/vr/ - Retro Games

Fun things are fun

Almost everything is 3d nowadays, and the indies who do make 2d have terrible taste, are unskilled, or both.

>>5211247
I love fun games in general and as it turns out there were a lot of fun 2D games from the early years.

>>5211247
Because we're low IQ brainlet boomer hoarders who suck at videogames and are incapable of moving past our childhood years.

>>5211247
Because 2D is Best D

>>5211272
what makes them so fun for us anon?

>>5211286
why are they so addictive for us?!!!

>>5211292
Wrong. My D is best D.
>ask your mom

>>5211341
Good design. It isn't across the board, there are still plenty of shitty 2D games the way there are shitty 3D games. But when designed and executed well, they are wonderful.

>>5211364
Will they ever design 2D like that the same way ever again?

>>5211376
They never stopped.

>>5211272
Name of the game in your picture?

>>5211550
That's Comix Zone for SEGA Genesis.

>>5211550
Comix Zone on the SEGA Genesis

>>5211286
This

>>5211286
Actually i am 19yo and i repudiate nu-games for plenty of reasons that anyone here probably knows already (interactive movies, tons of dlcs, piss easy gameplay, just to name the tip of the iceberg). There are obviously some exceptions, yes, but they get rarer by the day. When i found out about retro gaming i never came back since. Just my two cents regarding this topic, it's not a matter of age.

I like platformers. The genre is dominated by boring SotN clones these days. Graphics in indie platformers are finally up to 16bit standards these days, so the issue of every modern 2d game looking like Atari 2600 shit is mostly resolved, but the game design just bores me.

>>5213883
It's interesting, I love old games partly because I grew up playing them and developed a lot of fondness. But I also really love a lot of new games and probably play modern stuff a lot more than old. How much of that is novelty though I can't say. If I woke up tomorrow with all the gaming memories scrubbed from my brain would it change my ratio of gaming I wonder. Would I put down Red Dead 2 for Ecco again?

I just want someone to talk to

Low IQ thread

>>5213937
ok mr retro man

>>5213940
>>>/v/

Is DOS Mugen allowed on /vr/?

I might die of old age soon

>>5213894
Probably not, because you have too much choices these days and easy ways to get pretty much everything you want; too different technologies for every kind of game. Sure, pixel art games aren't dead but they are surely boosted by todays means, running on your average well known engine instead of an original one; they also enjoy of pretty much non-existent limitations, especially regarding concrete things like the space on disk. In the end it's just a subjective matter, but if you really had a blank brain for this kind of stuff, the moment you'll see a RDR2 and an Ecco, your mind will probably be proned to the former one, i think. Yet still, not only the eye, but the brain wants his part of the action too. I would like traveling with a horse in a western setting, i would like watching a beautiful plot unraveling, i would like to interact with those people, although in a scripted manner. But wait: if that's the case, although a beautiful experience, me personally i would prefer watching a Sergio Leone's spaghetti western movie. Not shitting on RDR2, it's just that every single game today focuses on that kind of things: eye before brain. The gameplay of your average game today, is often watered down in comparison of the cinematics and graphics. If that's not the case, then the game is way too easy. And yes, i'm talking about the notorious Dark Souls too. But maybe it's just me craving for simpler things (not in the reductive sense of the term though, technically games back in the day were paradoxically a lot more complex of what we have today simply because you not only had to worry about creating a game, but you had among the other chores, to create the codes and the engine itself. The latter could be reused for other games, yes, but that's not the point). But i've digressed too much from the topic in question.
Cont

>>5214010
So, would you like RDR2 or Ecco, in that case? I dare to say that at first glance you would prefer the former, while if you're in for something that resembles a game more, maybe it's the latter. In fact, one of the most selling games to this day, is Minecraft. A game that even kids are still playing and that means that graphics alone will never do the trick alone. Said kids could value the experience of RDR2 and remember it fondly because it's objectively great (personally i don't think so, but it's not me who should judge), not far from a movie. But after having the umpteenth GTA: Movie, FPS: The Easy Interactive Movie, etc., will they discard playing a Minecraft or Terraria once again? My point is flawed because i'm comparing games that are respectively a one-experience alone and the other one being a game aimed for time sinking, but still, i wanted to prove other points. Sorry for the long papyrus, it's just that i'm fond of these games even if i had the misfortune of never experiencing them when they first launched. In the end, it's just something a lot subjective and the answer for your question isn't that easy.

>>5214010
>The gameplay of your average game today, is often watered down in comparison of the cinematics and graphics

Possibly by comparison, because the graphics are so detailed. But I'll say this being a huge long time fan of Ecco, I certainly don't find the actual gameplay in RDR2 watered down compared to Ecco (or many old games I love) though the gameplay in them is very very different.

So I might get more sucked in by the cowboy simulator, but I still regularly get sucked in by Ecco still and I've played it dozens of times. It's an interesting thought experiment because I really have no clue.

>>5214045
Sure, the comparison is stupid to begin with, but i took those two titles because not only i wanted to somehow reply to your earlier post, but because if you modify a little my whole comment you'll find out that those same two games i've mentioned are easily interchangeable with other ones. It's the end line that counts.
But yeah, although i liked to jabber a little with this topic it's a hard question and i can only talk from my personal empiricism.

>>5214079
Likewise with me, I picked those two at random but they're just two examples out of many.

>>5211247
They're fun?

>>5211247
we don't, we just like shitting on the ones we didn't play as a kid.

>>5213986
Theoretically yes, however there's not a lot to discuss other than early conversions and the drama from the early 2000s.

>>5219082
Remember when TESTP used strikes to simulate projectiles before those were part of the code?

>>5219094
I think you mean helpers. But even so, using a "helper" for a projectile is far more useful than using the actual projectile code.

>>5219104
Yeah, I mixed up the terms.

>>5211247
>we
Speak for yourself. There's only a handful of 8bit and below games I can still find fun playing. Maybe two handfuls for 16bit era. Everything after is so much more enjoyable to play.

>>5211247
your design space changes a lot when working in 2D vs in 3D, which is one of the biggest reasons the 2D->3D transition was so jank
older games were also designed to be short and sweet and something you'll want to play over and over (which I'll lazily sum up as "arcade-style" even though that's a really big oversimplification)
while modern games are longer and tend towards being more cinematic, and when you're done, there's no real incentive to play again unless you haven't played the game in some time (which I'll lazily sum up as "console-like")

so I'd say it's because retro games have arcade-style design... but also had actual budgets
you're getting something that's very different from what's made now when you play /vr/-era games

>>5219146
What are your favorite games?

2QWDV-3WRMG-3T5C3

HHBME-RJMM9-8EL6T

JIAA4-TNCRA-727V8

W2YQX-VIGNM-GI6AT

Sorry to dump this here. Extra keys from a random bundle that I don't need/want. Enjoy, anons.

>>5219342
3rd one was Scribblenauts Unmasked. Thanks anon