/vr/ - Retro Games

Doubt you have anything to say about it, seeing as you only wanted to make a snide post regarding the rules on this board.

Okay, let's talk about it then... It's kinda crappy I think.

>>3613640
You're making me interested in looking up the late PS1 releases

>DB Ultimate Battle 22 didn't come out till 2003
>8 fucking years

I think the last licensed PS1 game was released in Japan in 2006

>>3613657
>you only wanted to make a snide post regarding the rules on this board.
Yes, that's the point.

And I know this thread will get deleted soon, but I don't care. /vr/ rules are retarded. How come I can't discuss Unreal Tournament 2003 but I can discuss Fifa 2005 because it was a "le ps1 game"

Either rise the limit to 2005 or ban anything released after 1999 completely no matter which console it was released for.

>>3613667

No problem dude, talk about it.

>>3613667

>MY NOSTALGIA IS RETRO TOO REEEEEEE

You think you're original? We've had this thread and many like it from butthurt shitposters like you, you probably crom from >>3612912 after getting told.
Go ahead, discuss Fifa 2005. It's not against the rules. Nobody cares.

>>3613667

It has to be a game released for a console that came out in 1999 or earlier. How hard is that to understand? Discussing Fifa 2005 for PS1 is perfectly fine but not the PS2 version.

>>3613661

It came out in Europe only a year after it came out in Japan though, I got it around '99 along with Final Bout just as the show was getting started on TV. Both shitty-ass games with good soundtracks.

>>3613701
I know that's the rules and I call it bullshit.

Isn't that a big injustice someone can discuss Fifa 2005 while some poor bastard gets their Red Alert 2 thread deleted?

>>3613696
My nostalgia IS retro. I grew up with Genesis and PS1. I'd much prefer if they ban anything beyond 1999 than make fucking 2005 retro.

>>3613691
>2005
Not retro....

>>3613717
Finally, someone sane!

>>3613696
>Stuff from 16 years ago isn't retro

>It's modern

This picture... it's... NOT RETROOOO REEEEE

>>3613723
THAT PHONE WAS MADE IN 2000

FUCKING NOT RETRO!!! THAT'S A MODERN CELL PHONE!

>>3613717

They can discuss Fifa 2005 on PS1 in the same way people can discuss any sort of homebrew or non-retro release on /vr/ hardware.

The thing about Fifa 2005 is that nobody will discuss it because nobody cares about the game, not even FIFA fans (who probably aren't the demographic of IBs) anymore.

>>3613732
So why are games made in 2016 with 2016 game design in mind considered retro because of their platform?

So, Minecraft can be installed on a Windows 85 machine. It's a retro game, then?

>>3613723
I dropped one of those out a window once. I had to pay the city $553,000 to fix the crater.

>>3613723
>>3613731

>all this work put into shitposting /vr/

OP, get over it, your nostalgia is not retro.

>>3613740
Your nostalgia is not retro, either.
When you grew up is not indicative of retro.

If you grew up in the 80s, that's no longer retro. Soon to be bordering on antique.

>>3613738

>Windows 85

If you mean Windows 95, yeah you could discuss the port of Minecraft as a curiosity, as >>3613732 said. But that seems more like /g/ territory, /vr/ discusses old PCs, but not really OSs.

>>3613740
The Odyssey is the only true retro gaming machine.

Everything that came after is modern game design. Modern game design was based off arcades that evolved into home consoles.

That's /all/ modern home consoles.

Deal. With. It.

>>3613731
>Phones were getting smaller and smaller until we could look at porn on them

I'm nostalgic for 1950s pinball machines. I grew up in the 70s.

Anything in the 90s is definitely modern to me, especially N64, Saturn, and PlayStation. No clue why those are allowed when GameCube isn't.

>>3613738
Ikr, it's fucking bullshit. And again, I'm not some millenial going "muh 00's are retro!" I'm just saying that the rules are retarded. I'd much prefer banning games like Conker's Bad Fur Day or Majora's Mask than allowing Halo.

Also,
>Windows 85

>>3613743

So yeah you are the same guy from the other thread, lol.

You want to argue semantics, a classic logical fallacy. It's not about names or titles, boy.

>>3613756
>It's not about names or titles, boy.
What's it about?

>>3613753
"Halo" is this board's "Hitler".

>>3613756
>It's not about names or titles, boy.

If it's about year, we need to rename the board to something that reflects the 1999 cut off.

If it's about generations, the 6th gen should be allowed alongside the Dreamcast.

