/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5309838
Dreamcast

>>5309838
When you can technically output 1080i (or higher), like ps2 or gamecube, it's not retro and never will be.

>>5309860
A PC running Quake in 1996 can technically output 1024p?

DirectX 8 tech. Normal mapping isn't retro, at least not to me.

>>5309838
what? retro is a purely subjective term. for this board its 1999. jesus fucking.

>>5309865
Was WinQuake actually out at that time? I think around 1998 the 1200p or 1536p threshold for consumers was actually reached.

Retro should be anything non-hd at this point.

>>5309865
PCs are a completely different topic than video game consoles, dumbass.

>>5309878
Normal mapping can be done in DirectX 7 as well.
I think some NVIDIA demos from 1999 demonstrated this.

>>5309838
when bump maps, bloom and stencil shadows became mainstream
I'd say mid 2004

>>5309938
Nobody said it had to only be about consoles, dipshit.

>>5309916
DOS Quake supports 1024p too.
Quake 2 had 1200p, and Quake 3 had 1536p. Not sure if the former was possible on consumer hardware in OpenGL, though.

>>5309938
Sure, but is it fair to hold them to different standards? Especially when consoles were becoming very similar to PCs, the need to distinguish them in terms of graphics capabilities grew moot.

>>5309942
The Sega Hikaru could do very, very primitive normal mapping and it ran on DirectX 6.

>>5309967
A lot of hardware could do some limited forms of bump mapping.
There is emboss bump mapping, which works by moving an overlaid texture around in software depending on light direction, and it looks terrible, but hey, bump mapping in 1998!

>>5309965
Yes, they have different standards as they're completely different price points and functionalities.

>>5309942

I thought it needed per pixel lighting. And that EMBM doesn't, but it's limited to shiny surfaces.

DirectX versions do a pretty good job of categorizing 3D technology eras

DX5 - Initial wave of mainstream 3D acceleration
DX6 - Multitextures and full 32-bit colors
DX7 - High poly T&L and some normal mapping
DX8 - Programmable shaders and end of fixed function paradigm
DX9 - Floating point calculations and HDR
DX10 - Unification of shaders and general computing, end of dedicated graphics paradigm

>>5309984
Fuck you pleb

>>5309838
1999

>>5310020
You can do some hacky per pixel lighting in DX7.
Basically, you light up each vertex with RGB values as if they were vectors to the light. The hardware then interpolates this across the triangles as usual. The interpolated result is then DOT3'd with a normal map, and you are done!
It works because the normal normal map is blue when it points directly up, and blue is the color of a vector also pointing directly up. Similarly, red parts of the normal map are multiplied with the red vertex lighting, indicating that the light direction is off to the side.

>>5309942
I wrote the code for producing environment-mapped bump mapping into Expendable, natively running in DX6. Philip Scott integrated it into the existing renderer. Our approach used greyscale maps with 64 values. Added at the end of development, it was pitched as a sales tactic and officially only worked properly on cards with G400 graphics chips.

>>5310052
My instinct is to never trust such a claim on 4chan, but for some reason, I believe you.
Did you also work on Incoming? My 5 year old self was addicted to it.
And why DX over OpenGL?

If we're going by DirectX versions, I think DX8 was the last one that was still in a transitional period between retro and modern (learning heavily toward the later). DX9 is the point where things became squarely modern.

>>5310057
No, that was done by another internal team, but both projects shared some code, specifically for the renderer and audio related stuff.

No consumer hardware had acceptable support (if any) for OpenGL at time, that was mostly reserved for expensive workstation cards. DX had a more limited feature set and was slower, but at least the user base was existent.

>>5309878
>>5310073
You guys are idiots. Of course D8 wasn't retro. D7 wasn't retro. D7 wouldn't run on Windows 95. D7 was released at the very very end of 1999. And in general the graphics from games of that era on pc look too nice to be "retro"

>>5310275
>1999 onward games look to good to be retro

Well, according to /vr/ rules the Dreamcast is retro.
So all graphics in Dreamcast games are retro as well.
Personally it's still a hard sell to accept Shenmue graphics as retro, but I expect that will pass in time.

>>5309838
Retro is anything that's no longer being sold in stores, unless it's being sold as a retro product.

When Gamestop stopped carrying PS2 games, they became retro, but people here can't face the truth. Any car older than 20 years is considered classic.

Who gives a shit anyway? Retro gaming is about nostalgia and being impressed with games that pushed its hardware to its limits, that means that PS2 can now be retro because it's nostalgic for a lot of people now.

>>5309938
US courts declared consoles computers.

>>5310558
Dreamcast did have a lot of things going for it in theory, but I think even Shenmue has that retro look. The little shading there is looks baked. Compare it to Silent Hill 3, it looks like a generation ahead. Does the PS2 use per pixel lighting, or is it all highly tessellated gouraud?

>>5309860
PS2 and GC are absolutely, 100% retro.

Programmable shader (Direct X 8.1)

>>5310696

Never will be.

>>5310696
Are you sure about that?

>>5309865
Most people's pc's in 1996 were shit
You had to buy a soundblaster 16 just to get normal sounds from a mortal kombat CD-rom.

>>5309938
Plus a $1200 dollar PC in 1996 would have to be upgraded with soundcard and other shit.

>>5309965
No consumer hardware would require graphic cards with special outputs and soundcard maybe a ram increase too.

Computers in 1996 played solitude and Kings quest.

If you wanted to play anything modern you have to pay for more hardware.

>>5310696
Yeah but they are fully 3-d and capable of good graphics.

>>5310678
I wouldn't know for sure. Would have to watch that one DFRetro video again.
It certainly doesn't look like per pixel lightning.

>RETRO RETRO WAIT THIS NUT RETRO
you should all kys

>>5310719
DX7 tier hardware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEFWdiWiBa0

>>5310747
Those graphics looks like shit, so yeah, looks retro to me.

>>5310893
Better fur rendering than Smash Ultimate.

>>5309860
Such an ignorant and just generally dumb thing to say

>>5310275
Windows 95 supports DirectX 8.0, imbecile.

The board needs to be renamed 20th Century Gaming, so these "everything becomes retro eventually" people will leave for good.

>>5309838
Technically any computer equivalent to a Turing machine can render photorealistic graphics. Even something like the humble NES could raytrace, just not in real time, and displayed graphics would be at the mercy of the color depth and tile-based nature of the graphics hardware.

Imo, the biggest difference between modern and retro consoles is system architecture. Modern systems have become extremely homogenous, hardware-wise, from memory hierarchies to graphics pipelines. Retro systems I feel have much more diversity in how to approach things. For instance, the SNES wavetable-based audio vs. the Genesis FM synth are completely different ways of generating sound, giving these systems a lot of character from a developer's perspective. Modern systems just play back things from mass storage.

