/vr/ - Retro Games

>>3871417
NO BECAUSE THE TWELVE YEAR OLD HALO FANS I FOUGHT DURING THE GAMEFAQS WAR OF 2001 WILL RISE UP AND DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL! DESTROY US ALL!

>>3871424
You joke, but the Halo crowd is still around and you do not want them here on /vr/.

>>3871424
the original xbox is such a great system.

>>3871424
Those people you argued about Halo on Gamefaqs in 2001 were probably born between 1985 and 1990.

The people on /v/ who like Halo these days are born around 1995. It's not the same group. It's worse.

>>3871426
You need to sit in the corner and write 100 times "I'm still jumping at shadows that stopped being a thing fifteen years ago".

>>3871417
>/v/
/vr/, sorry

>>3871437
News flash, idiot, you allow it to become a thing on /vr/ and it WILL again.

>>3871439
Same difference.

/vr/ is shit.
>Overrun by tripfags
>NOT RETRO autists
>Board average IQ is nosediving pretty hard

Halo won't be the problem. Smash will.

Ever notice that after threads like these, the residual asspain makes the entire board shittier for a week?

>>3871441
No, what will happen is that YOU will IMMEDIATELY flood the board with as MANY shitpost threads as the site will allow, then YOU will go on your shitty mobile and do it AGAIN, and then you'll find a proxy and do it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN

And once you have done that you will post a screenshot of the catalog and say "LOOK AT WHAT ALLOWING THE PS2 DID ABLOOBLOOBLOOO ;.;" and samefag the thread like a motherfucker to make it look like the entire board agrees with you because you are that petty.

>>3871424
People who like SotC are way worse.

>>3871441
its like the hardcore cowboy bebop and evangelion fans who cry at how anime is dead because the moe boom from 10 years ago.

>>3871436
lol

going by generation and not year was a mistake.

>>3871461
Sarcasm is not an argument. Not one of substance, anyway.
Look, it's not hard to figure out. Halo is the most iconic, well-known, and popular Xbox-Huge game. You allow Xbox to be discussed here then of course its fanbase will show up on /vr/.

>>3871479
I'm pretty sure the combined fanbase of the best selling console in history outnumbers them.

Just admit that you are jumping at shadows in fear of the halo bogeyman.

>>3871417
How about that there just be a separate board for 6th and 7th gen? So that these threads (that are obviously bait) can stop shitting up this board.

>>3871479
thats nice, but you're wrong. you do know halo has fallen entirely out of relevance, and even then, the xbox ones were good games.

>>3871481
I'm jumping in fear of a very real cancer beast.

>>3871487
Hillbilly children are scared of the stupidest things.

>>3871487
No you're just tinfoiling. Remember when Halo fanboys shat up /v/?

Neither do I.

>>3871483
The state of a franchise now is irrelevant on a retro board. Fanboys of the original games will come here to nostalgia up like the rest of us, and they'll trail their dormant cancer with them.

>>3871492
B-b-b-but that was always! They like a game I don't so they're fucking cancer trolls! They can't talk about it because I said it was bad cancer! Cancer bad!

/v2k/ when?

/vr/ is fine as it is.

Having the same board for stuff like Atari 2600 and PS2/PS3 just feels weird and wrong, but I understand that /v/ is basically /b/ and /vg/ is supposedly shit. But /vr/ can't be the home for the 00s stuff, we need another board.

>>3871492
Remember when this board opened and there was a cascade of Sonic fan crin- nevermind that didn't happen either.

>>3871508
>Having the same board for stuff like Atari 2600 and PS2/PS3 just feels weird and wrong

Only for you. Most of us are already fine that DC and Atari are both fine here. We don't need another board when traffic is as slow as it is here. This isn't reedit with a billion subforums, it's 4chan.

>/v/ for new stuff
>/vg/ for big generals
>/vr/ for old stuff.

That's plenty. And though I'm fine if they never add them, I wouldn't be unhappy to see the rest of 6th gen.

>>3871508
we are pretty slow as it is.
i'd rather not split up the board even more.
i always see people mentioning games and stuff for gba and ps2 but not really talking about it because rules, might as well just add it, GC, and xbox.

>>3871527
It wouldn't be splitting up /vr/. it would be splitting /v/ by giving 6th & 7th gen a place to go.

>>3871532
But why?
/vr/ is slow as hell
Why can't we discuss 6th gen here? DC is already 6th gen

How does this make you feel?

>>3871527
>>3871526
You really think /vr/ is slow? I think it's very fast for a board that is supposed to be a split from another board.
Boards like /m/ or /toy/ are slower, and they are way older than /vr/.

Still, we've had this discussion before, and the best consensus we came up with is that we need /v2k/.

