sold through DLC, season passes, collector's editions. The latter is particularly evil, as it relies on mutual exclusion between editions, leading people to buy the same license several times.

online-heavy games, the infamous pay-to-win model, but also weaker variants (visual)

to some degree episodic gaming
online requirement?

anything with a lobby, matchmaking and seamless mp. Publisers love it, because they get to control the end-of-life of a game, to move players to the next purchase.

it goes quite a bit deeper than that. Regardless of DLC or online, these blockbusters and casual games tend to focus on reward based gaming. Achievements, xp, unlockables, they're all variants on the same reward mechanism. DLC just takes advantage of it, and online adds a "helpful" angle in form of peer pressure.

largely immune are indie one-shots. When devs experiment with mechanics or produce standalone games, without upfront intentions of sequels or expansions. Generally a small(er) budget helps. Not necessarily talking about pimpley dudes in the basement, but even a budget of a couple thousand bucks is extremely small compared to what big games are suffering from, and allows quite a different flexibility in development and sales.

>>3335772

one is Batman Forver for the snes.

Le Hold on screen

>>3338930
>keep people in jobs longer

We use to call that making a new game. When did we get to the point of rewarding developer laziness

>>3334987
Yeah Redbook audio sort of "misses the point" of videogame music if you ask me. I know there are retro games that do this too, but chiptunes are the soul of videogame music for me.

>>3334987
I hate the orchestral music in modern Nintendo games. It just doesn't do it for me. I miss the midi's.

>>3339431
I think a lot of the orchestrated music Nintendo does is really well done.
Super Mario Galaxy and the second one, for example, still sound just as memorable as previous games.
Skyward Sword was hit or miss though. I don't remember any of the harp songs, yet almost twenty years later I can still whistle ever ocarina song from OoT/MM off the top of my head.

>>3335774
>Super Meat Boy
It's a decent game, but it's a spit in the face to old school platformers. It can be challenging at times, but never for the right reasons. Like IWBTG. It's a "homage" to old platformers, but it embraces none of what made them fun and legitimately challenging.

>>3339943
That's the thing though. Name a stage in Mario 64 and I can instantly start whistling the theme. Name a stage in Mario Galaxy and I'm stumped.

>>3338979

Okay, that's one, there are other several thousands that don't.

>>3334428
More replayability value.
No DLC.
More room for trying new things.

>>3338840
Same. To me it even looks cuter than current Mario.

>>3334428
This is bait

>>3338850
Shame capcom made it casual. Freedom unite was great. Tri, 3rd and above was all casual.

>>3339990
You learn things quicker as a kid.

>>3334484
Computer games had expansion packs which would be DLC today

>>3335706
Best answer so far

>>3338969
>casual mobile games, as they've come to rely excessively on impulse purchases.

I actually think that's a wonderful business model for games. No joke, no trolling. It doesn't work for all genres, but for small puzzle games like Candy Crush it's perfect.

As you point out, they are funded almost entirely by whales. Less than one percent of the people who play those games ever pay a dime. For them it's just a free game with a timer. They play a few rounds, see it will cost a dollar or two to play another now or they can wait so that's what they do. Because most people are only picking it up for five minutes.

But every once in a while there's a guy like Harry Connick jr with time and money to burn so he happily clicks the buy button as often as he wants. Dude has said he's spent like tens of thousands of dollars on Farmville, Candy Crush and those. He just smiles about it because he's Harry Connick Jr.

Basically, if the game is good enough it will attract a few whales that will keep it alive and going for a while which other people then play for free. That works for me.

>>3340582
All the ones on PSP sucked in my opinion because of the controls. People who started on that system tend to prefer it though which I find weird.

Tri and 3rd were somewhat casual, though there are some good challenges in there like pic related. But 4 is the hardest it's been since the first game.

>>3334428
I would say the biggest advantage is that there's not such thing as achievements. You play the games because you like playing them.

Also the lack of tutorials and button prompts feels like such a breath of fresh air, if that makes sense. So many, if not all games made nowadays can't not force obvious and blatant information down your throat. I hate button prompts, I hate QTEs and I basically hate anything that takes away all input / feedback from the controls. The first 1-2 hours of a modern game are the worst.