Following this line of thought, I would argue both PS2 and GBA are retro because of their unique hardware designs. GBA is clearly a limited system due to it's tile-based graphics (yes you could brute force realtime 3d, but not well). The PS2 graphics pipeline heavily relied on accumulation buffer effects, giving it both a unique programming and stylistic character. Any more modern than these two, and hardware is just too samey; only the availability of games and different services distinguish systems these days.

1992

>>5310910
This game was so fuckin disappointing

A game is "retro" if it is 20 years or older, period.

All pre-hd consoles. So basically everything gen 7 and forward is not retro, everything else before that is fair game.

I love how this is just a low key thread just to be able to talk about the PS2/Gamecube on /vr/. Get it through your heads, they're not retro.

>>5311326
IT'S NOT FAIR MY CHILDHOOD SHOULD BE RETRO NOW TOO

>>5311179
This was my first, and for at least a month, only Gamecube game. I was massively let down.

>>5309838
/vr/ rule is perfect imo, I wouldn't want to talk about GTA V on retrogaming forums in some years from now

>>5309838
>One might say that the millennium rule still applies
Only a fucking idiot believes that. Retro games are constantly being released, even today. Retro is an aesthetic design choice, it has nothing to do with the age of the product.
The arbitrary cutoff rule on /vr/ that never changes, even as the years go by, is utterly insane.

>>5311479
>the arbitrary rule that wwii began in 1939, that never changes, even as the years go by, is utterly insane
>so what about mixels
>1-pixel wide legs is retro
I hate you so much.

6th gen will never be retro, no matter how many disguised thread are made about it.

>>5310910
The "poly shell" method, neat. Worked also good for grass.

1999 normal mapping.

>>5309838
No one but /vr/ still thinks ps2 isn't "retro". The biggest reason I avoid this sub is that the discussion is stagnant because people pretend retro isn't what everyone else thinks it is.

>>5310736
Are you sure about that?

>>5310910
>>5310747
Low resolution, low polygon, standards we haven't used in 15+ years, clunky everything, etc.

>>5311534
Are you sure about that?

>>5309838
All the people ITT like some kids cartoon show

>BUT DA RULEZ SAY IT AIN'T RETRO
>ALL HAIL DA RULEZ

Sort of pathetic that 4chan is behind Reddit, Resetera, rom sites, tumblr, twitter, etc. about the 6th generation and it being retro. All because people can't grow a pair of nuts and say it like it is, too busy taking it in some false sense of being in a club that likes to pretend. Bunch of weak spineless fucks in here. Stop bending over and accept it. I hope you all bitch for months when 4chan finally catches up to the rest of the internet.


Definition of Retro: Imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past.

>bbbb...but, recent past will always be the 90's. r-r-right?

>>5311703
The formative years of the industry will never change.

>>5309878
Is that JK Simmonds?

>>5311703
>so young that fairly odd parents was his childhood show

>>5311681
>Low resolution
This is a 2018 release running at 304x170. Is it retro?

>>5311764
>fetuses are screeching to allow gaylo in /vr/
who would've thought

>>5311764
>Being a child in 2001 is considered young today
Whatever you say, grandpa.

>>5311703
literally all retro means in this context is games pre 6th gen, nothing else
if you love the rest of the internet so much, stay there, people like you are the reason /v/ is /b/+/pol/

>>5310917
You're right but I stand by saying D7 ain't retro

>>5310696
Everyone old enough to rent a car in a first world country disagrees with you.

>>5311837
And that's a valid assertion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwkzPXUQVo

>>5311839
>People owning cars right now were born after the Gamecube

>>5311770
>Is it retro?

>>5311941
a huge mistake and a tragedy for us all

>>5310558
shenmue only has "high" poly models, nothing out of the ordinary

>>5311179
dinosaur planet 64 dump FUCKING WHEN

>>5310025
What is your peak DX7 game?

>>5310558
Shenmue, like many other Dreamcast games, looks retro to me, because it looks like a Sega arcade game from a few years earlier.

>>5311169
yes anon, and the voyager 2 will reach the nearest star in 40000 years

>>5310803
So was the Dreamcast, pre-2000 arcade hardware and pre-2000 PC hardware.

>>5311349
>>5309838
I like the /vr/ rule for /vr/. When 2020 comes, I'd like to see a separate /v2k/ board for games from 2000-2009. I don't care much for the second half of the Naughts, but I would enjoy a board for Deus Ex, GTA III, Max Payne, VtMB, Half-Life 2 (Beta) and even the PC indie games of that time.

>>5312602
There are entire, dedicated website forums for Deus Ex, HL2, GTA etc...

>>5312617
Your point being?

>>5312618
They don't really need more places to discuss them. It just divides conversation. Whereas there aren't that many places on the web to discuss specifically retro PC games. This one is well established. Good luck with your non-retro, retro board for Halo 2 and all that though.

>>5312617
And there's even more forums dedicated to /vr/ related discussion, guess it's time to delete this slow redundant board since /vr/ shit can apparently be discussed on /v/ without jannies throwing a fit.

>>5312602
we really need a new board for 6th and 7th generation, I can't talk about ut2004 anywhere

>>5310052
My friend got into trouble for owning expendable when his big brother ratted on him owning a "violent murder simulator" to his parents. I think he had to make up that he borrowed it from me or something.

>>5309838
Graphical fidelity isn't really an important metric. A better one is time. Once a console is 20 years old, it will end up being considered retro because the people who were kids when they came out will be nearly 30, falling out of modern games, and going back to shit they played as kids.
I think that systems older than 50 years should probably be considered 'classic' but after enough generations there'll be too many labels for them to be useful. Plus the SNES is comparatively 100 times more playable than the N64, and I doubt 2D games will be iterated upon so much that SNES becomes unplayable. I think that eventually VR will finally be widely adopted and everything will be pre-VR and post-VR. Even 2D games since VR can stretch the game screen across your entire FOV.
>>5309860
>Never will be
Gamecube and PS2 are coming dangerously close. The future is soon, old man.

>>5311656
Who in their right mind thought that shitty tech demo looked good? Look at those fucking ground textures.

>>5312617
>HL2
Half Life 2 ran on windows 98, and like all windows 98 games is eligible for discussion in the /vr/ forums.

>>5312665
Hl2 is also 15 years old. At the point when it released 15 years ago would've been during the active nes lifecycle.
Hl2 is very retro even if you're mentally stuck in the 90s because psychosis reasons.

>>5312660
>soon
You guys have been saying the same thing for literally 10 years. Good luck with that.

>>5312676
You got a screencap to back up that claim?

>>5312676
>/vr/ has been up since 2009

>>5312674
>during the active nes lifecycle.
The only Nintendo games in 2003-2004 were on the Gamecube, DS and GBA.

>>5312621
>It just divides conversation.
That's the intention. "Divides the conversation" is the mirror image of "keeps out the retards". It's a funny thing to say about an imageboard, but the established forums for all those games are the bad old kind. You know, the kind that circlejerks about their post counts and has barely coherent posters with posts always shorter than their signatures. Do I need to reiterate Shii's essay here?

