What is retro, to you?

File: 28 KB, 322x290, fishing8276-gfs_5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What is retro, to you? Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:31:54 2015 No.2574180 [Reply] [Original]

Since there seem to be a number of differing opinions, some think retro should only encompass 8 bit games and earlier, others think the GBA and even GameCube and PS2 era games are now 'retro'. The definition of the word itself is fairly fuzzy,

>imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past.

So I thought I'd start this thread about what it means to you when it comes to video games. When do you consider the cut off of what a retro game is? Not intended as a discussion of the board rules definition, I'm asking about your personal feelings on the matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:37:54 2015 No.2574187 >>2574180 2000 and before until never

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:41:42 2015 No.2574194 Once a console reaches 15 years of age, I consider it retro. Personally, I find it hard to truly see anything Dreamcast included after the fifth generation as retro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:46:59 2015 No.2574205 >>2574194 >last statement yeah everythings feels too advanced to be considered 'retro' I don't think we should drop the 2000 and before for a while.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:49:19 2015 No.2574208 I think we should drop Dreamcast and add GBA. Dreamcast feels non retro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:49:33 2015 No.2574210 Old shit, but not new old shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:50:53 2015 No.2574213 I don't even use the term 'retro'. From Atari to all the way to modern-day WII U, PS4 etc - they're all just video games to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:54:06 2015 No.2574218 Stuff from around 10-15 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:56:12 2015 No.2574223 >>2574208 >drop the dreamcast and add gba didn't really have more than 100 good titles and there was a couple thousand games for it, I say we stick to dreamcast even if i don't like it

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 10:59:59 2015 No.2574229 File: 27 KB, 240x160, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2574208 >>2574223 At least half of good GBA games are ports or sequels that we talk about anyway, Dreamcast isn't popular enough to cause a problem

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:00:28 2015 No.2574230 To me, anything from 8-bit and prior, but maybe because I'm old. I could consider the 16-bit era retro but I still think the PS1 games like something too modern and contemporary. Ofc it's subjective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:00:29 2015 No.2574231 >>2574223 >didn't really have more than 100 good titles Dreamcast had like five.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:00:46 2015 No.2574232

The sticky is clear but /vr/s definition of "retro" is directly oppositional to the dictionary definition although certainly the definition of words change over time and "retro-style" is starting to take on the dictionary meaning of "retro" while "retro" has taken on the meaning of "vintage" and "vintage" means things older than that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:01:43 2015 No.2574234 >>2574223 >We should exclude something because I FEEL it didn't have more than 100 good titles despite I MISTAKENLY BELIEVING that it has "a couple thousand games for it" >You should take me seriously

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:02:44 2015 No.2574235 >>2574232 >The sticky is clear Here we go

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:03:54 2015 No.2574237

>>2574180
Truth to be told, even 16 bits consoles feel like a bit of a stretch to me but I guess they could be retro because they basically introduced 3D graphics to the world of home consoles, after those though no way in hell there's something that can be considered retro, from specs to design philosophy games from the early 2000 onwards feel radically different.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:04:45 2015 No.2574239 >>2574234 1074, more if you include GB/GBC cause those were technically in its library

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:04:51 2015 No.2574240 >>2574237 >even 16 bits consoles feel like a bit of a stretch Now THIS is autism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:07:04 2015 No.2574246 File: 18 KB, 267x179, 1415017750902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2574240 Underrated post

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:09:15 2015 No.2574248

>>2574180
Generally speaking, anything pre NES is retro. Things like Asteroids, Missile command, the Atari version of Empire Strikes back.

I then lump together the 8-bit and 16-bit generations together. I don't know what to call it, but retro isn't the right word. Maybe 'the golden age of 2D gaming' or something.

Next comes the PSX/N64/Saturn era with early 3D games. That's the dawn of modern gaming generation. Still not 'retro.'

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:10:53 2015 No.2574251 >>2574208 Pay less attention to graphics and it's really not. Aside from the visuals, GBA games are on average more "modern" than dreamcast ones. Dreamcast mostly still had arcade style games, fighters, shmups, etc.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:12:03 2015 No.2574252 [DELETED]

>>2574240
Video games died when single screen score based games fell out of favor, gen x babbies may think memorizing Battletoads and Ding Dong Futanari Brack represents "skill" but if you haven't kill screened an early 80s arcade game then you're bad at video games, nothing post-Atari is retro sorry stick to candy crush kiddos

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:14:52 2015 No.2574254

>>2574248
Disclaimer: despite my belief about what 'retro' is defined as, the board /vr/ is clearly dedicated to 'old' game systems and not necessarily 'retro' systems. Therefore, it should include any video game platform that is more than 2 generations old. So at this point that would be the PS2/Xbox/GCN consoles.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:16:51 2015 No.2574261 File: 592 KB, 1000x1422, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2574180 >PS2 >Retro Oh boy, I can't wait until we can talk about PS2 here so I can discuss my favorite retro game with my fellow enthusiasts.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:17:10 2015 No.2574262
File: 13 KB, 640x400, Msfs1.00_000.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2574237
>from specs to design philosophy games from the early 2000 onwards feel radically different.

Can you explain what you mean by this exactly? I see game design evolving over time, but don't see any hard lines the way you seem to.

Maybe not on consoles, but 3D games have been a staple on PCs since very early days. Graphical fidelity aside, there's not a world of difference between the flight simulator I played as a kid and the 2006 version for example.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:17:18 2015 No.2574263

>>2574180
6th gen is the cutoff for me, but only because I was still in my late childhood/preteen years when that generation took place. I consider it "retro" in that sense, but I think retro is *really* anything 5th gen and before.

To be honest, as much as the purests would hate it, I think 6th gen discussion should be allowed on /vr/, or at least on some containment board for the inevitable flood of Halo posts (pun intended). I mean, there really isn't a better place to discuss GBA or PS2 games on here.

Another thing I'll mention, even though it's technically the first 6th gen console hardware-wise, I consider the Dreamcast to really be more of a late 5th gen system, as it shared a lot of multiplats with the PSX and N64, and it competed with those systems much more than it did with the PS2. When the PS2 rolled around, Sega were like "fuck it, we're done".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:17:28 2015 No.2574264 >>2574261 >cherry picking this hard This is /v/ tier.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:17:42 2015 No.2574265 >>2574239 Yeah, I know. I did my research BEFORE making my post, not after. "Barely over a thousand" and "a couple thousand" are pretty different. >more if you include GB/GBC They're already /vr/, they don't factor into this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:18:39 2015 No.2574267 >>/b/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:22:59 2015 No.2574274 >>2574229 No. http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_games_re-released_onto_Nintendo_handhelds#SNES

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:23:06 2015 No.2574275

>>2574263
>I consider the Dreamcast to really be more of a late 5th gen system, as it shared a lot of multiplats with the PSX and N64, and it competed with those systems much more than it did with the PS2. When the PS2 rolled around, Sega were like "fuck it, we're done".

I totally agree with this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:23:58 2015 No.2574276 >>2574275 Doesn't matter what you "consider." It IS 6th gen.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:25:08 2015 No.2574281 >>2574264 Yeah it's cherry picking. It's also true. This would be "retro" if we allowed 6th gen consoles. So would fucking Persona 4. Do these things sound retro to you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:25:48 2015 No.2574283 Anything two gens ago I would consider retro.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:26:24 2015 No.2574286

>>2574208

I think we should drop both, but DC is the less worst option. Even though I like GBA I know that most of what was released for it is absolute trash with mandatory tutorials. I know PS1 and NES were shovelware kings but GBA shit ratio is clearly expressive, I will include here shit ports, abysmal 3D titles and licensed games. Even though it is too modern for my taste DC is what I expect from a decent console, arcade ports and a few memorable console titles.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:28:39 2015 No.2574291 I just want a place to discuss games without PS2babbies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:32:01 2015 No.2574304 >>2574291 Hence, why 6th-gen systems should get a containment board.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:32:15 2015 No.2574307 So Video games died with Sega

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:32:35 2015 No.2574308

>>2574194
>I find it hard to truly see anything (...) after the fifth generation as retro
GBA not retro? DS not retro? At least their capabilities sit right along the edge of SNES to N64/GCN. However the games for these platforms are done with a more modern knowledge of game dev, so I suppose that has an impact here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:32:43 2015 No.2574309 File: 83 KB, 600x600, 51790-2002_FIFA_World_Cup_(E)-1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2574281

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:34:01 2015 No.2574313

>>2574263

I'm >>2574248 and >>2574254...

The more I think about it, the more that I think that 4chan needs to change /vr/ to be pre-NES era games (whether you want to lump the 8-bit and gens in there is debatable, but just bear with me)...

Then create a /vo/ which is 'old vidya' or consoles that are more than 2 generations removed. Currently this would include the 4th, 5th, and 6th gen systems.

Now you have a place for enthusiasts to discuss the 2d platformers and such that are more universally considered 'retro,' as well as a place for people to discuss their favorite PS2/Xbox/GCN games from their childhood.

It's win/win.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:34:26 2015 No.2574314

>>2574251
While I agree, that immediately brings up OPs question, what makes something retro? For a lot of people it's the visuals, but you said they are not sufficient, so something else has an effect? Can you put it in words?