Think about this for a moment: let's say you win and you get 6th gen included on /vr/.
The same day that happens, we'll start having threads asking for 7th gen to be included, the problem will persist.
And one kind reminder: there isn't an official set definition for "retro". Some sources say retro can be 15 years old to 50 or more. Arguing about what is "retro" is just semantics.

/v2k/ would allow 6th gen AND 7th gen and anything that isn't current gen on /v/, without destroying /vr/ in the process.

/v/ is already the biggest board of 4chan after /b/, it only makes sense that it 3 or 4 sub-boards like /vr/, /vg/, and soon to be /v2k/

>>3871536
He likes it slow and would get rid of DC here as well if he could.

>>3871532
they already don't talk much about them as much as they used to already,
time goes on and it's becoming less important on /v/ and yet /vr/ still hasn't caught up

when it comes to some threads i'd like to be able to talk about some ps2 things without having somebody screaming notretro

>>3871540
>I think it's very fast for a board that is supposed to be a split from another board.

This is 4chan. /vr/ is glacial for this site.

>Still, we've had this discussion before, and the best consensus we came up with is that we need /v2k/.

No, we have this discussion a lot and you always say that but there is always disagreement. I think /v2k is a completely pointless idea and this place could really do well with more active posters.

But we've also had this exact conversation multiple times and never agree even a little.

>>3871540
>The same day that happens, we'll start having threads asking for 7th gen to be included, the problem will persist.

This.

It's useless. We need a new board.

>>3871538
Annoyed, because the proper term is legacy product.

>>3871541
Hey you read my mind. I do like it slow and allowing Dreamcast was a mistake.

>>3871548
We did have a looooong big thread, when Hiroyuki became the new admin of 4chan, and the best consensus we had in that thread was the creation of /v2k/.
Of course it wasn't a 100% agreement consensus, but it was a generally accepted idea as the best solution for both, the guys who want to keep /vr/ as it is, and the guys who want to discuss 6th gen without /v/ shitposting.

Also, I'd like to know your opinion on what I said about what'll happen if 6th gen is allowed here, people will start asking for 7th gen as well. Would you be okay with that?

we don't need a new board, besides hirotaco is too cheap to make what is essentially another /vr/

>>3871553
I didn't read your mind, I just knew your opinionalready. We've discussed this before.

It should be in production yet but in last two years at least I tried to buy a new ps3 in various stores and online stores but no one had longer available, only the reseller at 400+€.

T. eurofag

>>3871561
No that was a different anon. WE ARE LEGION.

>>3871494
I dunno, halo fans seemed pretty bad back in 2007 but you're easily a bigger faggot than any of the ones I've seen.

>>3871417
>PS2
>new game-releases until summer of 2013
>retro
nah.

>No GBA
>No Game Cube

haha, not retro! ;Ç)

>>3871557
>and the best consensus we had in that thread was the creation of /v2k/.

I was in that thread and I think you only believe that was the consensus because it's what you want.

>Also, I'd like to know your opinion on what I said about what'll happen if 6th gen is allowed here, people will start asking for 7th gen as well. Would you be okay with that?

Optimally I would like to see /vr/ move to go by year. So anything either 10 or 15 (or even 20) years old would be open for discussion. It both makes for new games coming up for discussion on a regular basis, but keeps talk to things that are old. It also removes the question of "when can we talk about X".

Under the current rules we can have threads about modern games just because they were developed for an old console and that's one thing that genuinely doesn't feel like it fits this board.

>>3871568
what game was that?

>>3871417
There´s only one way this ends, either we allow 6th gen, or we create /v2k/ once and for all.
We can talk about Dreamcast but not about GBA. This is bullshit

What if they allowed 6th gen, but didn't allow talk about games from that generation that still have modern sequels being made? That cuts out stuff like smash, halo, cod, etc.

>>3871567
Have you even seen Sonic, CV and Final Fantasy fans?

>>3871568
snes got a new fighting game a little while ago as well.

>>3871575
Just because GBA has more limited graphics, doesn't make the games any less 6th gen than Dreamcast.

>>3871558
moot would have seen it as superfluous as well

>>3871574
remember 2014? those were the days in 8th grade amirite? xD

>>3871573
>I was in that thread and I think you only believe that was the consensus because it's what you want.

I actually just want /vr/ to stay as it is (in fact, I'd like to have more gen 1 and gen 2 discussion, but it's hard to get threads going, I try though).
I don't care for /v2k/ personally.

>Optimally I would like to see /vr/ move to go by year. So anything either 10 or 15 (or even 20) years old would be open for discussion.

Open for discussion? I can imagine spending a lot of threads arguing about if this or that game is "retro", and as I already said there isn't a set official amount of time for something to become retro.
It would be an endless argument, full of shitposting, might I add.