Equally important is the fact that the board's focus would be a time period and not a particular series or platform. This way /v9k/ would be able to expose you to underrated games from that period, like /vr/ has been for older titles.

>>5312643
Think of it this way. Sooner or later, the treasure trove of pre-1999 games will be completely strip-mined. It's getting close to that. This is not the case with the 2000s yet. A decently sized imageboard will definitely unearth some interesting stuff. Halo 2 threads are a small price to pay for it.

>>5312665
Don't.

>>5312665
But the minimum printed requirement is a 1.2 Ghz processor, which I don't believe were commercially available until 2000.

>>5312676
>You guys have been saying the same thing for literally 10 years
By my arbitrarily-chosen metric, we'll be waiting another roughly 2 years. Early PS2 might as well be retro, but the system as a whole isn't as it's still slightly too recent.
Give it some time. I'm sure that other people saying the same thing have gotten you tired of waiting, but time marches equally for us all. You may live to see the day where people call PS3 retro. Maybe even PS4 if you're young enough. And one day nobody will play NES games outside of intellectual interest in old video games.

>>5312681
May, 2013
"Gamecube and PS2 will be retro soon"
source: >>/vr/thread/711970#713356

January, 2019
"Gamecube and PS2 are coming dangerously close. The future is soon"
Source: this thread, (you)

Good luck with that. Just keep waiting. I'm sure it's coming soon. Any day now in fact.

>>5312718
he will be right though. eventually

>>5312692
15 years back from hl2's release you dumb nigger. HALF LIFE 2 IS FIFTEEN YEARS OLD YOU RETARDED STUCK IN THE PAST SCHIZOPHRENIC

>>5312718
That guy wasn't me, but whatever.
Congrats, you found a guy in 2013 who used the non-specific term 'soon' to refute my claim that the PS2 will be definitely be retro sometime around 2020. Great point? NOT haha this was a thing in the 90's right? I don't remember them on account of being born too late.
Anyway, are we talking about when consoles will be considered by people in general to be retro or are we talking about when /vr/ will allow things to be considered retro as per board rules? Because IMO no new consoles should be added to /vr/ and instead, should demand be high enough, a new retro board should be made for 6th gen exclusively, adding gens as time goes on. If we're talking about in general though, PS2 and Gamecube (especially Gamecube) are seen as retro by younger people. 18-early 20somethings. It's not really hard to see- just look at the rise of GC and PS2 collecting and look at how younger retro gaming channels treat the Gamecube in particular. It's a matter of time until the next generation of YouTubers (internet time, so like 2 or 3 years) start calling Gamecube and PS2 retro and influencing the greater internet to accepting it as fact.

>>5312705
Ps2 is literally almost 20 years old and from a graphics point of view early and mid generational ps2 games are a lot closer to the n64 than current gaming graphics.
I think the problem is that some people here simply stopped playing recent games. Even shit like gears of war looks positively dated these days.

>>5312695
>But the minimum printed requirement is a 1.2 Ghz processor, which I don't believe were commercially available until 2000.

The platform (windows 9x) is the discussion point. This is basically any directx 7 release games. You cannot limit a PC game to the hardware that currently runs it, or you will shut down most of the doom mod discussions.

>>5312740
>PS2 and Gamecube (especially Gamecube) are seen as retro by younger people.
PS2, GC and Xbox are certainly no less retro than a dreamcast. I have always said that if one, why not all of them. Basically, there is a buttfrustrated group of autists that refuse to allow any competition with their dreamcast, because it will become an inferior talking point
>But all the noobs will talk about halo and smash
Great, so instead we only have endless threads about Zelda & Mario 64 and Doom. Doom Doom. When the systems are 20 years old, just start discussions about them. If enough people do this, there will be no choice.

>>5312759
>PS2, GC and Xbox are certainly no less retro than a dreamcast.
cool opinion but it's wrong and that's why the rules are how they are: perfectly designed. stay mad zoomer

>>5312759
Ps2 is absolutely retro. It looks like a n64 with slightly higher quality textures most of the time. It's still very low res and low poly.

>>5312765
> looks like a n64
> very low res and low poly
ok now this is just getting stupid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uCOnFaxli0

>>5312759
The mods deleted a post yesterday where someone tried to claim Half-Life 2 was allowed on /vr/, so they apparently don't agree. Half-life 2 was a game made for a computers made after 1999. Doom was a game made for computers before 1999 that people have since pressed further.

>>5312763
>cool opinion but it's wrong and that's why the rules are how they are
Don't mind my Source engine discussion threads then. Rules are rules.

>>5312660
>I think that systems older than 50 years should probably be considered 'classic' but after enough generations there'll be too many labels for them to be useful. Plus the SNES is comparatively 100 times more playable than the N64


Atleast the PS1 is still highly playable

>>5312772
No, it's not. The ps2 is a lot closer to the n64 than to the ps4 performance wise. No silent hill 3 is gonna change that. You mentally ill boomers with your "stuck in the late 90s" psychosis need to move on.
Ps2 is most definitely retro at this point.

>>5312776
i didn't mention anything about source engine stupid ass

>>5312784
keep dreaming. "SOON!" good luck

>>5312759
>I have always said that if one, why not all of them
I think that at face value the Dreamcast change was a bad idea, but realistically it was the best choice. In my ideal future where a new /vr/ type board starts with the 6th gen, Dreamcast discussion would be absolutely shat on by discussion of the other 2 consoles, especially after gen 7 becomes retro. Most people treat Dreamcast as older/more retro than PS2 since it was discontinued so early in the life cycle, so ultimately it makes sense, even if it doesn't when you define retro with console generations rather than with what people generally feel.
>>5312779
PS1 sure, but you don't have to look very hard to find people describing PS1 games as "hard to play" because they're used to games made after developers figured out how to 3D. It's even worse for the N64.

>>5312759
>The platform (windows 9x) is the discussion point.
Is Windows 98 a platform? I thought it was an operating system and PC was the platform because of how interchangeable the parts tend to be (like how most boxes list the requirement as Win 98/2000/ME, since they're not made for one in particular). PCs just have part specifications that define compatibility unlike consoles. Hence I'd say that any game that requires a PC that couldn't have been built by a consumer before 1999 doesn't run on a platform that was available in 1999.

>>5312804
*3 consoles
I should also say that, even as a zoomer, the PS2 era has an intangible upgrade in quality to it that the Dreamcast doesn't quite live up to. It's a console trapped between generations.
Man, we think this is bad, I wonder how the next generation is going to fare with classifying the Wii U or Switch as retro or not.

>>5312785
>i didn't mention anything about source engine stupid ass
Apologies. This was meant as a response to another poster.