Also, how does that "definition" survive the next couple years, if not decades? Is there a sliding limit for what is or is not retro, that moves with time, or is there a cutoff that will never change, because at that time something in the industry changed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:35:44 2015 No.2574316 >>2574304 We need an emulation/flashcart containment board long before we even need to entertain a 6th-gen containment board.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:36:19 2015 No.2574317 How anyone can consider xbox/GC/PS2 retro is beyond me. They don't feel or look retro, not one tiny bit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:37:29 2015 No.2574318 >>2574309 >Person A posts a game 2 years old >Person B (you) posts a game 13 years old What a quality comparison. I mean, they are ALMOST a decade apart.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:37:58 2015 No.2574319

>>2574262
>Graphical fidelity aside, there's not a world of difference between the flight simulator I played as a kid and the 2006 version for example.
Try to play Microsoft Flight, and the difference will be more clear. Also, a simulator itself is not a good example. What changed in game philosophy is stuff like pacing, and difficulty curve, the way gameplay elements are introduced, and even the integration of the manual. It is entirely normal for an old game to have an extra manual, the game assumes you read it, and the game may have a more or less constant difficulty and will happily let player do missteps. In a more modern game there is no such manual assumption, and the game will instead use tutorial mechanisms, and at least at first casually protect the player from making bad decisions. Also, decisions made in games where they matter, are done in a more restricted form, with explicit dialog choices, instead of, well, player actions. It's a bit of a subtle difference, where the game assumes the player is not a thinking being, but a "consumer", that's just consuming what ever the game does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:38:29 2015 No.2574320 >>2574317 Gamecube is pretty similar to Dreamcast. Neither should be retro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:38:30 2015 No.2574321 >>2574316 A dedicated emulation board would be fucking awesome. I would finally have a place to ask stupid questions about setting up shaders and stuff besides Reddit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:39:00 2015 No.2574323 >>2574263 >6th gen is the cutoff for me Is that an eternal cutoff? Like, in 20 years, will 6th gen be retro and 7th gen won't? If yes, why? If not, what was the defining change?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:39:42 2015 No.2574324 >>2574318 So either the year cutoff matters, or it doesn't. Pick one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:40:13 2015 No.2574325 >>2574317 >They don't feel or look retro, not one tiny bit. What does it take to look or feel retro? What does it mean to look or feel retro? Will these platforms "look or feel retro" in 10 years? If no, why not?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:41:11 2015 No.2574328 >>2574323 "The golden age of cinema" or "The Silver Age of comic books" doesn't change their parameters with the passage of time, why should this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:42:49 2015 No.2574330 >>2574325 Because those platforms contain games which conform pretty much exactly to modern mainstream design sensibilities.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:42:56 2015 No.2574331 >>2574180 Nigga what are you doing? You already made this thread. >>2568614

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:43:49 2015 No.2574334

>>2574324
Going by board rules, PS1 came out before 2000, and PS2 came out after 2000. Non debatable

Going by logic, a system with games as recent as 2 years ago can't be consider retro by any reasonable definition.

But, good on you for posting an 11+ year old game on a retro console. Sure showed us.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:43:55 2015 No.2574336

>>2574328
>>2574330
>Retro style is style that is consciously derivative or imitative of trends, music, modes, fashions, or attitudes of the recent past.

Because "retro" is a more general term usually refering to the past. If you want to define 4th or 5th or 6th gens as different ages of gaming, I'd be in full agreement.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:44:19 2015 No.2574337

>>2574323
Not him but the answer is also why I don't consider 5th gen to be retro:

Games before the 5th gen had a distinctly different feel to playing them. This was largely because they are sprite based games that utilize 2D or pseudo 3D playing. With the advent of the N64 and PSX that could handle 3D environments, the way that users interacted with their environments in video games substantially changed. You could make an argument that SOME PSX games are retro because they have static backgrounds with 3D characters, but almost no N64 games are retro.

Back to your question: Whether PS2 etc. will ever be 'retro' depends on what the next evolution in gaming environments and interactions are. Currently, every generation of gaming has just made incremental improvements in terms of graphics and sound over the 5th gen 3D style. Whenever there is a distinct leap to a new style of gameplay, the 5th, 6th, 7th, and even 8th generations of gaming will start to become 'retro' as people don't play games with characters set in 3D environments, either 1st or 3rd person, controlled by analog sticks. The Wii kinda-sorta attempted to break this mold but only succeeded in getting casual's money so that they had a $200 shelf ornament.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:44:20 2015 No.2574338 >>2574309 I fail to see your point. That game is over a decade old.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:46:41 2015 No.2574343 >>2574334 2002 was later than 2000. It's after the cutoff point. If you're going to argue that "it's okay since 11+ years is long enough anyway" than I guess you're okay with the PS2, Gamecube, and GBA being retro as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:47:32 2015 No.2574345 >>2574334 I wasn't that guy, bud. >a system with games as recent as 2 years ago can't be consider retro by any reasonable definition. I guess this means the Dreamcast, SNES and NES are not retro, thanks for clarifying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:47:42 2015 No.2574346 >>2574338 >that game is a decade old >2005 is the new cutoff

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:47:56 2015 No.2574347

>>2574337
>This was largely because they are sprite based games that utilize 2D or pseudo 3D playing
So, what about the GBA and 2D games on the DS?

>With the advent of the N64 and PSX that could handle 3D environments, the way that users interacted with their environments in video games substantially changed
That's a very console centric view, as computers have been doing various forms of polygonal 3D for the better part of a decade at that point.

>Currently, every generation of gaming has just made incremental improvements in terms of graphics and sound over the 5th gen 3D style
That's heavily biased. The increased polygon count alone introduced genres to 3D mechanics that were impossible before, like strategy games. You couldn't do these games at all with early 3D, because you couldn't do enough polygons for all the units.
It's also happily glossing over improvements in pure processing power, leading to different AI and physics models.

>the 5th, 6th, 7th, and even 8th generations of gaming will start to become 'retro' as people don't play games with characters set in 3D environments, either 1st or 3rd person, controlled by analog sticks
But people still actively play pure 2D games. The recent Raymans are a thing, and not just in a retro form.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:48:04 2015 No.2574349 Might as well consider the DS retro, since it's capabilities are PS1-tier!

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:48:27 2015 No.2574350

To me "retro" means the golden age of 2D and first shy attempts of 3D games before Playstation. When the Playstation had appeared, 3D games became the mainstream.
And yes, when I came here first time, I was heavily surprised that 5th gen is retro now.
P.S.: Jaguar and 3DO are pretty retro for me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:48:43 2015 No.2574351 >>2574345 No they don't count.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:49:25 2015 No.2574352 >>2574345 Dreamcast, SNES, and NES have licensed games as recent as 2 years ago? Do tell! I wasn't aware that Sega and Nintendo was still licensing games that recently. Which ones?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:49:34 2015 No.2574353 >>2574349 >PS1-tier Heavily misleading. The DS has vastly different memory sizes, full perspective correct texture projection, but fixed polygon count limits. The DS is an odd "in between" system, that's neither a PS, nor an N64 or anything around it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:51:05 2015 No.2574356 >>2574352 >games must be officially licensed to exist

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:52:01 2015 No.2574357 >>2574356 >I count homebrew as 'official system lineup games' to fit my weak narrative.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:52:31 2015 No.2574358 >>2574349 >has two screens >not at least twice as powerful learn math and try again

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:52:51 2015 No.2574360 >>2574351 >I personally determine what does and doesn't count /vr/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:53:48 2015 No.2574361 >>2574353 Are there any pleb-readable resources that assess the power of the DS, particularly compared to the N64 and PS1?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:54:17 2015 No.2574362 >>2574346 Are you intentionally being this dense? 1999 is the cutoff, for systems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:54:20 2015 No.2574363 >>2574357 >I insert words like "official" into narrative after the fact to try and discredit my opponents, but that's not moving the goalpost, oh no.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:55:57 2015 No.2574367

>>2574361
not ones I'm aware of. I do know the DS has a fixed vertex buffer for about 4000 polygons, so it's the only platform I know where you can't push as much as you want and even accept slowdown, and renders at a fixed 60fps. No idea on the specific texture sizes that can be loaded at once.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:57:34 2015 No.2574370 If a game came out in 2001 for the PS1 is it considered retro?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:58:11 2015 No.2574371 >>2574367 That's its 3D capabilities. In terms of 2D it's largely the same as the GBA, as far as I understand. Of course it still has far more processing power for the game loop, compared to the GBA, so games can still look quite different.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:58:57 2015 No.2574372 >>2574367 That seems similar to retro consoles with hard sprite limits and a 60fps lock, I guess. So what happens if your engine tries to push more than 4000 polygons? It just doesn't draw them, in the same way a retro console would flicker sprites?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:58:59 2015 No.2574373 File: 90 KB, 503x1256, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Best retro girl, checking in.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:59:13 2015 No.2574374 >>2574370 People consider Shantae retro, so, "yes", I suppose?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 11:59:58 2015 No.2574375 >>2574373 This is why we can't have PS2babbies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:00:03 2015 No.2574376 >>2574363 Gotta just be trolling at this point. Counting homebrew games as legitimately part of a system's game lineup is retardation otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:00:24 2015 No.2574378 >>2574370 Yes.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:00:41 2015 No.2574379

>>2574372
>That seems similar to retro consoles with hard sprite limits and a 60fps lock, I guess.
Yes, it does.

>So what happens if your engine tries to push more than 4000 polygons?
From my understanding it simply can't, because the vertex/primitives buffer has a fixed size, meaning you just can't pass more vertices/primitives to the graphical subsystem per frame. That's like asking "What happens if I try to write 2MB into this 1MB buffer?"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:02:30 2015 No.2574384 >>2574317 That's because you define retro as something that looks 8 bit, or maybe 16 bit. But if you define reto as something from the recent past, then they would certainly be retro compared to Xbone and PS4 games for example.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:03:07 2015 No.2574386 >>2574367 What if someone attempted to write a software rasterizing renderer for the DS that pushed more than 4000 polys at once? Can the DS even do raw framebuffer rendering?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:04:24 2015 No.2574390 >>2574378 >>2574374 Grand Theft Auto III came out in 2001, what would be the difference between a 2001 PS1 game and a 2001 PS2 game as far as a dividing factor between retro and non retro. To me, this is the only grey area.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:05:26 2015 No.2574394

>>2574386
The DS does not have sufficient CPU power for a pure software renderer that looks good. The GBA already had per-pixel access and software renderers as a result of it. Since the DSs 2D capabilities are supposed to be at least on par with what the GBA does, I suspect it allows for per pixel access as well. So in theory you could do the same on the DS, but would have very little reason to do so, as you're ignoring a fair share of your hardware able to do all your computations and transformations for you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:07:15 2015 No.2574396 >>2574376 You keep asserting that it IS despite declining to explain WHY. Compelling. >He thinks Nightmare Busters is mere "homebrew"

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:09:09 2015 No.2574403

>>2574390
>what would be the difference between a 2001 PS1 game and a 2001 PS2 game as far as a dividing factor between retro and non retro
That is a very good question. There are two major differences. One being the obviously different hardware, and another being the somewhat different way of playing a game, with all the tutorials and manual aversion.
I'm not saying that GTA III is or is not retro. I'm just trying to voice the points people would bring up for/against it.

In my personal opinion there is a bit of a "disruption" in terms of game design that happened during this period, and I'd definitely use it to establish different ages of video gaming. As far as retro is concerned, I tend to go with a fixed number of years in the past.
In that regard, I would probably consider GTA III "retro". It takes a bit of an active decision to play this game nowadays, and a lot of games succeeded it in various aspects. As such, it does seem to be retro to me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:09:34 2015 No.2574404 >>2574384 >something that looks 8 bit, or maybe 16 bit How can we even objectively define something that looks 8 bit or 16 bit?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:09:43 2015 No.2574405

>>2574379

I'm not educated on the technical side of 3D rendering so please bear with me as I try to understand.