Take a 2D platformer for example. In every good game the level design itself will blatantly show you what you must do to progress, even if you end up dying the first time. It is entirely acceptable. I would say since 2006 that games really tried to make themselves much more intuitive for people who don't play videogames and it sucks because then there's no real learning process, the game simply tells you what you have to do, every step of the way. It makes me feel stupid for playing a game when it states which button to press to jump, or, how to pick up an item every single time you come across an item.

Then let's compare this to a recent 2D platformer like Shovel Knight. Even though it's meant to replicate the feel and aesthetics of NES games, it still tells you which buttons to press, at least in the beginning. Why, though? The controls are as simplistic as it gets and yet it still feels the need to tell you how to jump and how to attack. It goes away after the beginning but the fact that it's there is upsetting. There's no reason for it.

I think the biggest insult is when a game tells you "Use the Left Analog Stick to move." I want to slap each and every single programmer who ever type that prompt. God damn it.

>>3340642
Shovel Knight still gets quite challenging in the later levels though. Them telling you in game how to play doesn't really change that.

>>3340623
>I actually think that's a wonderful business model for games
to some degree, yes, it is. It's been extremely perverted though, with games not just giving the option to buy new things, but actually denying normal gameplay, appealing to impatience and urgency and being misleading. At that point it's no longer a business model, it's a crime.

>every once in a while there's a guy like Harry Connick jr with time and money to burn so he happily clicks the buy button as often as he wants
And far more often they'll be simple minded house wives that end up in massive debt. Whales are rarely rich people. They're just easily misled.

>That works for me
I don't consider "fuck you, I have mine" a social business model. Keep in mind, that the large majority of whales are in it way over their head and not necessarily enjoying it. It's a predatory model.

>>3340884
>with games not just giving the option to buy new things, but actually denying normal gameplay

That's exactly what I'm talking about and I still think it's all well and good. They're letting you play for free and then giving the option of buying extra time or lives. There's nothing really misleading about that.

>And far more often they'll be simple minded house wives that end up in massive debt.
If someone is stupid enough to put themselves into "massive debt" because they don't pay attention to how much money they're spending that's their problem, not mine.

There will always be people with problems, and we should try to help them live better lives. But just because someone else is an alcoholic who drinks all their money away and can't keep a job, I should still be able to enjoy a beer after work. This is the same situation. Most people pay attention to the money they spend.

You're also acting like anyone ever paying for playing the games people spent time making is like they've been hoodwinked and I think that's just silly.

> Keep in mind, that the large majority of whales are in it way over their head and not necessarily enjoying it.

Where do you get this information from, by the way?

>>3340916
>I still think it's all well and good
why?

>They're letting you play for free and then giving the option of buying extra time or lives
No, not really. A really common pattern nowadays is to restrict player actions through a resource that grows slowly, or can be replenished faster. This mechanism is designed to upset the player, in order to "offer a solution" right away. That's not unlike a protection racket (pay or we'll make you unhappy)

>There's nothing really misleading about that.
By limiting the amount of resources a player can accumulate even through purchases, the player is encouraged to perform multiple microtransactions over a long time. This is done to disguise the actual value. People may be willing to slip a few bucks here and there, without realizing the total is well beyond normal game prices.

>that's their problem, not mine
We'll have to disagree that. I can not, and will not ever support a stance like that. I believe the developer should be providing a service to the player (that the player pays for), instead of the developer being a predator, that the player needs to constantly watch out for. That's not a healthy business relationship

>There will always be people with problems
The people tricked are not "people with problems", but normal people. Developers use psychologically established tactics to abuse the players.

>You're also acting like anyone ever paying for playing the games people spent time making is like they've been hoodwinked and I think that's just silly.
these players are not paying to help the developer, or support the game. They're paying to get their fix. The model is predatory. That's the major difference.

>Where do you get this information from, by the way?
hyperbole, sorry. I do not have sources supporting it, at least nothing clear and reliable. Always just anecdotes in the context of articles discussing whales.