>>5312773
>The mods deleted a post yesterday where someone tried to claim Half-Life 2 was allowed on /vr/
I have had source discussions without the mods deleting them. The platform is Windows 98, and the game is designed to run on that platform. It says it right on the box. You can update hardware on a pc to nearly contemporary levels and enjoy a windows 98 PC and its games. Some fixes are needed at times, but Windows 98 and DirectX 7 predates the new millennium. I don't make the rules, or enforce them. I stay within the lines.

We could talk about FIFA 2005. It came a month before Half Life 2.

>>5312804
>I think that at face value the Dreamcast change was a bad idea, but realistically it was the best choice.
It was a bad choice because it opens Pandora's box. It doesn't belong, but IF it does, we should be able to talk about its competition. Of course its competition runs circles around it because they were better systems made by more powerful companies. Sega did that to themselves. Looking back, I am still surprised that the dreamcast even happened at all.

>>5312817
>I have had source discussions without the mods deleting them.
Are you sure? I'm looking through the archives and all I can find about Source are a bunch of deleted posts from some guy claiming that Source engine discussion is now allowed because GZDoom is on-topic.

>>5312832
>Are you sure?
Any discussions I have been involved it lasted longer than my attention span. I am not looking at what you are, so I can't comment.

>>5312825
>IF it does, we should be able to talk about its competition
Again, I agree in principle, but since the Dreamcast is so technologically inferior to the rest of the 6th gen, it just sorta 'feels' more retro. And at the end of the day, whether something's retro or not is all based on feelings.
Plus, I'm sure that anyone who wants to discuss the Dreamcast is just fine with the idea that people can't immediately BTFO their beloved failure by bringing up the PS2. The rules suit them juuuuust fine.
>t. Wii U and Vita owner, hopeful future DC owner

>>5312851
>but since the Dreamcast is so technologically inferior to the rest of the 6th gen
But is is vastly superior to the entire 5th generation at the same time.

>>5312857
>But is is vastly superior to the entire 5th generation at the same time.
Hey Stuck in the 90s boomer, get your psychosis treated. Dreamcast is retro. Dreamcast is fucking 20 years old. Ps2 is retro.
Ps3 is almost retro at this point. You are mentally stuck.

>>5312872
>i'm wrong and so dumb that i don't even realize that i'm posting a screenshot of emulation

>>5312872
Remember back in like 2013 when /vr/ called people out on this shit and sent them back to /v/? This fucker's been all over the thread and everyone keeps taking him seriously

>>5312872
>Ps2 is retro.
You have me confused with someone who disagrees with you.

I may not have been totally clear, but here is my angle.

IF the Dreamcast is retro, so too is every other system of that generation, including the PS2, the Gamecube and the Xbox. Dreamcast should not be a discussion point when there is no competition.

>>5312883
That was almost 10 years ago you dumb nigger.
Kids who were 10 back then are now entering college.

>>5312878
Unlike on a crt where it magically looks like a ps4 game? GET YOUR PSYCHOSIS TREATED BOOMER! DREAMCAST IS RETRO, PS2 IS RETRO AND PS3 WILL SOON BE RETRO TOO.

>>5312890
You know, I know you're trolling, but you raise a good point. Since gen 7 was so long, there's probably going to be a really awkward transition period where early PS3 is seen as retro while later PS3 isn't. My guess is that /vr2/ or whatever is going to pick an arbitrary cutoff point somewhere in the middle of the console's life cycle to choose as the cutoff point.

>>5312914
Isn't it the same for ps2 basically? Early gen games looked worse than dreamcast in some cases while late ps2 games were on an entirely different level.

>>5312890
no on a CRT it looks worse. have fun with your trolling, ps2 isn't allowed here btw. if you make a ps2 thread it will be deleted because it's not retro.

>>5312914
In many cases ps3 is what people think about when they say ps2 graphics.

>>5312914
>You know, I know you're trolling, but you raise a good point.
A forum for a few generations of video games would be swell. 5th generation and above and no current gen. This would be more than enough to have some sort of quality discussions in between the shitposts and trolling. I am not even joking one bit. I wouldn't even know what to call it. If this is "retro", and /v/ is video games, would it be called Modern classic video games?

>>5312928
>if you make a ps2 thread it will be deleted because it's not retro.

>>5307638
>>5306943
>>5304962

>>5312932
I bet atarifags would like to have a word with you nes babies and your complex scrolling graphics that are NOT RETRO.

>>5309838
Anything with shaders. Note however that quite a few effects like normalmapping from >>5309878
could be done without a shader (for instance Dreamcast was capable of reflections and normalmaps)

>>5309860
>>5309865
>>5309916
>>5309965
Quake and Duke could go up to 1600x1200 if your monitor had them listed as available res in drivers. Unreal and Quake 2 were completely scalable through console to any resolution you want including non-standard and ultrawide, even up to 3200x2400 of that one IBM monitor. Unreal windowed mode could even be dragged around dynamically to any res/aspect you want.

>>5312938
none of those are ps2 threads, or about playing ps2 games, or xbox games, or ps4 games, or anything.
they're about emulating RETRO games (below ps2, which is not retro)
but you know this

Stop replying to the trolling cunt with weird capitalization. You are only going to get formulaic answers in return.

>>5312930
Nah nigga, that screenshot has too many polygons for anyone with a triple digit IQ to think it's a PS2 game.
>>5312932
That's what I was talking about essentially except just keeping it 5th gen for now. 6th gen gets plenty of discussion on /v/ as it is currently. 5th gen too, but when the PS5 comes out I imagine that'll change somewhat.
I think that anything pre-PS2 (not including Dreamcast of course) should probably be called classic at some point in the future since they're getting old enough. Isn't the rule for cars that anything over 30 years old is classic?
Anyway, pre-crash video games should be called vintage or something, and Magnavox Odyssey and older shouldn't even be labeled because nobody plays those games other than for intellectual curiosity except for maybe pong and some 40-50 year olds who play Atari sometimes. Eventually PS2 to like PS5 will be considered retro, and that's when my naming scheme will make sense.
>>5312940
There should be a TvTropes page for "the troll has a good point" cause buddy you're exemplifying this hypothetical trope very well.

>>5312957
>Nah nigga, that screenshot has too many polygons
Do boomers have crt-style interpolation built into their eyes that transform jagged low poly edges into smooth round surfaces?

>>5312952
>none of those are ps2 threads
How did I know that this would be your response? Every link I provided you is not at all about retro systems, but the 3rd link is certainly about Ps2.
>>5304962
>Why does PS1, even non-emulated on an HDTV in 240p, look so much fucking better than PS2? What the fuck happened? How can Dreamcast look so fucking good in 480p while PS2 looks like such shit?

>>5312957
>Isn't the rule for cars that anything over 30 years old is classic?
In my state there are "classic" tags for 20 years, and "antique" for 30.