>From my understanding it simply can't, because the vertex/primitives buffer has a fixed size, meaning you just can't pass more vertices/primitives to the graphical subsystem per frame.
So your CPU generates a list of polygons to render, then puts it in this vertex/primitives buffer for the GPU to process, right?
So then if for whatever reason your CPU generates a list of more than 4000 polygons, that frame simply won't be rendered?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:11:01 2015 No.2574408

>>2574404
You can attempt to shoot for stuff like palette size and layer count. 8 bit systems tend to have one, maybe two layers of stuff, and small palettes (couple dozen colors at most), while 16bit systems tend to do several layers with layer effects (transparency) and large palettes (couple hundred, sometimes thousands of colors)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:11:06 2015 No.2574409 >>2574404 Well, if it was made on 8 bit hardware it will probably look 8 bit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:11:12 2015 No.2574410 >>2574394 What about a hybrid renderer that does some things on the GPU, and other things in software?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:11:43 2015 No.2574413

>>2574347
> GBA

Depends on the game. For board rule simplicity then allow it.

> muh PCs

PCs are a lot more nebulous because there aren't distinct generations, but outside of early FPS they were not mainstream at all until the 2000s. Installation and getting a game to work was a chore. Regardless, I would only consider any fps game that wasn't designed with free look to be retro, along with early dos based games like Commander Keen.

> that is biased...

What does that even mean

> muh processor and polygon count

Once again these are incremental and evolutionary improvements, not revolutionary improvements. They didn't completely overhaul the way the user interacts with the world the way that the transition from 2D to 3D worlds did. They have a similar style to their predecessors on the 5th gen (by that I mostly mean the N64, since the PSX and DC had plenty of 2d and pseudo 3d games), even if they can do it in a more complex and prettier environment.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:12:43 2015 No.2574415

>>2574405
>So your CPU generates a list of polygons to render, then puts it in this vertex/primitives buffer for the GPU to process, right?
Right

>So then if for whatever reason your CPU generates a list of more than 4000 polygons, that frame simply won't be rendered?
The list will overflow the buffer you have. So either you end up breaking data after the buffer, write where you're not allowed to write, or get rejected writes. In either case any data beyond the 4k does not reach the renderer, and as such wouldn't be rendered, I suppose. The renderer itself will happily chug along at 60Hz and render whatever is in the buffers at that point. The engine is responsible to make sure it does not overflow the buffer.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:12:45 2015 No.2574416
File: 19 KB, 480x432, sbgb00001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Retro is not about time. For me retro goes til the snes/genesis era. Anything after that is most accurately called simply old. I think the 3D jump 32 bit consoles made is the dividing line.

Retro games are games, the rest are something between games and simulators.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:13:10 2015 No.2574418 >>2574404 My point was that he was defining retro as being from a specific time period, as opposed to the actual definition which is that it's something from the recent past.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:15:19 2015 No.2574424 >>2574372 >retro consoles with hard sprite limits and a 60fps lock >60fps lock Can you name some? I'm interested.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:15:43 2015 No.2574426

>>2574413
>PCs are a lot more nebulous because there aren't distinct generations
console generations are largely artificial. Gaming happened on computers back then as well, so it should be acknowledged within this discussion.

>What does that even mean
Like probably most of us here you grew up during this transition in 3D development. As such it might be more difficult to actually realize the vast game changing changes that happened in that period.

>Once again these are incremental and evolutionary improvements, not revolutionary improvements
They enable revolutionary improvements. It takes a certain computing power to do what was previously unfeasible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:16:45 2015 No.2574428 >>2574424 NES, GB, SNES, probably plenty others.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:17:10 2015 No.2574429

>>2574415

I see, I think this is computing for me.
How are you knowledgeable about this console? Is there anything else curious about this hardware?

>>2574424

I thought most consoles did that. For example, instead of dropping a frame when having to draw too much, the NES just fails to draw the extra sprites, resulting in sprite flicker.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:17:38 2015 No.2574431 >>2574428 None of those are locked at 60fps.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:18:02 2015 No.2574435 >>2574429 >How are you knowledgeable about this console? Personal casual interest. Its visuals are that particular low polygon small textures style that I love to this day

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:18:04 2015 No.2574436

for me retro games are console games with a resolution of less than 480p that are best played on a CRT and cant be remastered.

For example, the Metal Gear PS2 games had hd remasters and look good. But the first Metal Gear game would have to get a remake to be acceptable for modern people, as the one it got for gamecube.
Ocarina of time cant be remastered and look acceptable, that is why it got a 3ds remake instead.
Final Fantasy VII is getting a remake, not a remaster.
That is why Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 are not retro, and Ocarina and Final Fantasy VII are.

And for me retro pc games are the ones created before Steam, when most pc games were retail games and not downloaded.
So, Civilization III is Retro and Civ IV not.

BTW I consider the GBA retro, and the PSP and DS too in some years. But I will never consider the PS2, Gamecube, Xbox and consoles after those to be retro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:18:26 2015 No.2574439 I dont really like the word retro I just came here for old videogames

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:18:42 2015 No.2574441 >>2574317 They are as retro as the rest of the generation. Not retro at all. Yeah, Dreamcast is not retro. GBA is more retro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:18:52 2015 No.2574442 >>2574435 I can enjoy low poly but the low resolution makes the DS's 3D output hard for me to enjoy.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:19:04 2015 No.2574443

>>2574431
All of these systems will render what ever is configured in their VRAM 60 times per second, and that's baked into the hardware and can not be overridden. The most a developer can do is decide to only update that data every other frame, producing 30fps output by repeating every other frame.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:20:47 2015 No.2574447 >>2574439 >I just came here for old videogames What makes a video game old in your opinion? Are there content criteria, or age criteria? What are they?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:22:02 2015 No.2574449 >>2574447 In my opinion? Old things are old, games that I played 25 years ago I guess, I dont bother myself with those questions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:22:31 2015 No.2574452 >>2574443 Okay, and this is the same for any console ever made, though. Only that with the newer ones you just delay the framebuffer a couple of frames to give it time until it's ready.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:23:22 2015 No.2574454

"Retro" is the new "art", where everyone's got a slightly different and (usually) valid definition. I like "new in what's perceived as the style of something old" best, for example. This makes it very difficult to quantify what should allowed or barred from discussion, and the rules we have right now feel arbitrary (though I agree that platforms should be cut off, not games releasing past 1999 but on a /vr/ platform within the commercial life-cycle). I think the board needs to combat spoonfeeding (encouraging proper recommendation threads instead) and poor moderation before worrying about the sticky this much. Meanwhile either a post-Dreamcast/pre-X360 console/handheld general should be tested or 4chan administration should make a new board for anything past the turn of 1995. Latter gives us a neat separation of discussion into two eras: medium's inception to 1995, 1995 to now. Rename /vr/ to Old Games (/vo/) and call the new board Vintage Games (because they're still aging into fine wine—/v2/).

I also think, for the moment, that PC games made in mind for an OS released in 1999 or earlier are fit here even if they came out past the cutoff date. Something like Sim City 4 I would say is acceptable because Windows 98 is still listed on the packaging, meaning the publisher wished to emphasize performance on Windows versions older than XP. The generations method of classifying games is TV/handheld console-biased, so I'd refrain from relying on it. Dreamcast is good here until /v2/ becomes a thing.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:26:10 2015 No.2574458

>>2574452
>Okay, and this is the same for any console ever made, though
Not exactly. For 3D systems it's common to take whatever time you need to fill your framebuffer, then fire off another render process manually. You can time it to 60fps, you can render whenever you're ready ("unlimited fps"), you can let it fall behind. Usually unlimited engines, or engines able to fall behind compute variable durations between frames.
That is a MAJOR difference to the old 2D systems, that will render whatever you have in your configuration, partial or not, and will interrupt your computations to perform the rendering of a frame at a fixed interval.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:27:23 2015 No.2574460

>>2574458
>take whatever time you need to fill your framebuffer
That was bullshit. Take whatever time you need to prepare a frame. That's usually readying the textures, fill the vertex and primitives buffers. The framebuffer is not accessed usually, it's the responsibility of the GPU to fill it, during rendering

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:35:13 2015 No.2574468

>>2574436
So for you it's not about a time period, but rather a set of system limitations? That's interesting.

If a game is made today that's in 480p how would it fit into that?

What about even older games that have been remastered? M2's 3D ports of Genesis games for example. Was Outrun not retro because it was successfully remastered? And looks better on the 3DS screen than a CRT.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:37:39 2015 No.2574469 >>2574331 Nah, if I'd made that thread it would have been successful. Like this one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:38:20 2015 No.2574470 >>2574468 You seem to be suggesting that ports/remasters somehow negate the originals, which would be a ridiculous argument.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:42:02 2015 No.2574474

>>2574470
Yes it would be, I'm not meaning to suggest that at all though. Just trying to get at what he was saying.

>for me retro games are console games with a resolution of less than 480p that are best played on a CRT and cant be remastered.

He says there that part of his definition of a retro game is that it can't be remastered. So I was wondering how he reconciles that with a game that seems pretty clearly reto by most standards but is successfully remastered.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:45:31 2015 No.2574481

Anyone who played video games in the early 90s on back knows the difference between retro games and non-retro games. When 5th gen came out and 3D games became plausible for a game console the way games were played changed drastically. It's something you had to live through and experience without newer technology existing.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:46:34 2015 No.2574482

>>2574474
Ah, I see. Hopefully you're just shining a light on the holes in his definition but not expecting actual reconciliation (you likely won't get one), because I have yet to see a single definition that's air-tight. It seems to me that the way most people go about defining "retro games" is "consider what I want to be included first, then attempt to construct a ruleset that covers as much of that as possible; ignore holes and in the event that something I don't want is allowed by my ruleset, simply bark 'doesn't count.'"

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:49:12 2015 No.2574487

>>2574481
I can guarantee you, the transition was buttery smooth for computer gamers. I started in the early 90s with Monkey Island and Stunts 4D driving, transitioned to Screamer Rally and Grim Fandango, ending up at Grand Prix Legends and Test Drive Unlimited and leaving the p&c genre behind because it died.
Consoles went through a bit of a jumpy time, but on PC even the introduction of 3D accelerators was rather smooth, as a lot of games ran in software side by side.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:50:56 2015 No.2574489

>>2574482
>most people go about defining "retro games" is "consider what I want to be included first, then attempt to construct a ruleset that covers as much of that as possible

Yup, that's my impression as well. Personally I don't really care too much what "retro" is, but I'm interested in people's opinions on it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:53:47 2015 No.2574493

>>2574481
OP here, I started gaming in the late 70's and I think the definition of what "retro" means when relating to games is actually very fuzzy and why I made the thread.