>>3340925
>why
Because it's a model that lets most people play a game completely free, but lets you opt in for more time if you want to. I know people who have played those games a ton and never ever spent a dime. I think that's pretty cool.

> the player is encouraged to perform multiple microtransactions over a long time.
And yet, over 99% of people never, ever do and just play the game as is till they're bored and move onto a new one.

> I believe the developer should be providing a service to the player (that the player pays for)

I think it's fine for a developer to provide it for free with an option to pay for more play time or better items. I still fail to see how that's predatory or misleading in any way.

>Developers use psychologically established tactics to abuse the players.
That again, almost never work. These things are all super obvious. If you want to opt in and buy some microtransactions that's fine. If you have mental problems and spend a thousand dollars you don't have, then it's not the game that was the problem.

> Always just anecdotes in the context of articles discussing whales.
Well at least you admit you were pulling it out of your ass mostly. But if you have any interesting articles about whales feel free to post them.

>>3340941
>lets most people play a game completely free
guess we just see things different here. What you consider playing for free is the first hit, to get you addicted. If it doesn't work on you personally, that's cool, delivering the game to you costs nothing. Someone else will fall for it.

>I still fail to see how that's predatory or misleading in any way
fair enough. You won't get the answer from me then, as I can't make you understand it if you're not willing to see it from a different angle.

>almost never work
Just like spam. The cost to deliver to the "players" is zero. The developer does not try to get everyone to pay. They just try to get everyone to try it, so they can capture the people that pay.

>These things are all super obvious
to you

>If you have mental problems
these people usually don't

>then it's not the game that was the problem
the game doing what it can to trigger that scenario. I consider that malicious

>at least you admit
I'm not trying to win an argument. I've been trying to explain my points, as they were seemingly difficult to understand, or misunderstood. If you're unwilling to think through them, that's your choice. I'll even let you be the winner of the argument only you're having. I gain nothing from those. I'm just here for exchanges.

>mostly
I don't think that was necessary

>>3334818
This is huge. Games like Titanfall or Destiny are purely ephemeral.

>>3340967
just as publishers want it. What's more upsetting to me is that people play these games anyway. They either don't understand that issue, or they're perfectly fine knowing that these games will disappear. Sure, it's a perfectly valid position, but, I don't know, it turns players into consumers, and that just doesn't feel right.

>>3340960
>Someone else will fall for it.
I still fundamentally don't see paying for a product you are using and enjoying so you cal play it more as "falling" for anything.

Each time I put my quarter in a SFII machine back in the 90's was I "falling" for it?

If the game was free 95% of the time and only had me pay if I wanted to play longer, fight the end boss, or play against another person or something. If I enjoyed the game and paid money then to play it, would I be "falling" for it?

>these people usually don't
You're trying to tell me that someone who puts themselves into "massive debt" because they didn't pay any attention to how much money they were spending on video games don't have mental problems? I'm sorry, but I like to assume that adults should be expected to pay attention and take care of themselves. No normal, well adjusted person will put themselves into debt over Candy Crush or any other mobile game.

>I'm not trying to win an argument.
I had the impression you are. At any rate you are presenting things you made up as facts to support what you're saying. I don't think "mostly out of your ass" was really all that far out of line.

>>3340973
>Each time I put my quarter in a SFII machine back in the 90's was I "falling" for it?
to some degree, yes. Arcade machines are designed to be profitable. The difference is, developers back then figured the way into your wallet is to make the game entertaining, which makes spending the money somewhat fair. The design goal of these mobile games is to be deliberately anoying and offer a solution.

>If I enjoyed the game and paid money then to play it, would I be "falling" for it?
At this point I think you believe I consider paying for a game at all a bad thing. So, believe whatever you want. This exchange is going nowhere.

>I had the impression you are
Of course you do. It's always about winning arguments. Makes it so very difficult to have actual exchanges, because people are always instantly in an aggressive position, ready to disarm any statement made, instead of actually giving it some thought. Anyway, you made up your mind, I have said enough that people reading can form their opinion about my position.