>>5312957
>There should be a TvTropes page for "the troll has a good point"
I googled a little and found https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanHasAPoint, which isn't too far.

>>5312961
You're replying to a literal zoomer. September '99. There's a very clear polygon count increase that comes with the 7th gen. Some of the environment textures are pretty Gamecube-tier in that screenshot though. There still being jaggies doesn't make that image look like a PS2 game.
>>5312964
Good example of off-topic thread. MODS MODS MODS
>>5312965
Hey, there we go, call pre-crash consoles vintage and Magnavox Odyssey and older antique.
>>5312969
nice

>>5312975
>You're replying to a literal zoomer. September '99.
Found the issue
>everything from before when I was born is retro because I didnt exist yet
>everything afterwards isn't

>>5312975
>There's a very clear polygon count increase that comes with the 7th gen
Nah

>>5312984
...Aren't you ignoring that a zoomer would find early PS3 even more jarring because they're used to PS4? If you're trolling and not genuinely stupid, you're doing a much better job than the other guy.

PS5 will make the PS2 retro

>>5312990
I don't care about what zoomers think.

>>5312975
>Hey, there we go, call pre-crash consoles vintage and Magnavox Odyssey and older antique.
Honestly considering the 1983 crash as a basis for a new "epoch" in gaming would be a great way to look at it. It was a fresh start to the market, and there were many technological and legal leaps that changed everything afterward. There is a reason why games like Mario and Zelda are used as a metric for all games afterward, and not pong and donkey kong. Let the "2nd generation" and earlier systems to /vr/ and 3rd and subsequent to a different board.

>>5312994
>PS5 will make the
Ps4 pro is the PS5.

Xbox One X is the Xbone2

>>5312997
Now you're hip with the other troll's ability level.
>>5312989
(You)
>>5313001
I don't think that board split makes sense. For gaming historians (really needs to be a better name for that) the distinction is important, but for us it really hardly matters. /vr/ is for retro game discussion, not for being video game scholars. The nature of this board being more of a social space than an intellectual one means that nothing pre-NES is really talked about in the first place other than a few arcade games and Pong. If /vr/ were to follow the times, we'd see NES discussion greatly fall off in about 5 years or so as younger people get older and find NES (and 5th gen to a degree) games unplayable. Shit like Atari is the same thing, and nobody really talks about the Magnavox Odyssey because nobody here really wants to talk about it.
>>5312994
Smart fella. More of a matter of coincidental timing than generational change though imo

>>5313031
>The nature of this board being more of a social space than an intellectual one
I can agree that there is very little intellectual discussion here any more. Simple questions frequently digress into a virtual shit-flinging over off topic points involving:
>Just get a PVM
>Just emulate
>Just use your PC
Illiteracy runs rampant, and meme tier garbage is passed off as acceptable.

>>5313059
No kidding. The irony of getting nostalgic over a nostalgia board isn't lost on me, but I still must say that this board was much better in 2013 and 2014. I stopped browsing 4chan regularly in 2014 and didn't come back until 2017, so I'll just assume that the increased site traffic from 2016 is to blame for this board's decay along with the rest of the more popular boards.
Fuck's sake, I can hardly believe that zoomer and boomer are regularly used on this board. I feel like that would get instantly mocked and stamped out in the early days, although I suppose that example is just replacing newfag and oldfag anyway.
All that said, this is still probably the best place to discuss retro games without upvote/downvote safe spaces or shitty forums where retards always stir up drama and jack off to their post count. Still, I could do without the shitty trolling and people taking it seriously.

>>5312994
Console "generations" are over, until the next big step in technology and fidelity.
New consoles will be made and released, since the companies want to make money, but for now we will only have iterations of existing technologies, especially considering that consoles now are just cut down PCs in the hardware department, so PS5 will be more like PS 4.1 - same shit with just a bit more horsepower plugged in.

PS2 will never be truly "retro". The best solution would probably be a new board for just "old gen" games (2001-2010), keeping /vr/ to what it is now.

NURBS
U
R
B
S

>>5311941
>>5312301
to be fair kids today are less likely than ever to have driver's licenses by 18

if we're going to divide video games into eras, then it should be based on technology, as is done with movies, such as with the silent era, then the early talkies, then color films, and now digital. the first era of video games is the 2d pixel era (beginning-~1995), then there is the low-poly 3d era (~1996-~2005), and finally the nearly photo-realistic era (~2006-present). if there's an era following this last one, i'm guessing it'll be the full vr era. dates are rough, there are plenty of earlier examples of some of these, but they're basically correct for wide adoption of new technology. i think pretty much anything from before the "nearly photo-realistic" era could be considered "retro" (ie "classic"), but that's just my opinion.

>>5313217
>nearly photo-realistic era (~2006-present)
What a crock of shit. Look up oblivion to see why you are wrong.

>>5313073
You definitely sound like you were not here in the earlier years. It has never been any different, except for the short period when we allowed DC and had some new threads. Now those are old and shitty too.

>>5313224
not him but
>1 game means he's wrong

>>5313224
i was actually thinking of oblivion as the cutoff point. some games from 2006 still look fantastic though, e.g. gears of war

>>5313094
>PS2 will never be truly "retro"

You should try and look the definition of retro up. By the time you find out how to use a dictionary, all of the shit on /vr/ will be so old it won't even count as "retro" and will instead be classified as vintage. (considering vintage is 20 years or older, we are actually only months away from the entirety of this board being about vintage)

>>5313226
Maybe I'm nostalgiatripping hard. But I definitely remember people shitting on /v/ posters who used memes on /vr/, and arguments about original hardware vs flashcards vs emulation were just those: arguments. I've started browsing again for about a month, and those threads are basically just shitposting without real arguments, although without flashcard updates I guess there's no point in arguing after 5 years.

>>5313156
NURBS are super-important. Not for games(even if you can freeze your NURBS models into polys), because their is no good way to render NURBS surfaces on modern GPUs, but for the automotive and design industry.

>>5313231
Gears of War looks REALLY dated these days.

>>5313231
I wouldn't go as far as calling GoW "fantastic". Graphical fidelity of an iphone game basically.

Time is the simpler and better metric. Everything else ends up too complicated to agree upon.
15-20 years seems very much acceptable. That is a measure of time used often enough to define something als old (in cars for example).
However, you have to look at the whole lifetime of a video game generation, not just the beginning. PS2 had way longer legs than most, so that is not very helpful. But you can spot the next generation more easily: the launch of the Xbox 360. I do believe the majority would agree there.
I'm fine with the /vr/ rules as they are now. I think it would be ok if PS2 would be considered retro 15 years after the beginning of the 360, i.e. the generation that followed PS2. That would be November 2020. Still enough time left.
Also Dreamcast is a bit of an exception, since it did not have a next generation sega console, being the last one.

>>5313224
>>5313232
PS2-era would never look good either for the most part
It's the time when people decided they finally CAN go for photorealism, but actually couldn't. Games with stylised visuals look fine. "Realistic" 3D however just couldn't look good until recently.