To me there have been drastic changes in both graphics and gameplay happening continually since the very first games appeared. Where the line should be drawn that separates retro and non-retro I honestly can't say. Or even if there's a line at all.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:54:22 2015 No.2574495

>>2574180
>Not intended as a discussion of the board rules definition, I'm asking about your personal feelings on the matter.
Like fuck you are. I know your game, I saw your thread on /v/ yesterday. You're digging for responses so you can push for PS2 on this board by saying "look other people say it's okay so the rules should change :^)".

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:54:27 2015 No.2574496

>>2574489
I was, for a while, but before long it became apparent that for all the individual differences, it's all the same: a bunch of people butting heads over whose preferences/perceptions are "correct," with a few trolls mixed in who just like stirring the pot. It's an eternal argument that can never be won, but apparently people would rather wage that war than, I dunno, talk about games.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:54:38 2015 No.2574497

>>2574205
>>2574180

i think ps2 and xbox are too commonly found to be deemed retro right now. i think people will consider it vintage/retro when spare copies start drying up. i mean, like when the fuck will dvds be considered retro. there 15 years old, and i wont consider them retro for ages. i think GC and dreamcast is considered more vintage cuz niether had the enormous popularity of ps2.

>TLDR:
ps2 is too common still, to be considered retro.

TLDR

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:56:11 2015 No.2574501 File: 3 KB, 320x200, 3-Demon_(screenshot).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2574481 What about early 3D games? Retro or no?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:56:34 2015 No.2574502 >>2574481 That's why I think there should be a 1st thru 4th generation board, a 5th thru 8th generation board (or 5th thru 7th and a current generation board), and a PC gaming board. How things are now isn't a dealbreaker for me however.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:58:18 2015 No.2574505 [DELETED]

>>2574497
>i mean, like when the fuck will dvds be considered retro
DVDs are just a transport mechanism for movies. The only way these become retro is when they are replaced by something more capable. Like when the CD replaced the vinyl (let's face it, the MC was never a vinyl replacement).
The movies, regardless, can be retro. However the concept of a movie itself is over a century old, so 15 years is a bit too young and few people would consider movies from 2000 to be retro. 1990 on the other hand ...

And thanks to the disconnect of medium and movie, a 1990s movie on a DVD can be retro, even if the DVD isn't.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 12:59:05 2015 No.2574507

>>2574495
Actually you're totally off base. I didn't make that thread on /v/ and in no way feel ps2 should be included on this board. When I said I wanted this conversation to be more about our various personal opinions on what we each consider retro, as opposed to what this board should be about I was being sincere. That's what I'm really curious about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:00:33 2015 No.2574509 I'm a 1997babby. I consider retro to be everything before my time; that is, 5th gen and earlier.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:04:07 2015 No.2574513

>>2574496
>it's all the same: a bunch of people butting heads over whose preferences/perceptions are "correct,"

That's just the internet in general. Any time actual games are talked about it's still just the same thing.

>I liked Simon's Quest!
>It's shit you faggot!
>No fuck you, it's fun
>You're wrong, your opinion sucks

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:04:39 2015 No.2574514 >>2574509 this. GBA/6th gen can't be retro because I grew up with that and I'm only 18. Feel free to question the logic but that's how my brain works.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:05:44 2015 No.2574515 >>2574514 What happens in 10-20 years? SNES retro, GBA not retro? XBox One?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:13:18 2015 No.2574520

The problem with trying to strictly define "retro" is that you either end up with such a narrow definition as to quickly render it meaningless, or you start defining qualities that allow some person to make a game with those attributes and then label the thing "retro".

Obviously, the board has its definition, which is meant to curb this type of discussion from derailing genuine threads. Personally, I consider anything older than the previous generation as retro, but I look at it from the perspective of trying to understand why current games are the way they are, and what they were doing with the technology at the time.

In my mind, quite possibly the largest break in what people call "retro" occurs along the transition from 2D sprites to 3D polygon models, and even then you can't get a clear cut break because they used a lot of tricks when they were transitioning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:16:38 2015 No.2574526 >>2574515 Then it depends on the individual.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:17:42 2015 No.2574528

>>2574520
>or you start defining qualities that allow some person to make a game with those attributes and then label the thing "retro".
Good luck making a game now that's X years old.

> I look at it from the perspective of trying to understand why current games are the way they are, and what they were doing with the technology at the time.
A generation is a bit of a too brief period for that, especially with plenty of time generations existing in parallel. Then again, I consider the whole generation approach for consoles to be rather useless, as was demonstrated quite thoroughly in this thread.

>transition from 2D sprites to 3D polygon models
Never happened. We still do 2D sprites, and we have been doing 3D worlds and models back then. If anything, devs are developing preferences and the cost/benefit ratios are shifting.

>they used a lot of tricks when they were transitioning
And then everything was replaced by cookie cutter polygon engines, sad times.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:18:44 2015 No.2574531 >>2574526 I asked that one anon specifically, whether it's gonna stay, because of their own life experience, or if it's gonna shift, due to difference to the present and their own taste evolving.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:20:39 2015 No.2574534 >>2574531 well I guess it'll stay the same. That's a pretty shitty way of thinking about things isn't it

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:29:12 2015 No.2574542

I think retro is precisely that
>imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past

IE not even the games we discuss here are retro because they're not
>imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past
because they're the source of what something retro would be trying to imitate.

We shoulda had >>>/vc/ - Classic Games rather than /vr/.
For me, 16-bit/4th-gen era and earlier is classic. 32-bit/5th-gen and later is not. It's newfangled and I hate it.

I'm okay with the current definition of /vr/'s rules as they are, though, just that I would have preferred were it classic games as I described because I don't like 3D.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:31:35 2015 No.2574547 >>2574542 And what about 3D games from the 16 bit generation and before?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:33:04 2015 No.2574549

>>2574542
>IE not even the games we discuss here are retro because they're not
While I agree, how about you look at it from a different angle. If you are playing these games now, you are imitating playing video games as it was done in the recent past.
There are certain systems available and supported nowadays by the major companies, yet we play systems, or emulate playing systems that were common, and hence played by the broad public, in the past.
Not the games are "retro", our action (and way) of playing them is.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:39:06 2015 No.2574554

>>2574547
I'm not a fan.
But hey, just because I don't like it doesn't mean no one else should discuss it here. I'd be more than happy were /vr/ swapped out for /vc/, personally, but that doesn't mean you should post or discuss your 3D/32-bit/5th-gen consoles here, if that's what you like.
See, that's the beauty of a Futaba image board! If I don't like the topic, I can just choose to not enter the thread! So I have no idea what you people with your newfangled Sony Stationplayers and Sega Saturdays talk about! You keep doing you, if that's your thing.

>>2574549
Meh.

I just like my classic video games. I don't think too much about the philosophy behind it. I likes what I likes and das all dat I likes.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:40:50 2015 No.2574556

>>2574554
> I'd be more than happy were /vr/ swapped out for /vc/, personally, but that doesn't mean you should post or discuss your 3D/32-bit/5th-gen consoles here, if that's what you like.
Err...
I'd be more than happy were /vr/ swapped out for /vc/, personally, but that doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T post or discuss your 3D/32-bit/5th-gen consoles here, if that's what you like.
Fix'd.

Also, barbecued ribs and roast beef are now steaks because Captcha said so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:43:37 2015 No.2574562 >>2574556 careful with the 3D aspect, as you're disqualifying the Atari 2600, arcade, GB, among others, and a large share of 80s and early 90s computer gaming

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:44:42 2015 No.2574567 >>2574554 Interesting, so you just don't like 3D games in general? Only 2D ones? Do you play contemporary 2D games as well, or just stick to old ones?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 13:48:12 2015 No.2574571 >>2574542 >We shoulda had >>>/vc/ - Classic Games rather than /vr/. That's just semantics though. We'd have the same arguments about what games are classic that we do about which ones are retro.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:24:09 2015 No.2574634

>>2574542
That'd be much worse. Instead of arguing about what years or hardware serve as boundaries, every single game could be individually argued as "classic" or "not a classic," and there will always be people who will dispute either claim just to rile up people who take it (too?) seriously.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:28:26 2015 No.2574645

>>2574562
Not at all.
See, I don't like [most/the vast, vast, VAST majority of] 3D games. As roughly 99.99999999% of games before the 5th gen are not 3D, 4th-gen would be the cut off definition for me. It's pretty cut-and-dry what consoles are 4th gen and what consoles aren't.

>>2574567
I don't like most/the vast, vast, VAST majority of 3D games. I do, however, enjoy 2D games from all eras.

>>2574571
Then call it >>>/vc/ 16-bit Generation and Older.
There. There's no argument about what's 16-bit and what isn't.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:31:39 2015 No.2574652

>>2574634
Nope. 16-bit and older. That's it. It's not worse. It's clearly defined. /vr/ should have never allowed an exception for Dreamcast because that caused a crack in the dike. Eventually, the crack will rupture and the flood of shit I don't care about will come pouring in. Then I'll be sad a bit. Then I'll play Eggerland: Revival of the Labyrinth for the umpteenth time or putz about with my best friend on NES Ice Hockey.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:33:03 2015 No.2574654 >>2574309 >Brazil winning a cup and rekting Germany goalkeeper Sure it is retro

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:36:18 2015 No.2574658

>>2574652
>shit I don't care about
That's the big problem in your argument. You make no attempts to provide a general set of terms and openly mix in your own resentments that won't even hold up to scrutiny (as said many pre-16bit platforms had 3D games). Don't expect much sympathy with that stance

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:43:17 2015 No.2574667

>>2574528
>Good luck making a game now that's X years old.
Hence the first part of the statement, numbnuts. You go with a strict definition pre-2000, 20 years from now you have 35 year old games that aren't retro. You go with a strict definition of 15+ years or older, you get people bitching because eventually the PS2 through 4 and various Xboxes all become retro at some point.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:45:33 2015 No.2574672

>>2574667
>You go with a strict definition pre-2000, 20 years from now you have 35 year old games that aren't retro
Which is why strict definitions are usually "X years or older", so they don't need to be updated annually.

>You go with a strict definition of 15+ years or older, you get people bitching because eventually the PS2 through 4 and various Xboxes all become retro at some point.
And again the question would be, are they not, at that point? If not, why not?
Keep in mind that "retro" differs from "the video game age of X"

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:46:19 2015 No.2574673
File: 45 KB, 645x479, 1437188956324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2574180
Everything up till Dreamcast is retro. I really don't understand the hate behind DC being retro.

>It was the last Sega console
>released in 1998/1999
>Sega as a company today resembles literally nothing of it's former self pre-2000

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:47:06 2015 No.2574674

>>2574652
>Eventually, the crack will rupture and the flood of shit I don't care about will come pouring in.

