/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5714071
Because there's nothing that makes them retro if they work on modern PCs. New DOS games are allowed, see the recent Planet X3 threads for example.

>>5714128
>Because there's nothing that makes them retro if they work on modern PCs.
Game design? Aesthetics? Those don't count? Why should only what hardware they run on matter?

>>5714148
Because they're modern indie trash, not retro.

Zniggy is designed for a retro machine, it's allowed. If we were to make Zniggy for Windows 10, it would not be.

>>5714163
Homebrew made in current-year for classic consoles is also "modern indie trash", you're delusional if you think otherwise.

There should be no division between modern retro games for PC and modern retro games for 20+ year old hardware. Makes no sense to allow one and not the other.

>>5714193
There are inherent hardware limitations that force optimization of code. Does Shovel Knight or Cave Story run on Windows 98? If it does you may be able to get away with a thread about it but I'm sure you don't have a 98 machine and it's not something I give enough of a fuck about to try installing on one of mine - though I might read a thread on the subject if one got off the ground.

>>5714148

those standards are subjective and impossible to enforce

>>5714071
>Why the anti-PC bias?
Is a better question, for the entire board
However, this goes back to the old PC vs console debate, and we know who wins that one

>>5714171
>If we were to make Zniggy for Windows 10, it would not be.
However, if you were to remake Zniggy for windows 10, it would be acceptable.

>>5714128
>Because there's nothing that makes them retro if they work on modern PCs.
Anyone can design a game that runs on windows 98/Direct X7, and in that case I would call it retro. Any game that runs on Windows 9X is "retro" per the rules outlined in the sticky.

Before this gets locked /deleted
What are some decent modern retro games?
So far I have odallus, shovel knight, mighty gunvolt burst, the messenger, and onikin.

>>5714071
There isn't an anti PC bias. Games that run in Windows 9X are all fair game here, even if one got released today. But you don't really see that happening because there's no reason. All games for old consoles are really just hipster bait. There's no legitimate reason to make something for the Genesis other than you know your game is so generic it would never get any attention without a gimmick like being produced for an old system.

Since Windows 98 doesn't have any hipster cred there's no reason to make a new game for it.

>>5714316
Bloodstained curse of the moon

>>5714309
That's a gray area. If it officially supports Win98 and is designed to run well on '90s hardware I'd be inclined to agree, but the mods might not see it that way if it runs without modification on Windows 10.

>>5714338
Well obviously not Windows 10, it came out in what? 2015? That's like being shocked PS3 games aren't allowed. Anything in Win9X is clear in the rules as being retro.

>>5714338
>but the mods might not see it that way if it runs without modification on Windows 10.
That is irrelevant. IF it runs on windows 9X by default, there isn't much they can say. I don't hear any complaints about Doom related threads being deleted....even though the modifications introduced require more power than what windows 98/DX7 is capable of.

>>5714346
You're missing my point. I'm saying that if a new game runs on Win98 AND Win10, there's less of an argument for it being strictly /vr/-related.

>>5714352
Doom was released in 1993. Modifications get a pass for that reason, similar to how modern remakes of old games are allowed.

>>5714071
>Why the anti-PC bias?
Because fuck the IBM PC for killing the superior Amiga.

>>5714071
if the platform is released pre-2000, all games on it are allowed. no platform is discriminated against, not even home computers. >>5714128 and >>5714220 made it completely clear.
any arguing beyond that point from your part is just pure baiting.

>>5714071
why are those games designed for retro systems always so fucking bad, take tanglewood for example in your photo its literally just running around big empty levels doing nothing its a piece of fucking shit nobody would have cared about if it only came out on steam

>>5714371
>no platform is discriminated against, not even home computers.
Until regular forum users start kvetching about later games that run on windows 98, but require more processing power than was available in 2000. Take Half Life 2 for example. It most certainly runs on windows 98, and it is marked on the box as such....but threads about it are deleted, and users are banned for a few days for "trolling". I know because it has happened to me.

The rules are a grey area, and the Dreamcast only muddles it further.