>>3340984
>This exchange is going nowhere.
Probably. I'm of course trying to win because I disagree with you quite strongly. So when you say things that simply aren't true, I'm going to point that out.

I don't care if you don't like mobile games or microtransactions, but I think your reasons for thinking they're bad are largely silly and or based on false assumptions like "simple minded house wives" wasting all their money because they can't control themselves.

>>3341003
I've played quite a few of them (never paid), so I had plenty of time to analyze their mechanisms

>>3341012
So have I. I guess we just disagree.

>>3341003
>I'm of course trying to win because I disagree with you quite strongly
The two things are not related

>>3341016
>So have I
why didn't you do it?

>I guess we just disagree
unfortunately, yes

>>3334428
A lot of the games in big franchises were the first so there's nothing to compare them too and creators don't have to pull ideas out of virtually nowhere to create a game that's more of a deviation than an original idea, like all the Zelda sequels that seem kind of pointless. (Twilight Princess, etc.)

>>3341021
>The two things are not related
I disagree on that as well.

>why didn't you do it?
Why didn't I do what?

>>3336224
Lorefag here. You're right. Lore is a lot different than story. They add cutscenes because people don't know how to tell stories in modern videogames and most of the time they simply try to imitate cinematic movies. They're just trying to appeal to people in general.

Also ironically he posted Zelda, which is trying to return to the story being told with background elements judging from what Aonuma has said so far about Breath of the Wild. Players can totally ignore all story and just do the dungeons and whatever. Who knows how it'll end up though.

>>3341067
>>3336224
talking and reading are both heavily text based. What other options are there?

>>3341079
Videogames are a visual medium. You can tell stories through visuals and gameplay without relying heavily on dialogue and exposition and cutscenses that are trying to copy movies in an empty shallow way. Also music is a powerful tool to convey emotion too.

>>3341108
>You can tell stories through visuals and gameplay
Yes, I was looking for specific examples. Considering you're into that stuff I thought you might have some handy

>>3341115
Not him, and this will probably get a bunch of hate because the creator is a french canadian bag of dicks, but Fez did an amazing job of conveying story and world building with barely real dialogue.

>>3341124
I was not looking for games, I was looking for examples of mechanisms for lore that do not rely on written or spoken word

>this will probably get a bunch of hate
because it's not /vr/

>>3341137
In that case, pic related.

And everyone hates on Fez. Not just for not being /vr/

>>3341137
I wrote a massive reply to you then I accidentally hit the back button. Holy christ. I'll try to summarize it.

By visual storytelling for lore I mean something as simple as background details can tell a story. Some games can even tell their entire story like this but it's not very common, but Fez is a good example like that other guy said.

Not /vr/ so please bear with me, but Pikmin takes place on Earth millions of years in the future. That's the reason you can collect random artifacts from our civilization, but in Pikmin 3 you can see a picture of the planet and it is directly taken from predictions of what our continents will look like millions of years in the future.

>>3341028
Not that guy, but I know a mini-whale in real life. She's a cognitive science grad student with at least 20k in student debt, and last I checked she's spent over $400 on the sims freeplay this year. Microtransactions are no joke

>>3334440
This. Retro games are 90% game, modern games are 30% game, 70% movie.

>>3338840
>Big N
>>3340563
>current Mario

Which is almost the same as classic Mario? Although I'd agree that 2D art trumps 3D renders.

>>3341603
>30% game
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

>>3335101
I personally disagree there are tons of modern games with awesome music, SFV, Dark Souls , Metal Gear Rising etc. have amazing music

>>3334428
I miss the cheat code scene. PS3 and onwards fucking killed it when the systems became damn near impregnable. Those community created cheats were often pretty rad, and even useful in some cases.

Also, fuck DLC!

>>3341584
She sounds like she has an addiction problem. If she's a good friend, seek help for her. That's neither normal nor healthy.

>>3334428
people actually played them...

>>3343169
you're not wrong

>>3343169
Have you looked around? Gaming is far more massive now than it used to be. Everyone plays games these days. Ever been on a commuter train? Half the people there are playing something or other.