This is the most pervasive attitude on /vr/ that disappoints me the most. That old games were all great and new games are all shit. Many people here don't actually seem to like games, they just like some games from a specific era and then insist everything else is crap.

Having been into this hobby for almost 40 years now, I've seen great games and shit games in every single era. This attitude that new games are all shit is just so short sighted in my eyes. There's such a volume of games being made these days for all tastes, that if someone really can't find something contemporary that they like I seriously think they're not really fans of games in general.

Personally I support Dreamcast on this board because it fits the purpose of /vr/, which is to have a separate board where people can talk about older games and systems that would get quickly buried on /v/ because they're generally nowhere near as popular these days as modern games.

That's why Dreamcast is a good cutoff because of it's relative unpopularity making it not very viable for /vg/ threads the way GBA and PS2 are.

I agree /vc/ classic gaming would be a better name for the board than retro gaming, but I also think the 32 bit systems and Dreamcast belong here as well.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:48:10 2015 No.2574678

>>2574673
As one anon just a couple posts ago made clear, the "problem" for them is that the DC does 3D rather effortlessly and in good quality. For some people the distinct feature is 2D visuals. They actually want /v2d/ but for some reason insist on it being /vr/ or /vc/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:48:39 2015 No.2574680 >>eyy lamo

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 14:54:15 2015 No.2574698

>>2574674
>This attitude that new games are all shit is just so short sighted in my eyes
It's the simple problem of an overly broad brush. No, not all current games are shit. However, if you take your own knowledge and experience of games from the 80s and 10s, you will see fundamental differences in the way the game treats the player, the way pacing is done, the way puzzles are constructed, etc. For some people, me included, that's a difference that permeates the evolution of video games. Where games have become too smooth, and disrespect the player and their agency too much. That does not affect every modern game, but if affects enough of them that the purchase of a modern system becomes "not worth it" to some degree. Likewise, not every older game is perfect regarding these things. There is plenty punishing bullshit out there, or extremely frustrating and timewasting mechanics. It was a time of experimentation, which, by the way, also kind of disappeared, or at least shrunk. Games follow a bunch of standard formulas now, with only minor differences in interface presentation and control schemes. That "variety" and interest in experimentation, even at the chance of producing a bad game, is what some of us miss

Note how none of this is tied to a platform or to hardware capabilities. The common factor is simply developer experience and market.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:01:07 2015 No.2574717 This thread is a salt mine.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:09:43 2015 No.2574736

>>2574698
>However, if you take your own knowledge and experience of games from the 80s and 10s, you will see fundamental differences in the way the game treats the player, the way pacing is done, the way puzzles are constructed, etc.

I certainly agree with this, I guess I just don't agree that it's necessarily bad. Also that a lot of people who don't like modern games mostly seem to point to the most popular ones. They don't like shooters for example, see that the biggest games on the 360 are shooters and so discount the system as a whole.

But the thing is that with the 360 say, even though fps games are many of the best selling titles, in total the genre only makes up 15% of the overall library. Yes there are games that follow a strict formula, but there are also ones that don't.

The volume of games these days has also made previously very niche genres a lot more active. Rougelikes are some of my favorite games for example and these days there are tons of them being made by all kinds of people, some really pushing the format and some refining it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:11:31 2015 No.2574739

>>2574652
>Nope. 16-bit and older. That's it. It's not worse. It's clearly defined

We're talking about the hypothetical situation of calling it "classic video games." That it NOT clearly defined and "classic" is a lot more broad and subjective than "retro."

>for me
That's key. That definition works FOR YOU, and means fuck all to anyone else.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:13:12 2015 No.2574742

>>2574736
>Rougelikes
Some would argue that rougelikes are a form of retro, where the developers use retro system capabilities and retro game style, and apply their modern experience and knowledge to them, to develop the genre, without (hopefully) falling into the trap of modern games.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:18:40 2015 No.2574757

>>2574736
>Yes there are games that follow a strict formula, but there are also ones that don't.
just to clarify a bit, I don't just mean the shooter genre. You can go wider than that. For example game menus are largely similar, branching mechanisms in RPGs are largely similar (and far less varied than they used to be), controls of 3rd person games are extremely similar, especially regarding the use of both analog sticks. You could argue it's "the best control scheme", but it was found empirically, and there are probably plenty sub genres where that control scheme is not ideal.

And even if you take the shooter genre by itself, you can find a common placement of UI elements, with only style of them changing a bit here and there, interactions are largely done in the same way.

Games are a lot more than just genres, there are many aspects to them, and a lot of them have become interchangable. When a modern, even creative, game is being developed, you can be sure it's done in a modular form taking "standard" control schemes, standard menus, standard progression (percentage, achievements) and so on. The few games that break out of this, get pretty wide attention, because it's so utterly rare.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:19:19 2015 No.2574758

>>2574426
Evolutionary improvements are irrelevant though, as I am defining retro as the step-jump transition between 2D and 3D console gaming.

Also, I grew up primarily with an NES/Genesis/SNES so your assumption about being influenced by the PSX/N64 generation is incorrect.

PS: No one cares about how you played PC games on a 486 machine.

>>2574739
"Classic" is in fact a better definition. It could be argued that games like the God of War series or Street Fighter 4 are retro since they are based on a gameplay style that is mostly phased out of existence in modern gaming.

I do agree that a split of 4th gen and earlier, 5th-7th gen, and 8th+ gen is probably the best way to go.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:19:59 2015 No.2574759

>>2574742
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. They are games being made today that take gameplay notes more from older games. And that's kind of the whole point I was making, it's not just rougelikes that are like that these days. Alongside the masses of games that are little more than interactive stories (Uncharted, Mass Effect) there are also new games designed with older sensibilities (Etrian Odyssey, Dwarf Fortress) if you want to seek them out. There are also new games that take a lot of modern game design but mix it with the kind of difficulty and precision needed that we were used to in older games. Monster Hunter is one of the best examples of that.

Also, I don't care for it but Minecraft.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:21:42 2015 No.2574763

>>2574758
>step-jump transition between 2D and 3D console gaming
Thereby excluding all of non-console gaming. Not cool.

>Also, I grew up primarily with an NES/Genesis/SNES so your assumption about being influenced by the PSX/N64 generation is incorrect.
Last I checked you're alive and experienced that entire time

>No one cares about how you played PC games on a 486 machine.
You don't. That's fine, but neither representative nor helpful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:25:13 2015 No.2574778 >>2574758 >PS: No one cares about how you played PC games on a 486 machine. Which is why we are equally uninterested in your incredibly limited viewpoint.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:26:58 2015 No.2574780

>>2574759
>there are also new games designed with older sensibilities (Etrian Odyssey, Dwarf Fortress) if you want to seek them out
Sure, but then you're kind of in the range of modern retro gaming. Sounds like an oxymoron, but it's just taking the old style of games and interactions, and running with it in a modern environment. It's deliberately not going for modern design basics of game flow and interaction, with very few carefully chosen exceptions. I'd say there's a bit of a chasm between these games and purely modern games, that make no attempt to deal with their history and instead try to be purely "for consumption".

>Minecraft
Not sure where to place it. Its visuals are on their own, being neither modern bleeding edge nor resembling anything in history. Its gameplay is on one hand freeform, which itself is kind of a "recent" (decade or two) setup, or choreographed. It's not a bad game, but I'd have trouble identifying modern and classic aspects in it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:27:25 2015 No.2574782

>>2574739
Perhaps you missed the thread topic.

>>2574658
See the point above. Also, I don't care if people discuss 3D. I just don't. See >>2574556/>>2574554:
>blah blah blah i don't like 3D but if you do and it's 4th gen or older, go ahead; also blah blah blah if there's a thread with a topic that doesn't interest me, i don't participate in it blah
Simple, really.

>>2574674
Do you know what "Golden Age" comics are? Or Golden Age Hollywood cinema? Or Golden Age television?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_comics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Hollywood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_television

If a forum started to discuss any of those, would you similarly piss and moan that they don't discuss Constantine, The Matrix, Breaking Bad or other things that are more recent? I wouldn't. I'd discuss the subject those forums were created to discuss.

As said already, I do like some more contemporary 2D games. But I don't discuss them here because this is not the place to discuss more contemporary games. Simple.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:29:06 2015 No.2574786 >>2574782 if you want /v2d/, say so. But don't hide your opinion behind a claim for authority on "classic" games.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:32:22 2015 No.2574793 >>2574758 >No one cares about how you played PC games on a 486 machine. You fucking wot.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:36:20 2015 No.2574802

>>2574780
> I'd say there's a bit of a chasm between these games and purely modern games, that make no attempt to deal with their history and instead try to be purely "for consumption".

I agree with that too. I guess it's just that I don't see anything "wrong" with those games. They're not for me, but I don't have time to play everything that comes out anyways. I despise Uncharted, but am happy it's there for the people who like it.

Also this is why I mentioned Monster Hunter. It takes a lot of modern game design, but is much more of a traditional "game." Very minimal plot, a long and steadily ramping difficulty curve taking a lot of both practice and skill to master.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:37:56 2015 No.2574806

>>2574786
You've mistaken me for another person. I never claimed any authority. I never mentioned /v2d/. Before the post you just replied to, I haven't posted in the thread since >>2574652

Clearly, other people share some of my opinions, and that's fine. Clearly, other people disagree with some of my opinions and that's fine, too. The fact remains, OP asked a question, I answered the question and people are upset with an opinion that ultimately doesn't matter. But then, neither does yours. Or the next twelve posts in the thread. They just don't.
I would have liked a /vc/ board with a 16-bit/4th-gen cut off. That's all.
I never said not to discuss 3D on this hypothetical board. I said I don't like 3D. That's all.
I never said no one should discuss 32-bit/5th gen. I said I would have preferred a clear cut-off made at 16-bit/4th gen games. That's all.

You like 5th gen? You like 3D? Good. Talk about it. The way Futaba is set up means you can have your threads for your topics and people that aren't interested in those topics don't have to participate in those threads.
Which is what I do now.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:38:18 2015 No.2574807

>>2574180
it seems to depend on how old YOU were when it came out. i don't see the 360 as retro because it came out when i was 15. i see the ps2 as retro because i was really young when i played it. some one who was 15 when the ps2 came out wouldn't consider it retro.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:38:47 2015 No.2574809

>>2574802
>I guess it's just that I don't see anything "wrong" with those games.
Oh yeah, fully agreed. Variety is not a bad thing. It becomes a bit problematic when "those games" choke resources for other games, but then again, I am quite confident fans of modern games feel the same way about the games we enjoy.