>>5714381
Indie devs have no skills or standards. Literal nobodies can just shit out a game without any past experience or credentials. This is one of the reasons why old games -- true retro games -- were so much better than shit from today's industry.

>>5714071
Return to /v/, you can get all the Minecraft, Fortnight, and Overwatch that you want.

>>5714728
>Overwatch
>indie nu-retro game
Never go full retard, son.

>>5714071
Because nobody knows what "retro" means. Everyone thinks it means old, which it doesn't.

>>5714823
>Because nobody knows what "retro" means. Everyone thinks it means old, which it doesn't.

>>5714148
>Game design? Aesthetics?
There's no such thing as retro design or aesthetics, as we always had complex and realistic looking games.

>>5714830
i feel like this supports his argument

>>5714071
Despite the name of the board, discussion of retro games is banned here. /vr/ is strictly for old games and game on old hardware.

These rules are stupid.

>>5714998
No, discussion of retro games is allowed as long as you're not talking about the Windows version of the same game.

>>5714370
Commodore killed itself

>>5714128
>>5714148
because <insert wrong definition of the word retro>

Seriously though something that's actually from the past isn't retro. Odallus is retro, Castlevania was actually quite innovative.

Time to make an indie Win 98 game and shill it on /vr/.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGT3tmZJ5s

>>5714148
>Game design? Aesthetics?
The problem is right here, how exactly do you quantify game design and aesthetics?

>>5714990
>i feel like this supports his argument
The term "Retro" has nothing to do with age and everything to do with looks. A pair of denim bell bottoms made in 2019 is "retro", why could a game not made in the spirit of mid-late 90s games be any different?

>>5715156
>The problem is right here, how exactly do you quantify game design and aesthetics?
It is the output of the limitations of hardware.

>>5715030
You misunderstand, almost none of the games up for discussion here are actually retro, they're old. Super Mario 3 isn't a retro game, it's an old one. Shovel Knight is a retro game. As is Tanglewood for that matter, but no one actually talks about it.

>>5714360
It doesn't matter if it runs in Win10 as well as Win9X, just if it runs on the earlier hardware.

>>5715167
I agree. I'm not sure if the mods would, though.

>>5714384
See: Every time FFXI is brought up, despite it launching as compatible on Windows98.

>>5715187
Mods aren't board specific and don't always read the rules or will toss out bans willy nilly. It's pretty clear if you look at the wording though.

>>5715192
>Every time FFXI is brought up, despite it launching as compatible on Windows98.
I am fully well aware of the grey area with all the holes in it. I have been a regular here since before the Dreamcast.

>>5715198
>It's pretty clear if you look at the wording though.
Just because a piece of software runs on a windows 9X platform does not mean that the mods will not delete a thread. If enough of the squeeky wheels complain, they will act. I have spoken to them in their IRC channel about the PS2/GC/Xbox and I was told that under no circumstances would it be discussed. They won't even engage in a conversation about it. They delete threads in the /vip/ area without warning. My point: They go out of their way to not clarify the grey areas, and because of this it causes inconsistencies. Some threads stay up for days, while a similar thread will be deleted in minutes. It is all a matter of interpretation, and the rules are vague enough to allow mods the ability to do as they please when it involved windows 9X software.

>>5715213
Deffinitely the letter of the rules and how they're enforced, especially when many people report can vary. Going by what they say though any Win9X game should theoretically be allowed. Meanwhile most remake threads remain when they technically shouldn't. But that's just how forums go, none of it really matters. If one day a Diablo 2 thread gets axed and a week later it doesn't, who really cares?

>>5715235
>If one day a Diablo 2 thread gets axed and a week later it doesn't, who really cares?
I do. I make & post regular here. I care because there is no consistency. I play diablo 2 and can see that one mod will see it as acceptable, whereas another will delete it without warning. What is the point of exchanging thoughts and ideas when it could randomly be deleted based on a hard to interpret rule?

Change the rules to apply to game release date instead of hardware. Bam, problem solved.

>but muh homebrew
Indie Pixelshit is not Classic Games, even if you made it for the SNES or whatever.

>>5715239
I post here regularly also and honestly if you really care about consistency and a stable place for serious discussion you're on the wrong site. Everything here is ephemeral and impermanent by design.