>>3338787
>this entire post
Why would you idealistically want developers to make a game, and then split it in half and charge you wholesale for each piece?

>>3344719
people love the GBC Zelda Oracles.

>>3338787
The only DLC i like are expansions like older PC games had.

Bioshock burial at sea, thd borderlands 2 dlc campaigns, Bloodbournes expansion, the announced DS3 one. Not many others i can think of though.

Basically if your dlc costs 15 dollars and keeps you playing for another 5-10 hours apiece i think its worth it.

However most dont do that as its not cost effective long term.

>>3334440
that is a deficit. the no tutorials is literally the worst thing about retro games, especially nes and sms games where you dont know what to do without a walkthrough!!!

>>3345163
>if your dlc costs 15 dollars and keeps you playing for another 5-10 hours apiece i think its worth it
would you accept another hour for 2 bucks?

Also, why do you convert into hours? That doesn't work for a lot of conceptually reasonable dlc

>>3345173
Dude its just an easy way to use it as a reference of value, quit being autistic.

>>3345198
racing game, how many hours is an extra car? an extra track?

econ sim, how many hours is an extra building or trade good?

traffic management sim, how many hours is new rolling stock?

multiplayer shooter, how many hours is a map?

puzzle game, how many hours is a game mode?

>>3345171

You sound like a colossal faggot.
Let me guess, you don't look at instruction manuals beyond maybe the pictures.

my computer can run them

>>3334902
This is bullshit. Only the NES and other early early consoles had two or one button. Even nintendo moved onto six with the snes. Four face buttons and two bumps. Idiot.

>>3345231
why would you need a manual, when you have a comfy tutorial? you sound like from yesterday. looking into manuals is like using dial up network. ew get the fuck away from me

>>3345302
wrong question, try again

>>3345309
you're not comfy. you're loss.

>>3345302
If you don't think manuals and dial up are comfy, then maybe this isn't the board for you

For RPGs, the lack of voiced dialog. I read faster than shitty VA's speak, and bad dialog is at least more bearable in my head than said out loud.

Also, games didn't have to be cinematic and have a cutscene every five minutes.

>>3345302

It's faster.

Flip through the pages, skim them for what you need, done.

It's better than sitting through a tutorial that's 3 hours long.

>>3345486
Playing SMT4. I'm skipping about 40% of the voice acting (which is actually good VA)

>>3345473
>TRIEGGERED
>MUH SAFE SPACE

>>3345491
>autist logic

>>3345606

I'd rather just play a game. I don't have a problem with tutorials if they're optional. I prefer just finding out how the game works as I play it. Time is precious, and most tutorials are a total waste.

I worry about buying PS3 and 360 games secondhand because I know the first thing that's going to happen when I put those games in a console is they're going to update. What will happen in 10 years when there isn't a server hosting that update data anymore? I realize I can probably still play whatever actually shipped on the disc but how many games from the last gen (and this current gen, for that matter) will even allow you to play what's on the disc without updating first?

>>3345610
>>3345491
>>3345473
>>3345302

> Time is precious
> most tutorials are a total waste.
> It's faster.
> If you don't think manuals and dial up are comfy, then maybe this isn't the board for you
> why would you need a manual, when you have a comfy tutorial

>>3345626

I don't know why wanting to play a game instead of sitting through a tutorial is autistic. It's just a preference. I don't think less of people who prefer tutorials.

Also, you're quoting different people.

Very little to none of the fucking story bullshit that is the cancer killing modern "games" (more like barely interactive movies).

>>3345651
I love story focused games, they are so much more immersive. What I think destroyed games is that xbox fps shit games became mainstream on all consoles and even became part of normal action adventures.

>>3345662

The problem is that paying for all that animation and voice acting comes at the expense of making a game that isn't a bunch of hallways where you sometimes get to press a button. Some devs get it right, but for the most part I get bored by modern action games because the story is usually paper thin and I have no reason to care, what gameplay there is feels sparse and on the rails.

Even games with good graphics still look awkward/uncanny valley during cutscenes so it's not like they're super immersive or anything.

I'm not totally negative about modern games though, I think there are a lot of niche genres now and it's at least a bit easier for smaller devs to participate.