>Monster Hunter
Yeah, I believe you, I just have absolutely no experience with it, so I can't comment on it either way.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:39:59 2015 No.2574813

>>2574802
>Very minimal plot, a long and steadily ramping difficulty curve taking a lot of both practice and skill to master.

There are far too many diverse games for you to be throwing such narrow minded statements, like what you said would automatically kill any adventure game discussion, because they are mostly plot based games.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:41:27 2015 No.2574819
File: 55 KB, 350x312, faceball-2000.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2574782
>If a forum started to discuss any of those, would you similarly piss and moan that they don't discuss Constantine, The Matrix, Breaking Bad

No, I would be going to that forum to discuss the era of comics/tv/whatever it was there for. However, if in doing so I had to constantly come across people bitching about how everything new is shit, that would get pretty annoying as well. It goes both ways.

But anyways, you're the dude who wants to define retro by 2D vs 3D while discounting the entire PC side of gaming so I don't find anything you say all that interesting or valid.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:41:45 2015 No.2574823

>>2574758
It could be also be argued that they're too far removed from the gameplay style and a perverted corruption of it. It could also be argued that, I don't know, Harley's Humongous Adventure is not "classic" and The Sims 3 is. "Classic" is, again, far more broad and subjective.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:43:46 2015 No.2574825

>>2574806
>You've mistaken me for another person
No, I just used the term /v2d/ earlier to refer to you. You made quite clear that your interest is in 2D games, regardless of system and age. You exclude 3D games on older platforms as well, and you exclude the computer out of interest. So it seems age, platform or quality of games are secondary to you, it's all about 2D vs. other. That's fine, no problem, but don't go around claiming it has anything to do with classic vs. other.

>I answered the question and people are upset with an opinion
To clarify, nobody is upset, this is a surprisingly healthy and level-headed discussion. The issue I have, don't know about others, is that your distinctions are not rooted in age or quality, but certain gameplay aspects. That makes it difficult to use that distinction under the label "retro" and that's what people are having a problem with.

>I said I would have preferred a clear cut-off made at 16-bit/4th gen games.
You made clear that your motivation for this cutoff is the dawn of 3D on a wide scope on consoles.

>The way Futaba is set up
Not sure if you missed it, but the purpose of this thread is not to change the board rules. The goal OP had is to find out where people draw the lines, and how and why. Granted, I probably need to apologize with the /v2d/ thing then, as that implies board rule changes. Still I stand by my opinion on your that your primary distinction for games is neither age nor platform but a visualization (and possibly gameplay) aspect (2D)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:45:08 2015 No.2574831 >>2574813 Aye, good point. But it does seem like there are a lot more games these days that have a heavy emphasis on story than there used to be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 15:48:11 2015 No.2574840 >>2574825 >To clarify, nobody is upset, OP here, strongly seconding this. There's been some saltiness, and more of an emphasis on the rules for this board than I'd hoped, but overall it's been a great thread so far.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:12:08 2015 No.2574909

>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.

Read the fucking sticky, OP.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:18:35 2015 No.2574932

>>2574763
> Thereby excluding all of non-console gaming. Not cool.
> You don't. That's fine, but neither representative nor helpful.

I already acknowledged that PC gaming was more nebulous, and you keep on about it for some reason. If you are trying to argue that PC exclusives or franchises that were born on the PC and later ported need their own board, then I would agree with you. It doesn't need to be limited to a specific generation because the library of games fitting that definition and the community will be relatively small.

>>2574778
> we

Someone needs to see a shrink.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:22:31 2015 No.2574945

>>2574819
No, I'm not that dude. See >>2574806
That's someone else.

>>2574825
As said, I like 2D games. If you want to talk about 3D games on the hypothetical /vc/ board that deals with games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier, great. Go ahead. So along as they're on 16-bit/4th gen consoles. I just wouldn't participate in those threads because I'd have nothing to say. It'd be like walking in on a discussion about art trends of the 1830s or something: I wouldn't know what to say or where to begin because I don't really know anything about the subject because I don't particularly like it, so I'd politely excuse myself or just avoid the conversation altogether.

I don't want a 2D board. I wanted, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, a classic board to discuss games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier.

My distinctions aren't rooted in gameplay aspects. Again, you mistake me for another. My distinction is rooted in, once again, games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier.

Also, I made clear that I, once more, wanted a board to discuss games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier.

I answered OP's question. "What's retro to [me]?" Well, what's retro to me is what I consider to be classic/golden age console games IE games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier.

Did I mention games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier? I'm not sure I have. I like games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier. :3

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:22:53 2015 No.2574947 >>2574909 Read the actual text of the thread, poindexter.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:23:56 2015 No.2574951

>>2574932
>If you are trying to argue that
I don't.

I'm merely illustrating that your definitions are too narrow as there are platforms that aren't subject to the bit wars, or have a clear 2D/3D distinction.
That you shrug off PC gaming as an unimportant sideshow shows your personal gaming bias, which you likely don't share with many others here.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:26:42 2015 No.2574954

>>2574945
>classic board
>the 16-bit/4th gen console era
The two are in conflict. You also stated in previous posts that you would talk about more modern 2D games, if there was a discussion platform for them. That's at least a consistent view, I'll give you that.

>classic/golden age
These are two different things.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:27:03 2015 No.2574956

>>2574932
I said 'we' because I wasn't the first person to point out what an incredibly stupid statement that was. That you're pulling that bullshit when you said "No one cares about how you played PC games on a 486 machine." Is truly hilarious. You're a world class retard.

16-bit/4th gen console era and(...) !kzulqUBW96 Wed Jul 29 16:31:15 2015 No.2574964

For sake of simplicity and because I like the discussion and the people in this thread and would like to continue having it without further confusion and also that you all have pretty mouths and I like you all and stuff, I'm using a trip and name for a bit, just cuz.
I'm >>2574945 >>2574806 >>2574782 >>2574652 >>2574556 >>2574554 >>2574542

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:35:29 2015 No.2574973

Personally? Anything 8-bit and lower. Systems more powerful feel too modern to me to be truly "retro".

In the context of this board's definition of retro? up to 6th gen. Dreamcast got officially licensed games until 2007, after all. Gamecube and Xbox petered out at the same time. PS2's longevity is a curiosity that muddles this conversation, surely, but the library really ends at about 2010 anyways, the install base was just large enough that publishers pushed out sports games for another few years. I can see the arguments against them being "retro" at the moment (although I think in that case Dreamcast should be barred for now as well), but if they aren't included in this board's definition within the next 5 years these rules are fucked.

16-bit/4th gen console era and(...) !kzulqUBW96 Wed Jul 29 16:38:14 2015 No.2574978

>>2574954
No. I never said I would talk about more modern 2D games. I like them, sure, but they're not something I talk about. Dunno why, exactly. Just don't. I like talking about games from 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier, though. :-)

I don't understand how "classic" and "games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier" are in conflict. /vr/ defines classic as >>2574909
>consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier.
I'd just move the cut-off for the hypothetical /vc/ board to an earlier year than the /vr/ definition has set it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:42:39 2015 No.2574987

>>2574978
>I don't understand how "classic" and "games from the 16-bit/4th gen console era and earlier" are in conflict.

>A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality.
In other words, classics are not restricted to a period or style, and indicated almost exclusively by quality. Which is also one of the reasons people prefer talking about retro, than classic, because it's practically impossible to find a consensus on what a classic is.
By calling any generation or period classic, you're violating the lack of era in the classic definition AND the quality or outstanding example aspect of the classic definition. As a probably unintended side effect this also implies that games after this period can never become classics, regardless of quality. People would object to that too.
You can go with a golden era, you can go with an 8/16bit era, and probably find many people in agreement. Classic though, that's gonna ring a few bells.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 16:59:58 2015 No.2575025 >>2574956 Oh look autism too

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:04:34 2015 No.2575160 File: 64 KB, 400x643, 4L_4NNf39sj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Retro = everything up to the 5th gen Old school = 6th gen , part of 7th gen( everything before Cod4 released) Modern = second half of 7th gen , 8th gen

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:17:34 2015 No.2575203 >>2575160 >Cod4 What a divider.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:20:23 2015 No.2575215

It's odd to bring up late releases for say the PS2, when the most likely course of action would be to change the rules to "games released up to and including 2005 for consoles up to the Game Boy Advance, Playstation 2, GameCube, and Xbox" or something.

Also this board isn't really "retro" in a strict sense, it's just for discussing games that are too old for /v/ and /vg/ to care about, which at this point definitely includes at least the GBA.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:24:03 2015 No.2575225 >>2575203 Think about how that game casualized everything first

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:27:24 2015 No.2575232 >>2575225 Well, I didn't play any CoDs and I don't know anything about modern FPSes, they're not interesting for me, so I can't > Think about how that game casualized everything first

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:27:46 2015 No.2575234 >>2575215 It's not rare that you see /v/ talk about the PS2, m8.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:28:27 2015 No.2575238 >>2574180 You played it when you were a kid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:30:17 2015 No.2575240 >>2575215 > games released up to and including 2005 Please don't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:30:40 2015 No.2575241 4th gen and below. I consider widespread 3D gaming the point at which gaming ceases to be retro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:35:48 2015 No.2575253 >>2575225 >Think about how that game casualized everything first You're incredibly naive if you think video games haven't been casualized for far longer than CoD4.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 18:55:21 2015 No.2575296

>>2574951
It's not narrow at all. I think we can agree that PC gaming up until the mid 90s had its own distinct flavor to it. Very few games were ported back and forth. If you wanted to play FPS, RTS, or immersive exploration games like Myst or the 7th Guest then you opted for the PC.

As I am arguing that retro is a style and not a time period, PC games don't fit into that specific mold anywhere. This is not an insult to PC gaming, but PC gaming cannot be described as 'retro' any more than Seline Dion can be classified as 'classic rock.'

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:09:30 2015 No.2575332 >>257529 >As I am arguing that retro is a style and not a time period, PC games don't fit into that specific mold anywhere. >I think we can agree that PC gaming up until the mid 90s had its own distinct flavor to it. Why we can't have retro PC gaming?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:11:06 2015 No.2575335

>>2575296
>As I am arguing that retro is a style and not a time period, PC games don't fit into that specific mold anywhere.
>I think we can agree that PC gaming up until the mid 90s had its own distinct flavor to it.