>>5715258
except for the memes

>>5715259
Aye, memes are forever!
Never gonna give them up

Lmao 8/v/ is mad at us for not including PS2 here.

https://8ch
.net/v/res/16666081.html

>>5715167
I think this is exactly the reason PC games tend to go by year of release instead of hardware, unless they're running on something specific like DOS or Doom's engine. It's too hard to determine whether any individual game could technically be played using only pre-00 parts. Especially since there are post-00 games that you can TECHNICALLY boot using only 90s hardware, but they run so slowly that they're literally unplayable.

>>5715258
>if you really care about consistency and a stable place for serious discussion you're on the wrong site.
I can't argue this at all lol. I have been here since pre-dreamcast, and it has always had that random feel.

>>5715259
>memes
There are not enough OC memes made in /vr/. I make them occasionally, and even have seen a few reposted. My logic is that IF one of my shitty memes is reposted, than this board needs more memes. (pic related is one of my OC & I really don't dislike emulation fags)

>>5715385
>unless they're running on something specific like DOS or Doom's engine

Or like the sticky says Windows 9x.

>>5715445

>>5715465
Is this OC? If so, it is outstanding!

(pic related is more of my OC)

>>5714071
>Tanglewood
Did this get dumped yet? If so, link please?

So
Is Cave Story retro?
It definitely runs on 90s PCs

>>5715605
The PC version isn't.
However, this version is.
Make sense? Didn't think so.

>>5715582
Yeah. The ROM's in the bin folder.
https://mega.nz/#!GGo2kSIL!OVxuYmzyWB_GWrFhkaPjyo_2pt_5vD5b3Sswy-qElIw
Don't get your hopes up though, it's garbage.

>>5715616
As long as you’re discussing it within the frame of being a Dreamcast port, it’s fine.

>>5715625
Wow, thank you anon! Yeah, I'm expecting nauseating furry tropes, but it's so noteworthy that I want to at least give it a try.

>>5715605
>>5715616
>>5715629
OK but Cave Story was literally made with 90s PCs in mind
The creator made it 50fps so it would run on older computers

>>5715629
Remakes/ports are allowed to be discussed here, too. That said, I'm unsure about whether or not "backports" (such as the above Cave Story DC) are retro at all, much less making their predecessors retro.

>>5715635
If the original could run on Windows 98SE or before, every version of it is for sure retro.

>>5715635
If it can run on ancient PC hardware, despite the game being released after 1999, I don't see why it can't be discussed here. From what I recall though Cave Story threads would get deleted here.

>>5715634
It's not even nauseating furry tropes, it's just utterly uninteresting. Typical vapid indie shit that thinks it's artsy but is completely devoid of any compelling content.

>>5715672
Well, I guess then that explains why it's been a forced talking point for a few years now

>>5714071
Anyone gonna talk about Xeno Crisis here? Solid top down gameplay, pushes the Genesis to the limit with one of the best composers out there for the hardware.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgdceaN99gU

>>5715689
It's not out yet so there's not much to talk about. I do like Savaged Regime though.

>>5714316
Celeste, Katana Zero, Hotline Miami, Dusk, Amid Evil, Ion Maiden, Bloodstained

>>5715605
>Is Cave Story retro?
Yes, but see >>5715161

>>5714335
Seconding this. Wish it was just a bit tougher in normal play so I wouldn't feel bad using the extra characters/soul powerups but it was still a lot of fun, and playing it without either is about on par with a normal Castlevania game.
>>5714371
>no platform is discriminated against, not even home computers
Not saying I agree with the rules, but as written any PC game released after 2000 is barred UNLESS it has a console port.

Which kind of begs the question for me, are we allowed to talk about Cave Story on the board? It's decidedly not retro in its original release but it has a Dreamcast homebrew. Do non-retro games being backported to retro hardware count as retro, provided you're talking about the content specifically in that port (e.g. the updated rerelease content of Cave Story wouldn't be retro despite remakes being allowed since it's a remaster of a non-retro game, but anything that's in the Dreamcast port would be fine)?