What's a Skyward Sword Defense Force doing on a board for retro video games?

>>3345205
>racing game, how many hours is an extra car? an extra track?
A car: none. A track: potentially several.
>econ sim, how many hours is an extra building or trade good?
None.
>traffic management sim, how many hours is new rolling stock?
None.
>multiplayer shooter, how many hours is a map?
Countless.
>puzzle game, how many hours is a game mode?
Potentially endless amounts.

>>3345765
>I get bored by modern action games because the story is usually paper thin and I have no reason to care
tldr: you just play bad games mate :/
there a lot of shitty ones, but also good ones!

>>3334428
Modern games have all the advantage over retro games. That means they have no excuse for the crappy state they're in.

>>3334428
>For me personally, it's the lack of online capabilities. There are so many games nowadays that have most, if not all of the gameplay focused online, and that feels very temporary to me. Online servers are always going to go down eventually, whereas retro games are permanent and will be just as playable in the current decade as they were in the '80s and '90s. In a few years certain online focused games are going to be literally unplayable.
I'd agree, except some of the most fun I've had with games is playing emulators with other people using netplay. I can't always hang out with my friends and play International Superstar Soccer Deluxe but ZSNES let us do it online and it was a blast. Yes, even with disconnections and lag and it being a shitty emulator.
Online is fine, the problem is with the paid online model they chose, or by not letting people run their own dedicated servers.

>>3334428
Aesthetics.

>>3338840
Me too

I also like how it illustrates the progress that comes with advancements in technology, namely how greater attention to detail can also mean the introduction of brand new details (the wrench)

Too bad that kind of thing is basically irrelevant the way games are made today. Diminishing returns are a real thing

Don't need 3D accelerator (GPU).
Don't need SVGA graphics.
Don't need much or even any graphics at all.
Can run even on 4 MHz Z80 or other simple, slow machine that I can build an equivalent from scratch with microcontroller or other common parts.

>>3350637
>Too bad that kind of thing is basically irrelevant the way games are made today. Diminishing returns are a real thing

Top keks. This place never gets old.

>>3345129
Oh sure, the least talked about Zeldas are "loved"

>>3351658
Are you joking? Those games were really popular. Also, Pokemon says hi.

>>3334428
Someone wrote this response to the same question in the past:

My personal reason for liking retro games isn't that they're old. There's more than that to it.

It's that they're simple. There are fewer chances to screw up developing a simple game than a complicated one and it just so happens that sometimes nothing is screwed up badly.

It's also that I'm a fanatic who advocates the freedom, openness and preservation of information, so being able to run and reverse engineer games in a managed environment (like an emulator or a virtual machine) makes me happy. Emulation also allows solving games on a theoretical level (with genetic algorithms or the like), which is quite interesting.

It's additionally for the observation that restrictions enhance creativity. Thinking of creativity as a stochastic search for mutations from an initial condition, restrictions are what turn breadth into depth.

>>3351671
>they're simple
that's an awfully broad brush. Even understanding you're talking complexity, not difficulty

>>3351683
Simple doesn't necessarily mean old and it doesn't necessarily mean good.

>>3351692
I did not suggest any of that, so what's the purpose of your reply?

In general, retro games seem more focused on being a good game rather than ensuring the game lasts longer than 30 hours or whatever arbitrary amount people demand and also they don't twist your arm with microtransactions like many games do (especially phone games)

>>3351693
I meant to click the other guy, sorry. Was generally agreeing with you.

>>3351709
makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

Funny enough, for some retro games a major aspect of their appeal is "simplicity", or to be more exact, focus. It's particularly obvious with remakes or sequels, that try to re-capture the old spirit. They usually fail, because they add everything and the kitchen sink. Sometimes there's a point in keeping the game focused on one thing, and do that one thing right. It makes the game tight and much more enjoyable.

>>3351718
That's true for modern and retro games alike.