>>5313298
I like how GoW exemplifies everything that was wrong with Unreal Engine 3.

>>5313298
What's wrong with that?

>>5313304
We wouldn't keep having these dumbass threads if the retards here wouldn't have picked a time sensitive word like retro

>>5313298
i mean it's very visually appealing (compared to eg oblivion which looks like crap). obviously graphics have advanced since then. but that was the first step toward a kind of genuinely photo-realistic look, which is my point.

>>5313398
>but that was the first step toward a kind of genuinely photo-realistic look, which is my point
Dunno, silent hill 3 looks more "photo realistic" to me. Gears of war look like a bunch of sausage men in a plastic world made of low poly buildings.

>there are people ITT who want ps2-vs-xbox-shitwars in /vr/
pls no

>>5313298
Damn...

>>5313398
I don't know. Oblivion has a colorful style not unlike many games of its time. GoW in a way was ahead of its time, as it lead the path towards hazy desaturated games that plagued that console generation.
It took a long time for games to settle on physically based rendering, but that alone doesn't make a game look pleasing, though it sure was a step in the right direction.

>>5309838
I would say that it’s “individual polygons difficult to notice.”, but the Dreamcast already reached that point in ‘99

>>5313632
>There are people that want the same threads for all eternity in /vr/
pls no

>>5314154
Is it okay to say I like 1 better? It’s obviously lower poly, but the art direction and lighting is much better.

>>5314397
3 was around the time the market as a whole decided for some reason that focus aberrations like bloom and DoF, as well as things like incredibly dulling saturation, were somehow usable.
It's not entirely the engine's fault for putting in such options. But that they were used makes it far less desirable in my opinion, at least for that comparison. Though I believe that's the point of the image.

>>5314360
Is it true that Le Mans has more than 4M polygons per second? I thought I read that 3M was the practical limit, which DoA2 reached.

>>5314637
The key lies in optimizing your draw and culling processes.

>>5314371
>There are entire boards dedicated to contemporary video gaming, but they insist on shitting up an unrelated board.
Xb360 is not retro. All posts discussing xb360 belong in /trash/

>>5314646
Sure, but it isn't quite X amount of polygons if you cull them, no? Numbers are usually derived from on-screen geometry. DoA 2 uses character models with ~9000 triangles, so the dualists alone add up to 1 million triangles per second. There is no denying that few if any PC games at the time could compare, but Sega fanboys love to tout how Le Mans crushes the competition with no empirical proof of its polycount beyond a journalistic article.

>>5314809
Who said anything about the 360? The debate is about the 6th generation.
And as a reminder, this is a PC port of an original Xbox game. Retro? I think not.

the PS3/360 era is basically retro now since the definition of retro is a design of sorts form the past. The NES was considered Retro during the N64 era and so was the SNES during the end of the N64 era and the N64 was retro during the PS3 era etc.

The rules on this board is to keep the discussion on older consoles if not the board would be full of discussion from the PS2 and it'd dominate most of the threads which is what they wanted to avoid. If there was any consistency then none of the 3D systems would be here and GBA would be allowed for being mostly 2D.

>>5314995
Hey, look at that pixelated texture, guess it's retro now xD

the PS4/Xbone era is basically retro now since the definition of retro is a design of sorts form the past. The SNES was considered Retro during the Wii era and so was the N64 during the end of the Wii U era and the Wii was retro during the PS4 era etc.

The rules on this board is to keep the discussion on older consoles if not the board would be full of discussion from the PS3 and it'd dominate most of the threads which is what they wanted to avoid. If there was any consistency then none of the 3D systems would be here and NDS would be allowed for being mostly 2D.

>>5311703
retro is to all encompassing a term. technically retro just means old, but not so old, because think retro clothing style, right now that put put it in the 60-70~ but victorian would also fit under retro but has its own term.

>>5312872
Get out Zoomshit

>>5309838
Some people define retro by graphics, but honestly this is the worst way to do it.

style of game and game play mechanics are a far better metric for retro.

let's say you put out a good 2d tennis game today, calling the game retro style would put it in the same category as an atari tennis game, but especially with tennis outside of vr, you could easily create a full feature tennis game without the need for even want of 3d.

that's why retro would be better defined by generations, or even still, buy control schemes.

a good example would be doom, source port of doom, and then brutal doom giveing a clear
"this is when you had no vertical aim"
"this is when vertical aim came in"
"This is when modern controls/gunplay came in"

hate doom/sourceport/burtal doom all you want, doom is one of the exceptionally rare/few games that has so much work done on it that it clearly spans through various generations of game design and game feel. on the topic of first person shooters, there is a clear delineation from 2d maps projected into 3d, real 3d, real 3d models, and then guns that fire not at a set interval regardless of player input. take a pistol for example, even a semi auto can fire some 700-1200 rounds a minute, but are limited to how fast you can pull the trigger, now go into games that dont allow for this and how poor many of the guns feel due to not responding to inputs.

at the very least what defines retro to me are archaic gameplay philosophies, like the early games that ramped difficulty so high because they were based on quarter eaters, rather then having a length game by other means, donkey kong 64 was the best example and also the worst of the never ending collectihon that killed that gameplay style for quite a while.

>>5312737
and this is why retro as a term is fucking useless for games,

>>5312930
Gotta love those 'this looks like a playstation game' arguments, look at the screenshots, and it's clearly at least ps3 if not ps4 level graphics.

fucking delusional people can't remember what systems actually looked like.

>>5312932
Non current hardware board- it would facilitate any game discussions that isn't on current hardware/wasn't made when current hardware is out for pc games

a few boards spaced out for generations, mostly prenes, nes-snes, ps1-ps2 and when the and in 2 generations if there are 2 more generations ps3 and ps4 with possibility of ps3 era till the ps4 gets passed by a generation, any other discussion would be non current gen

shit would make for slow boards, but at least some definitions of what goes where, with the non current gen board being the proving ground for what is worth talking about.

>>5312928
crts, especially good ones, were able to do crisp visuals, however, quite a few games were made taking into account the composite/rf interfaces that would blur everything, adding a bit more shading to pixels, or makeing effects work correctly. there are a few games I can think of but not name where in emulation with hard edges, it looks worse then on a crt where there was some blending... can not remember its name for the life of me though.

>>5315145
god damn remember how good this game looked for its generation?

>>5315563
a 3d dreamcast game that can be easily scaled to a high resolution looks best upscaled on a high resolution display. however i agree with you for 2d games. there are some dreamcast games that can be scaled infinitely perfectly, search the archive for threads on that

>>5315573
No, even then they took into account what resolution they would be played at and anticipated some of the texture blurring for an increased color range and less banding, or even as an aa method.

god this shit is impossible to find images much less video of.

granted, i personally prefer to have crisp visuals rather than any blurring, consequence be damned.