Why we can't have retro PC gaming?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:18:16 2015 No.2575343 >>2575240 Great counter there. It's a logical increment, games over 10 years old never get discussed elsewhere on this site.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:19:16 2015 No.2575347 >>2575335 We discuss it here all the time, what do you mean?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:33:35 2015 No.2575381

>>2575335
Again, let's go back to my original definitions:

> Retro: Games from the pre-NES days. Centipede. Missile command. Galaga. Etc.
> Golden-age of 2D gaming: 8-bit and 16-bit consoles.
> Beginning of 3D gaming: 5th and 6th gen
> Modern 3D gaming: 6th, 7th, and 8th gen

For the sake of dividing up discussion boards, I agree with the anon who said a division of 4th gen and earlier, 5th-7th gen, and current gen makes the most senes.

So no, I didn't address where PC's fit in that scheme as it simply wasn't important to me. You can put any labeling system you wish to try to categorize games from a certain era. It just becomes more difficult because of the nature of how PC hardware is released and consumed. I would not, however, classify old PC games as 'retro' as that category, for me, is strictly games from before the NES's time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 19:53:45 2015 No.2575404 >>2574265 >researching to make a comeback on someone's post >not just winging it It's like you don't even /vr/

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:22:13 2015 No.2575453
File: 60 KB, 611x388, 1427738226001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It used to be that only kids played vidya, because video games were a new thing.
But those kids are frown up now, they have kids, soon we will live in a world were playing video games know no age limit.
As of right now retro gaming is based on the old 8 bit and 16 bit consoles, or dead consoles like dreamcast, its a new market, antique gaming.
you know like 50 years from now finding an original nintendo or sega will cost lots of money while all our great grand kids play occulus rift generation 5 and no one makes consoles anymore

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:49:46 2015 No.2575530
File: 2 KB, 256x200, gauntlet_us_gold.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2574240
Not if he grew up in the 70's like me. My first computer was an Osborne 1 (not actually mine, but the family's) so my first experience was with text-only screens in CP/M, and mostly BASIC type-in games. My very own first computer was an Amstrad CPC, which is quite weak compared to even the NES in terms of video hardware, and laughable compared to any 16 bit machine. So to me, all those 8-bit systems are retro, but only some of the 16-bit systems feel retro (specifically Atari ST, Amiga, and Sega Genesis). My first PC was a 486, which doesn't feel all that retro to me. I never had much exposure to earlier PCs, although I think anything pre-386 (with at most EGA and Adlib cards) would feel retro to me.

Pic is Gauntlet on the CPC. As you can see, the sprites are very low-detail, because the screen resolution was very limited: 160x200 if you wanted to use 16 colors, which was the most you could display at once (without special hacks that were later used in demoscene stuff...)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:54:58 2015 No.2575540 >>2575530 https://archive.moe/vr/thread/2470898/#2517961 I knew I'd seen this samefagging shitposter before.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:55:58 2015 No.2575545 >>2574240 Like, seriously. The Genesis/SNES are a quarter century old. How the fuck is that not retro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:56:58 2015 No.2575547 >>2575530 >/vr/ - your blog

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:58:23 2015 No.2575549 >>2574180 i think 'retro' is retarded and subjective bullshit that should never be used to distinguish things apart from one another. it should be distinguished by dimensions, 2d games and 3d games

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 20:58:36 2015 No.2575550 >>2575530 https://archive.moe/vr/thread/2470898/#2517961 I knew I'd seen this shitposter before.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:03:21 2015 No.2575561 >>2575550 >>2575530 He's probably like 15 and found his dad's Osborne in the attic. I can smell 'em a mile away.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:05:58 2015 No.2575567
File: 439 KB, 536x325, le 90s kid.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I really like that atmosphere of the retro gaming community it reminds me of how shit used to be, before gaming was ruined by halo playing casual dude bros brought to you by doritios and mountain dew and the loony left sjw brigade

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:15:11 2015 No.2575585 >>2575567 Like I would dress in those 1920s outfits.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:16:11 2015 No.2575586 >>2575585 Even old guys today don't dress like that.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:16:17 2015 No.2575587

if I'm to draw a specific line, I would say the end of the 16bit era circa mid 90s

gaming went 3D after that and I feel it has remained on that path since, albeit in a much more advanced form. not a condemnation btw, the gaming industry should evolve and progress even if not to everyone's liking; wouldn't make sense to still be churning out nothing bur 2D sidescrollers in 2015 and beyond

PS/N64/SDC are old school, but not 'retro' in the way SNES/SMD/G games are

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:33:26 2015 No.2575615

>>2575547
You take things too negatively. It's to explain why I consider only some 16-bit platforms retro, but not for example SNES (its graphics are much more advanced than what I had when growing up).

>>2575550
>>2575561
I've seen you post this stupid bait before, but it's illogical. Once you realize that you too one day (and sooner than you think) will also be in your 40's, then you'll quickly lose this teenager mentality. I can tell you're not grown up yet because you actively seek conflict, rather than peace of mind. This will only make your life more difficult (you don't realize this though).

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:34:46 2015 No.2575617

>>2575615
>I've seen you post this stupid bait before, but it's illogical. Once you realize that you too one day (and sooner than you think) will also be in your 40's, then you'll quickly lose this teenager mentality. I can tell you're not grown up yet because you actively seek conflict, rather than peace of mind. This will only make your life more difficult (you don't realize this though)

>this pretentious pseudo-intellectual slobbering

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:37:10 2015 No.2575620 >>2575615 I think his point was more that you'd have to be a pretty sad unemployed person to be like 40 and still posting on this shithole where most people are underage or mentally unhinged or both.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:38:10 2015 No.2575625 >>2575620 Hey, whoa whoa whoa. I may be sad, unemployed, and mentally unhinged, but I'm not...what was the last thing you said?

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:44:34 2015 No.2575641

>>2575620
I'm actually unemployed right now. It does happen to people of all ages! Even so, I have lots of money saved up in IRA and 401k accounts, so I'm not exactly worried. At this point, a job is simply a means for me to not touch what I've accumulated and invested...

As for "shithole", well I post anywhere there is discussion of old retro systems. But yes, the other forums aren't very interesting to me. There was a Lisp General on /g/ but that's mostly it...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:44:52 2015 No.2575642 I want /v/ to leave.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:47:42 2015 No.2575652 Now he just needs to tell us how much MLP merch he owns and we're done.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 21:55:39 2015 No.2575671

>>2575652
None. And I don't collect japanese stuff either, nor do I have any interest in their comic books apart from a couple series (specifically Akira).
I like some early arcade games though, and I guess many of those are japanese. But my interest ends there. And I always preferred home computers to any game console. This is just to say that the world is a big place, and you should not believe that you understand all of reality, especially when your idea of it is such a one-dimensional caricature.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 22:09:49 2015 No.2575697

>>2575671
>This is just to say that the world is a big place, and you should not believe that you understand all of reality, especially when your idea of it is such a one-dimensional caricature
No but this is 4chan and we are all as you say, disturbed social outcasts here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 22:14:21 2015 No.2575712 >>2575671 >>2575641 >>2575615 >>2575530 Cripes, can't this guy make one post that's not a droning wall of text?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 22:15:30 2015 No.2575714 >>2575712 You know the saying. The smartest people are those who can articulate complex ideas in as few words as possible. Usually when you need multiple paragraphs to explain something, it means you don't really know what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 22:22:41 2015 No.2575732 >>2575714 Incorrect.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 22:27:27 2015 No.2575741

>>2574180
> Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.

Anonymous Wed Jul 29 22:54:16 2015 No.2575772

>>2574180
I honestly think that it needs to be a generation based thing. BEcause when we first got the PS1, people were talking about SNES like it was ancient tech, and it was accepted as "retro" even then.
\These days, some people still insist that the SNES is the cut off date, but I call bullshit on that.

Honestly, I think that to be fair, a console should be dead for at least 10 years before it's retro. So honestly, even though PS2, Xbox and Gamecube are technically only 2 gens behind current, they should honestly be considered retro.

Think about it like this, its a different crowd playing Xbone games than the kids who used to play Gamecube games. Different age groups, People who grew up playing Jak II on PS2 are out of college now, so that alone should be a qualifying factor.

If an adult can say "man, I remember playing with my (console name) when I was a kid", then it's retro.

But that's just me, some people think of ALL 3D games as being the same as modern games. Even though that's totally false. Compare Resident Evil to Dead Space for example. Totally different things, even though they're the same genre.

Also, modern games are judged by different things than even PS2 games.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 23:00:35 2015 No.2575787 >>2575772 Every console needs its own board--if nothing else, just to see what arbitrary factionism would spawn from that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 29 23:07:47 2015 No.2575807 >>2574318 >ALMOST a decade apart Your math skills are bad

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:03:31 2015 No.2575918 >implying retro = 2d this is 2015 guys

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:06:49 2015 No.2575927 >>2575732 Underrated post right here

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:07:46 2015 No.2575929 >>2575807 >>ALMOST a decade apart >Your math skills are bad Interesting... so 11 is not almost 10? Please, go on.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:10:28 2015 No.2575935

>>2575929
some people consider "almost" to mean "less than", and only "less than". For example when you say you have almost enough money to buy something, nobody will assume you have slightly more money than you need. 11 years would be "at least" a decade to them. You are applying the meaning of "almost" that is "within a very small distance".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:12:02 2015 No.2575937 I like the last millennium just fine as a cutoff. A little bleeding over is inevitable but whatevs. If you really want to talk about 6th gen as retro, you could always go to 8/vr/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:13:04 2015 No.2575939 >>2575772 >Also, modern games are judged by different things than even PS2 games. The 6th gen felt like an extension of the 5th gen rather than a completely new era just as the 4th gen was an extension of the 3rd gen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:14:04 2015 No.2575943 People in the 90s definitely considered the Atari era to be "retro" and that was only like 12-15 years in the past.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:19:56 2015 No.2575952

>>2575943
By 2004 (Far Cry) DOS gaming up to 1996 easily (Quake) was retro to most PC players. That's less than a decade. Having a massive leap in terms of technology in that time (introduction of the 3D accelerator, widely used graphics APIs) helped make that gap seem wider than it was. Funny enough, you'd be hardpressed to find people calling Far Cry retro now, although that's a wider gap in years.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:30:00 2015 No.2575963

>>2575943
Yeh, but in 1995, video games had only existed about 20 years. It's not hard to consider a 12 year old game retro when you had all of two decades worth of games in existence and half of that was crude single screen Space Invaders kind of stuff.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:30:15 2015 No.2575964

>>2574347
first of all, handhelds should not count. they don't follow the generational divisions that consoles, and the only handhelds that really count are the Nintendo ones. Nobody is nostalgic for a Nokia NGage.

and secondly, the DS is not even remotely "retro". two screens, a touch screen, Wifi and an message client? really? And, my PS3 plays Playstation games. does that make my PS3 retro?

and, I agree with the "incremental improvements" argument. You are right that better graphics come with actual gameplay improvements, but it still going from one glossy, hyperrealistic game to an even glossier hyperrealistic game. compare the jump from PS3 to PS4 with the quantum leap from Playstation to PS2.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:33:36 2015 No.2575968

>>2575964
>first of all, handhelds should not count. they don't follow the generational divisions that consoles

It's pretty easy to argue that GBA=6th gen and DS=7th gen. The earlier handhelds it's trickier because the Gameboy spanned both the 4th and 5th gen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:36:32 2015 No.2575971 >imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past. You have the answer, why are you asking the question? Retro games are any games that are no longer the current gen of video games. Basically whatever was current 10-15 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:39:57 2015 No.2575974 was about to make a bait comment but then I looked the the op's image a little closer you people are fucking stupid, stop responding to this shit

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:40:46 2015 No.2575975

>>2575964
>they don't follow the generational divisions that consoles
Neither do consoles anymore. Good luck fitting DreamCast, Wii or WiiU in clear generations. They may fit in terms of release years (loosely), but definitely not in terms of target demographic, capabilities and common features.
Likewise, the difference of 8 and 16 bit systems was so marginal, the generation distinction feels almost arbitrary.