>>3351725
of course it is, but retro games have a bit of a tendency to be on the more focused side. Reason being simply constraints in storage and hardware capabilities. They couldn't stray from the main path, even if they wanted to. With modern games it's hard work to understand what feature to not include, or to cut, because it doesn't add anything to the game. Players are affected by it as well, as can be seen regularly when people talk about how much they like "content". It takes some discipline to understand what does not contribute to the game as a whole.

>>3351732
While true, I think in retro games there are many where the developers didn't yet understand how to use the limitations as much to their advantage so there are many games that are simple to the point of being boring.

While a lot of modern games do get bloated with feature creep, when there is a simple, focused game it's sometimes really good.

>>3351761
>in retro games there are many where the developers didn't yet understand
>a lot of modern games do get bloated
Sturgeon's law
>ninety percent of everything is crap
which is why it's generally a good idea to dismiss the 90% and focus on the remaining good stuff.

You ignored the actual point I tried to make, No idea if intentional or not. Regardless, others can read the exchange and come to their own conclusions.

>>3351778
I'm actually more of a 95-98% of everything is crap guy, especially when it comes to video games. But then I'm super picky in general. I 100% agree that it's best to just ignore everything else and focus on the good though

>>3351778
see, the NES library

its like about 100-150 good games and 650 shit ones and pat the NES pussy made a book reviewing them all.

>>3334428
Simplicity is a large factor missing from modern games. Not contrived simplicity, and not simplicity that makes games overly easy - the kind that makes games enjoyable.

>>3351664

I'm just saying, I see the 3D Zeldas discussed an obscene amount, the first four 2D Zeldas discussed a lot, but not to the extent of the 3D Zeldas, and every other Zelda game is just this whatever nothing that only gets brought up every once in a while.

And the pokemon comparison isn't even a little bit comparible since there's literally no meaningful difference between the two releases.

The topic is two halves of one game being comparable to DLC, not two versions of one game with differences that actually make no difference.

>>3338801
I agree.

Every time you play it's the same game, as opposed to modern games where you turn it on and there's 16GB of patches and you're basically playing a completely different game from the one you bought.

>>3350621
This.

>>3334440
Tutorials are fine for first time players, but they need to be optional.

>>3351706
>>3352451
This.

Plus, retro games had more soul. Big hits were often made by relatively small companies, consisting of devoted geeks who actually loved what they did; see Technos or New World Computing for example. Games weren't made for lowest common denominator, and you couldn't just get away with graphics alone. That's why we got ridiculously deep games like Street Fighter II, Civilization, and so on—still played today 20+ years later. Studios also weren't afraid to experiment too—the foundation of today's genres was set back in the '90s.

Nowadays, game budgets are ~40% art (so, pretty much graphics), ~40% marketing. Everything feels incredibly rehashed and uninspired, just like Hollywood that makes the same movies every year, but with new trendy cast and better effects. Despite all the incredible progress in graphics, the gameplay went to complete shit. It's like no one even cares about it anymore.

>>3338410
>resident evil
>not house of the dead
The voice acting was undeniably terrible. Sure, it so bad it's good, but it's not redeemable like RE

>>3357750
>and you couldn't just get away with graphics alone.

Donkey Kong Country says hi.

>>3357795
Well this isn't really "graphics alone". I am not going to defend this game as I haven't even finished it, but it wasn't bad at all. Just not as advanced as Sonic The Hedgehog or even Super Mario World.

I agree that starting from early 1990s, graphics have started to play an increasingly important role, but games which relied only on graphics were often considered gimmicky. Often, best-selling games managed to be impressive all around, not in graphics alone: e.g. Sonic The Hedgehog, Super Mario RPG, Tekken, Final Fantasy VII, MGS.

And nowadays the yearly best-sellers are just CoD games. Straight line shooters with endless cutscenes and zero challenge/fun. I don't expect anything to wow me anymore. Dark Souls has been one of very few actually interesting ideas in games. The rest feels like Half-Life 1 mods with $100 million graphics, tailored to lowest common denominator.

Just today watched the new Doom gameplay. At first I couldn't lift my jaw off the floor because the graphics were really amazing. But as the time passed I realized it was boring as fuck and barely different from any other shooter from 15 years ago. Another movie which is marketed as a game