>>5315573
>scaled infinitely perfectly
No.

>>5309838
If its 20+ years old its retro. Simple really.

>>5309838
Who but the autists on this boards cares?

>>5315520
I disagree. Control schemes and gameplay mechanics are not always a surefire way to define what is retro and what isn't.
Take flight sims, racing games, 4x strategy, RTS, round based tactics games and platformers. None of the gameplay mechanics and controls in those games changed in such a drastic way, that you could easily seperate a game made in the 90s from a game made in the 2010s.
You could make the argument for the amount of buttons and the standardization of analog controls on consoles, but then you had stuff like that at the beginning of the 80s with those numpad controllers that had in effect more than 12 buttons as well as analog paddles for pong machines or driving wheels. That stuff has been around for a long time.

>>5315836
racing games you sure as fuck can tell when they were made by gameplay.
racing sims possibly not, but there are hard arguments to make there.

look at racing games, you can fairly accurately tell when a game came out by the track type, and the gameplay type with some exceptions, and those exceptions largely define the genre going forward. the games started out above the car and you raced around a track like it was an rc car, you then moved over to behind the car/inside the car, but you were largely limited to going forward in most games raceing down a track as fast as you can with little in the way, or with some bullshit you have to avoid on the track, usually a simplistic power up system may be implemented, then you went into the car or behind the car, and tracks started to have loops around, with some that wanted to focus on speed being straight shots but these were usually more gameplay centric rather than a limitation.
with sims you can track based on the features they say they have like tier wear and shit, because if a new sim comes out and doesnt at least have all the features older ones had, its not picked up.

as for rts, you can track when they came out largely based on the control methods that they have, usually the best control method makes a comeback for future games and gimmicky ones stay forgotten, you are also able to track based on gameplay, but at some point you hit a divergence where there are base building rts, and fixed unit rts

4x is a bit harder to track as many of the older games usually end up superior to newer ones perhaps you could reverse track that way.

round based tactics... honestly didn't play to many of them outside of tactical rpgs, but so many of these also don't have graphic upgrades that they are an outlier

as for flight sims, cant speak to them at all, I cant really say how accurate old ones where compared to new ones, but I know feature wise they let to fly around bigger and bigger areas.

>>5315573
Not for all games, and rom hacks can remove texture blurring and other effects
>>5315594
yes. there is an academic paper being written about it

>>5315836
as for platformers, there is a clear difference pre mario and post, and pre snes mario and post, there is also a clear pre and post 3d graphic platformers, as once 3d came around and got good, only the best mechanics stayed around for platformers
now on controls, especially with fps, there are clear delineations where things changed everything and these are defined by generations and slightly with hardware limits, once you could have a full 3d environment and were not limited to a 2d map, like doom, key differences come down almost exclusively to controls. for most games that arent best suited to mouse and keyboard this is the case.
for racing games, the amount of precision you can have with a wheel, and the precision that you need are also great indicators of age,
for rts, how they handle macros shows age
when you talk about those 12 buttons, you bring up an interesting point, button combos in controls like down and A or the like, that's a delineation for when games came out, you bring up pong, if you are on original hardware and there is full analogue control outside of a thumb stick that's usually going to be something really old as consoles tend to homogenize everything. nintendo being the outlier here who can't make a standard input method to save their fucking lives, sometimes it works out and is the best controller ever made, gamecube, and sometimes it's what the actual fuck are you thinking with this small shit, switch, or go fuck yourself, with the wii
when you are talking about racing wheels, when they start to feature rumble, or real force feedback and the games support that feature, its a turning point in racing
you also have the speed they are willing to let you go, but this one ties into graphics a bit but its also an as it relates to gameplay.
most genres have features/gameplay features/controls that originated with one game, and you can date when games came out before and after this mark see minecraft, and sudently building everywhere

>>5315865
Source

>>5309921
Agreed. And that's the PS2/GC/Xbox generation as the last non-HD generation.

It's also the last generation before every last game had some sort of DLC or patch. Yeah I know Microsoft introduced it to consoles with the Xbox, but for the other two systems that shit was nowhere to be found.

>>5315874
>>5315594
>>/vr/thread/5053467
internal resolution infinitely scalable. you lose faggot

>>5315912
>And that's the PS2/GC/Xbox generation as the last non-HD generation.
I think the Wii would fall into this category as well.

>x will never be retro
this doesn't make any sense you're just old

>>5315850
>>5315873
All this does not help define what is retro video gaming, since everything you've been talking about had already been done in the 90s. Unless you want to say that the 90s are not retro, you need to give examples of gameplay mechanics or control schemes that did not in ANY way exist 15-20 years ago, but do matter now in games. Fundamental changes.
There are some, but they are way too few to easily split games into retro and modern. Most of the basics had already been done by the end of the 90s

>>5315920
Man, that thread is kind of embarrassing. The OP didn't at all clarify, or even understand what he was saying.
RTT is just a technique to render the screen to texture instead of a back buffer so that it can be used afterword before output.
What he's referring to is more likely super sampling, not RTT.
RTT is just one step in the pipeline that can help enable super sampling with a small back buffer.
RTT can be done at native resolution too, and often is on PC games for post processing.
And in the case of DC, where the back buffer is not incredibly small, high resolution can be output directly without RTT.

Regardless, that method is not exactly infinite, as it's limited by DC hardware.
Emulation is hypothetically infinite for the future with stronger and stronger hardware, but it's not at all perfect, or even near complete yet.

Then, probably the most embarrassing thing in that thread is using PS1 3D wobble as an example of how emulation is imperfect. When in fact, the closer you emulate to real hardware, the more severe the vertex aliasing that causes the wobble is.
Like, it's not inherently an emulation issue.
It's caused by the PS1 calculating vertex locations on the CPU, at a very low resolution (around native), before passing them to graphics.
PGXP actually fixes that by using higher precision math than the PS1 could handle, for calculating high resolution vertex locations.
Back in the day some idiots kept spreading the ``fact'' that the wobble was caused by a lack of a Z-buffer (WAT???). And people latched onto that term just like that OP latched onto RTT, parroting it around endlessly without actually looking up what it means.
Regardless, it's completely irrelevant to Dreamcast. As Dreamcast is capable of full 3D without CPU offloading for that.
There's a lot of things that make emulating dreamcast 3D kind of hard and annoying, such as OIT, but it's not impossible.