If it's about retro, it should meet the definition, which is anything in the span of 15-25 years old.

>>3613667
If 2005 is retro and nostalgia to you, you're too young to be using this board kiddo.

>>3613759
Name 1 difference between Halo and Goldeneye 007.

Name 1 difference between Halo and Perfect Dark.

>>3613767
Jesus Christ why is everyone getting this wrong?
I'm not saying 2005 should be considered retro. I'm just saying rules are bullshit. And like I said in a previous post, I'd much prefer if they ban anything after 1999.

Report this troll thread. OP is just here to start fights.

>>3613774
>report thread about a retro game

Uh-huh...

>>3613773
Perhaps I'm just tired and misunderstood. I thought OP was a push to get shit from the 00s labeled retro using a dumb argument.

>>3613757

The board's rules. They are arbitrary, yes. This isn't a public space, it's a private website.
You can whine, but you're just fucking with the regulars and are doing a tantrum like, precisely, the little kid you still are, mentally.

There are other sites that allow 6th gen, like infnite chan's /vr/.

And just to spoonfeed you like the crybaby you are, I'll advise you to e-mail hiroyuki, the 4chan admin, and ask him for 6th gen to be included. Hell, make a change.org shit if you want, you can cheat using VPNs and rig the signatures.

If hiroyuki ever decides to do something about the rules, or make another board, whatever, then it will happen.
For the time being /vr/ has its set rules and you, your childhood and your burning butt will have to learn and deal with it, or leave.

>>3613780

If it's about year, we need to rename the board to something that reflects the 1999 cut off.

If it's about generations, the 6th gen should be allowed alongside the Dreamcast.

If it's about retro, it should meet the definition, which is anything in the span of 15-20 years old.

>>3613763

See: >>3613780

>>3613783
The board's rules state:
>With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.

This implicitly rules that a NEW generation CHANGED the rules of what is allowed.

So read the rules yourself, fagbaby.

>>3613778
> I thought OP was a push to get shit from the 00s labeled retro using a dumb argument.
FUCK NO. I'm trying to do opposite.

I tried to point out how retarded it is that we can discuss a game made in 2005 just because it was released on PS1 and everyone thought I'm a faggot millenial trying to get acceptance. They're either legit retarded or they do it on purpose.

>>3613786
They say read the rules about how nothing becomes retro, and the rules themselves said Dreamcast "became" retro with the release of the 8th gen.

We're on the 9th gen with PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio and Switch.

It's time to update.

>>3613789
Not really. I wouldn't consider PS2 retro until at the very least 2020. I mean they were still releasing popular mainstream games for it 6 or 7 years ago.

>>3613667
The rules are pretty fucking simple.
The game came out on a retro platform.
Either learn how to read the rules or kys.

But sure, let's talk about FIFA 05 for PS1.
That was a good year for Chelsea (Utd supporter here) what was it one loss the entire season? Jose made a fuckton of people mad parking the bus.
What team do you like playing in FIFA 05 OP? Do you actually have anything to add or are you just being an edgy piece of shit who should be banned for shitposting?

>>3613786

Actually, the Dreamcast being included as /vr/ makes sense because it was released in 1998.
I don't know why the mods decided to make that word choice with "now with the start of 8th gen..." etc. It was to make clear that DC was going to be accepted on /vr/, because it used to not be included at first. The same happened with 5th gen, at first it wasn't allowed (which is crazy because I have no memory of this and I remember I was here day 1 posting on the first threads, and in my memory, 5th gen was included, but archives argue otherwise).
But anyway, DC still fits the /vr/ criteria because of its year.
Also, it doesn't really damage the board in any way, it also was the last console of Sega, it kind of makes sense that /vr/ includes it, if not for the year, then as a gesture of love to Sega.

>>3613829
I know the rules and it's pretty clear from my post. Just because I disagree with the rules doesn't mean I didn't read them! In fact, it only means I read them because I can't disagree with something I don't know about, do I, you stupid retard?!

>>3613829
I DID read the rules and I thought they're stupid! Wasn't that clear enough from my post?!

I mean If I'm here saying that I disagree with the rules, that means I have read the rules, right?! Fucking retard.

And no, please don't talk about FIFA 05 because 2005 IS NOT FUCKING RETRO

>>3613837
>Also, it doesn't really damage the board in any way, it also was the last console of Sega, it kind of makes sense that /vr/ includes it, if not for the year, then as a gesture of love to Sega.

Neither would GameCube at least.