>You can talk about CS because is 'retro' but not about Metroid Fusion because 'fuck you zoomer your childhood will never be retro'
Like Harry Potter.

>>5715857
Well anon, when it's released you can talk about X-Fusion, since that's a reimagining of the game in the Super Metroid engine on SNES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO-x7j5RyGc&list=PLZS_o9tqWHmJHGmuQRRkfiqhgZIApfLXM&index=8
I miss /rhg/

Because modern indie games (odallus, shovel knight, etc) are primarily made by artists and feature mechanics or visuals (usually both) that old consoles are completely incapable of. Their mechanics are also highly polished versions of mechanics found in old games, and there's only so much polish you can cram into 2 kilobytes of memory. Meanwhile homebrew games are more or less programmer exercises, which explains lackluster art, music, or gameplay; writing game that just displays a title screen for the NES takes more effort than to program every single faux retro indie game ever made.

In short, modern retro games - artists and idea guys flexing they can make without programmers. Homebrew retro games - programmers seething they can't make a game without artists and idea guys.

>>5715852
>Not saying I agree with the rules, but as written any PC game released after 2000 is barred UNLESS it has a console port.
This is part of the problem. Not saying you are wrong, but my interpretation of the rules suggests that NO Platform after 2000 is eligible for discussion. Windows 9x however, is a platform, and there certainly was software developed with this platform in mind after y2k.

>>5716828
>Windows is a platform
Are you retarded

The platform is x86 PC, which has existed since the '80s, hence all games made for PC are retro going by the sticky's definition.

>>5716884
This is exactly my point. Thanks for reinforcing it. There is no clarity to the rules, and they are randomly and arbitrarily enforced at a whim.

>>5716972
It's only just PC that has this problem though. The rules need to clarify that a PC game is retro as long as it can run on parts that were available in the '90s, like a Pentium II, Voodoo3 graphics card and such -- the same logic that is used for old console hardware making any game developed on it allowed here.

>>5717008
>It's only just PC that has this problem though.
I understand this fully. It is a grey area full of holes. It is subjective however. I see windows 9x as the platform. I view any game that was designed to run on windows 95/98 & previous to be "retro".

>>5716884
No it's not. The platform is IBM PC. There were several other x86 based computers that weren't 100% compatible to IBM.

>>5714163
>>5714230
>>5714960
>>5715156
Stop

>>5715135
Correct

>>5714148
Because it's about nostalgia, you stupid shit. NOTHING ELSE.

>>5714071
Knowing what you are able to talk about and what not on /vr/ is a test if you lurked enough, it forces you to adapt to the board.

What games do you guys specifically want to talk about that does not fit into the system?
Or are you just autistically scratching the Limes of the forbidden zone?

Having mods be human ensures that this process has to have a subjective origin anyway, they have no PDF open with checkboxes to help their decision, and posessing Power to choose what is correct and what not differs between each mod

Any way you want to slice it Cave Story is /vr/ material because there's a genesis port.

>>5714128
That's like saying Castlevania isn't retro because you can run it on a modern machine.

>>5717257
So if you port Undertale to the PS1 we can have Undertale threads on /vr/?

>>5714454
Well the Tanglewood guy has industry experience. (Apparently it's Lego games mostly.)

>>5717275
That's how the rules work. They're pretty retarded but that's 4chan!

>>5717275
Is that so complicated to understand?
Yes.

See it this way, if you Google list of ps1 games and the game is found there then it surely is discussable on /vr/

>>5717303
>be todd howard
>want to release skyrim for another console, but can't decide what
>decide to port skyrim to the dreamcast for shits and giggles
>tfw singlehandedly made skyrim retro

Console and pc games of that era were so different, I really don't think it makes any sense at all to combine them on the same board.

Really we should split /vr/ into /vr/ (for retro console games) and /vrpc/ (for retro pc games).

>>5714960
>we always had complex and realistic looking games

>>5717283
>>5714454

yeah he has skills obviously since he wrote the game entirely in 68k asm
i just don't think he's much of a desginer

>>5715213

faggot

Retro-style indie games are all shit.
I'm glad they're banned here.

>>5714071
The machines they play on are old. That should be enough.