>>5315964
and here you are pointing out a massive flaw in the term retro.

if graphics are what make a game retro, then the messenger is retro
if game controls/gameplay are retro then there are cut off points for where we were still figuring out how to make games, styles of games (see donkey kong collectathons) and it won't be until something re defines how a genre works that current games would go into a retro category. retro at least to me (see fashion) screams you would only play or like these games today ironically with a few gems that set themselves apart, now if you want to talk about pre nes games I can argue that most of them are novelties that are hardly worth playing without the fact they are novelties attached.
the nes era also has a lot of these but they are getting more mechanically sound
the snes era is where gameplay for many genres was defined and they stand up to the test of time very well
ps1 era 3d games are much like the atari games, not worth playing outside the fact you are playing a novelty, but there were also quite a large amount of genre defining games as they figured out how to 3d correctly
ps2, honestly the only thing that dates many games here is graphics more so than gameplay, though fps pre halo all have a special kind of jenk to them, they got a proof of concept that it can be done, in the way of goldeneye and perfect dark but it wouldn't be till halo that the control scheme got refined to the point people seriously looked at it as a console capable genre.

If you just want to call games retro because of graphics,then you are going to hit a point where people question if a game really is retro or not, as I think most people would argue that retro graphics are something that only work ironically. my little brother is a cunt about this because to him anything that inst aiming for photo real is 'retro garbage' meanwhile its a 3d platformer, how good does it need to look? did the budget need to go several million just to make it 2.5d?

>>5315567
normal shading is _the_ effect that made shit so much more realistic

>>5309860
Computers will never need more than x kilobytes of ram: the post

>>5311770
Do you realize that you've just begged for time to be the deciding factor, which is the correct choice and even the PS4 will be retro someday. Thanks.

>>5317204
you've said almost nothing, besides confirming that some dreamcast games are infinitely scalable in emulation

>>5309838
PS2, GCN, Xbox and GBA are all retro.

>>5317664
No they aren't, and they're not allowed to be discussed here. Deal with it kid

>>5317607
that's one aspect, but also the shadows, they payed more attention to the models of things then most AAA at the time from a company that was a literally who.

>>5317663
That's quite disingenuous. It's only hypothetically infinite in the future as computers get stronger and programs are designed to make use of them.
Realistically it's limited, quite incomplete, and sometimes not even implemented.
The same applies to almost all 3D emulation.

I'm mostly just against the term 'perfectly' though.
Here it's used to mean something along the lines of 'properly' because high resolution can be done for many games on real hardware, complete with all its quirks and functions.
And that's fairly true.
But it's also being used alongside infinitely, which is only true (hypothetically in the future) when NOT using the real hardware, thus invalidating the 'properly', as emulation isn't fully complete.
Thus it's only 'Scaled impressively high, properly' OR 'Scaled incredibly high as far as computer hardware will take it, within the limits of emulation'. And definitely not 'scaled infinitely perfectly'.

And, well, that thread is embarrassing. Due to misinformation, misunderstanding and misattributing basic terminology like Render to Texture, parroting things based on those misunderstandings, then refusing to clarify and aggressively calling others imbeciles for not just agreeing with it.
Seriously, that hurt to read. If I didn't enjoy such pain I would be quite mad at you for linking it.

What >>5315573 was saying is mostly true though, 'scaled infinitely perfectly' aside. High resolution output for 3D generally does look better.
Though personally I prefer DC through VGA out on a PC CRT monitor. Taking advantage of CRT graphics AND fairly high resolution.

dear god zoomers please save us from this retro purgatory

>>5317707
true. normal mapping handles the little details, while raycasting, shadow volumes, or projection takes care of the big ones. both are computationally intensive

>>5317709
"hey guys look this pattern can be scaled perfectly, infinitely"
"THATS NOT TRUE TECHNICALLY WITH CURRENT HARDWARE CONSTRAINTS IT'S ONLY INCREDIBLY HIGH, PROPERLY AND YOUR STATEMENT IS ONLY 100% ACCURATE IN THE FUTURE"

A non-mong answer is that retro has more to do with design trends than date, technology, or platform, but that's too nuanced for the rules lawyering autists on this board

>>5317856
Reread it, faglord. It's not just a pattern, and the issue isn't primarily that anyway.

As explained, the meaning of perfectly here substitutes properly (Inaccurately, but whatever) meaning fully implemented as real hardware does it, by using the real hardware itself.
But that is NOT true if you're using the method that actually can eventually scale to infinity, emulation.
So it is not both infinitely scalable AND proper at the same time. It's one OR the other.
It's also quite useless and meaningless, much like monkeys with typewriters writing Shakespeare. While hypothetically true, the meaning is beyond infeasible to the point of irrelevance.

>>5317869
lol

>>5317869
you are so stupid but you wore me out so you win

>>5317876
I'm not exactly aiming to win anything, just trying to communicate. I apologize if it didn't make sense.

>>5309838
I go by the "3 generations rule" for consoles: meaning 5th generation consoles atm. (PS1,Saturn and N64) and older.

For computers, I consider the time before macs went to x86 CPUs retro, where there was actual variety in the mainstream market regarding the hardware design...

>>5310791
Indeed.. All we had in my family until 1999 was a slim 486/33 IBM PS/2 without sound card.
One of my friends back then had an Amiga 600... i was so fucking envious of him... it was pretty much the only computer worth owning back then... They were still so ahead of the time then, it wasn't even funny...
I still wonder to this day how the market would look if Commodore didn't go down the drain... they'd likely have killed off Apple...

>>5311534
I agree, it was where consoles were either straight up PCs (like the original xbox, which ran off a celeron CPU) or they could be turned into PCs with a bit of tinkering (eg. PS2 linux and running OSes off the dreamcast)

>>5313094
I agree.. there won't be much news feature-wise on the console market for some time to come. All of them connect to the internet, everybody connects to an online game kiosk, at least PS4 has VR, everyone has motion controls and they can all do near-realistic graphics... Anything else than a console with built-in holodeck isn't worth creating a new generation on..
also PS4 pro is basically a PS4.1... same shit with a bit more horsepower.

>>5314418
Ahhhh... the era of bloom and a lot of shit-brown textures, now that brings back memories...

>>5317878
You made sense, you are just so wrong and autistic it's not worth trying to reason with you.

>>5317985
Good golly all those ellipses hurt so bad. Makes me imagine some idiot that does more trailing off than speaking.
>or they could be turned into PCs with a bit of tinkering (eg. PS2 linux and running OSes off the dreamcast)
There are OS carts with word processors, BASIC interpreters, drawing programs, text editors, etc, and keyboard controllers, for the NES.
Pretty sure there's even a flash cart that allows live program swapping and homebrew for more complex programs.
Both the NES and C64 use a 6502 variant CPU.
Tinkering capabilities and similarities to computers are not exactly things that only started in the 6th generation.

>>5318012
Well I know I'm autistic. But I'd like to know what exactly is wrong there.

>>5314995
I sometimes wonder at what point you guys stopped buying new systems. That looks positively retro, like a fucking psx cutscene. Jagged low poly edges, phong shaded faces.

>>5315145
Look at how low poly the hands are.
Basically N64 tier.
Yes, it's retro.

>>5317707
>that's one aspect, but also the shadows,
Is severance: blade of darkness retro or not?
Because I'd say it's retro.