>two screens, a touch screen, Wifi and an message client? really?
Yes, really, it's at least a worthwhile question. You do bring up a good point that connectivity used to be limit to local play, and the DS clearly breaks out of that. I see no problem with touch or the local connectivity being wireless.

>And, my PS3 plays Playstation games. does that make my PS3 retro?
Why should it? Though in an earlier post I argued the "retro" here is probably better suited refering to the act of playing, not the game, or system. Playing a PS3 game on a PS3? Not retro. Playing a PS game on a PS3? Retro. Playing it on an emulator? Certainly retro. Playing it on the actual hardware? So very retro. The common factor is the act of playing a game outside of its release period, not the hardware it's played on.

>but it still going from one glossy, hyperrealistic game to an even glossier hyperrealistic game
Agreed, and it falls square into the problem addressed earlier in the thread, that modern gaming tends to be more derivative and less experimental. It's very rare to see games using modern shaders in unexpected ways. Stuff like XIII used to be a thing. Mad World is worth a mention now and that's almost the full list in that era. Yoshi's Wooly World would be a more recent example.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:42:10 2015 No.2575976

>>2575971
>Retro games are any games that are no longer the current gen of video games
but that would include things like the PS2 and 3, which this board does not, and never will, cover, stop this stupid fucking forced bending of the rules, it's not going to happen, fuck off

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:42:16 2015 No.2575978

>>2574404
I wonder if the age of the gamer comes in to play, with questions like this? if you have never played hundreds of hours on a NES, you would have a hard time distinguishing it from the SNES, which, frankly, looks like night and day.

Both those systems were hamstrung by technical limits of their day. the NES couldn't fit more than a hard limit of so many moving characters on the screen, at a time. and those characters could not have more than two colors, unless you cheated by making certain parts separate sprites. Megaman's face, for example. also, the pixels were a uniform size: huge.

the SNES still had color limits, and although the pixels were smaller, they were still easy to see on a TV screen. The Playstation could display thousands of colors at a resolution that could match the pixels of the television, but its 3d polygons had a limit to how smooth the lines could be. there were also limits to how many textures could be painted on those polygons and how fine a resolution they could be drawn in at.

PS2 and Xbox games all look the same. Before that generation, however, each system had a very unique look and feel. Saturn games did NOT look like Playstation games. Dreamcast games did NOT look like Gamecube games.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:43:10 2015 No.2575981 >>2575975 3/10 for effort

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:43:25 2015 No.2575984 >>2574180 having meta discussions is retro gaming for me

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:43:56 2015 No.2575986

>>2575968
GBA might fit 6th gen in terms of release date, but its library and typical gameplay was extremely different to the consoles. The PSP meanwhile was released "in between" and yet it represents the gaming visuals and culture of what's regarded as gen 6 much better. Likewise the DS, completely out of place compared to 360 and PS3. I would not even include the Wii U in the same generation as 360 or PS3, because it was very disruptive, to the point that it had an entirely different market and wouldn't run in competition to either of those

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:47:03 2015 No.2575991 >>2575986 I meant that the kinds of games released for the GBA were clearly rooted in 2000s pop culture and gaming tropes, just as most of the Gameboy's library was clearly based on 90s franchises and concepts of gaming.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:50:38 2015 No.2575995

>>2575978
>if you have never played hundreds of hours on a NES, you would have a hard time distinguishing it from the SNES
ummm... yes you could... you are blind if one doesn't look substantially better than the other

>Saturn games did NOT look like Playstation games
ummm... yeah... they kind of did though....

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:55:28 2015 No.2576001 File: 3 KB, 256x224, clouddarkness1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2575975 distinction between 8-bit and 16-bit marginal, you say?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:57:19 2015 No.2576005 >>2575995 Saturn's rectangular polys look quite distinct from the conventional triangle polys on the PS1.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:57:37 2015 No.2576007
File: 4 KB, 256x224, clouddarkness2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2576001
I am pulling these off Hardcore 101, which only posts tiny pics. but, its the quickest way to get comparison shots.

these are of Final Fantasy 3. We can all agree that Square strives for graphical mastery and tries to push systems pretty hard, right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 00:59:32 2015 No.2576010 File: 39 KB, 256x224, bahamutlagoon-25.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2576007 compare these to Bahamut Lagoon. one of the most stunning games ever made for the Snes

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:03:49 2015 No.2576014
File: 28 KB, 256x224, bahamutlagoon-14.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2576010
COLOR. a fucking hoard of it. backgrounds that are actually filled in, not some tiles and characters floating over blacks. much finer pixels.

what you don't see is that additional frames of animation, the faster load times (yes, the NES would hang when you moved to a new screen), and the vastly improved music. to say nothing of the vastly improved game depth and sophistication.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:13:12 2015 No.2576021
File: 4 KB, 256x240, Final Fantasy I & II (J).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2576010
Let's use map views for both, for a fairer comparison.

So what do we have? Same resolution, same grid (in particular, same sprite and tile sizes), same sprite + map setup. The initial differences are just in palette size, and on a second look you can add layer and sprite count to it.
The NES was not the only 8 bit system though. Whip out an Atari 7200 and you're looking at 256 colors. Still a far cry from the SNES, but considerably more than the NES. Likewise, among the 16 bit systems you have the Sega Genesis, which could go as low as 64 colors per screen, barely more than the NES. That's where I'm saying the differences are kind of fluent.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:19:26 2015 No.2576030

>>2576014
>the faster load times (yes, the NES would hang when you moved to a new screen)

Technical reasons - the console pauses while graphics data is being copied from the CHR ROM into the PPU memory. The SNES doesn't have this issue because most games don't use any bank switching.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:20:25 2015 No.2576031
File: 27 KB, 256x220, damoon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2576021
I am going to tie one hand behind my back, and still knock you out. This is Final Fantasy 4, Square's first foray onto the SNES.

they use the same art style, but simply having more tools automatically improves the graphics. more than 3 colors on each sprite, more than 16 colors on the screen, the use of odd shaped tiles for background elements... In motion you would see more animation and the use of system-specific gimmicks like Mode-7 sprite rotation and scaling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:21:33 2015 No.2576032 >>2576031 >I am going to tie one hand behind my back, and still knock you out That's unfortunate, I wasn't trying to fight. In that case, you win, have fun.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:27:56 2015 No.2576041

>>2576021
I do get your argument, as laid out in this post. When you look at systems of a particular generation, there are pretty big differences. One more thing that HD101 is good for is they post screenshots of various releases of a given game. so you can see the same game on an Arcade, Nes, various PC systems, and so on. they do all look fairly different.

still, when most people talk about 8-bit style, they are talking aobut the NES. I have seen 16-bit styled games described as being Genesis style, or SNES style. but usually its SNES.

modern games that use pixel animation and "retro" gameplay, Freedom Planet, for example, still look more like SNES games.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:29:34 2015 No.2576043 >>2576032 it was a joke. I should have used an emote, or something :)

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:33:18 2015 No.2576047

>>2574468
it looks better on the 3DS screen because the 3DS screen can play them on the native resolution.
It would be impossible to remaster them to look good for modern tvs.
The 3DS will be surely the last console that can play NES, SNES and Genesis games in their native resolution.

For example, Street Fighter II Turbo got a remake with new sprites (quite ugly) in order to not look like a pixelated mess on modern tvs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urOF8eNQE6o

And no, I dont consider 480p games retro.
Old tvs were only 240p and 480i IIRC.

To play a console game in 480p resolution you would have needed a pc monitor or one of those rare enhanced definition tvs, or an hd crt that could do 480p.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:35:45 2015 No.2576051
File: 26 KB, 576x427, 1210639263142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2574180
In my opinion "retro" doesn't have a real year cutoff, and mostly people only use the term for systems they played while growing up or pixel-based games. Personally I think n64/ps1 seem a bit too advanced to be "retro".

Here's hoping later game systems will get their own board by generations. Like I can't imagine /vr/ with ps2/gc/xbox added. You can't call smb1 and halo 1 both "retro". It's just wrong.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:40:02 2015 No.2576057

>>2576047
>Old tvs were only 240p and 480i IIRC.
NTSC is defined as interlaced at a rate of 60Hz, with fields having 262.5 scan lines for a total of 525, of which 483 are visible.
PAL is defined as interlaced at a rate of 50Hz, with the final image having 625 lines, of which 576 are visible.

480i or p are digital resolutions, with only loose roots in the analog TV standards.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 01:43:06 2015 No.2576060 >>2576041 >Freedom Planet actually that game trying to mimic the look of a 2D sega saturn game

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 02:11:34 2015 No.2576105

>>2575976
Hey dude, you might want to check to see if you are stupid before you talk or type again.

"RETRO" just means old stuff that people remember from a while ago. There is no permanent cut off for it. It is intrinsically a moving target that changes over time. If you want /vr/ to just be NES and SNES forever, then you'll have to eventually stop calling it "retro games" and call it "8-16 bit era games" or "classic games" or something like that. NES/SNES/SMS/GENESIS don't get to be the only "retro" games forever, that would be changing the meaning of the word "retro".

What you are suggesting is as stupid as if clothes from the 60s where the only clothes anyone was ever allowed to call retro clothes because at one point they were retro and so now NO OTHER TIME PERIODS CAN EVER BE RETRO, RAWR. Grow a brain, dum-dum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 11:58:26 2015 No.2576696 >>2575939 Holy fucking shit, are you me? Hilariously, the 8th gen feels like no one learned anything from the 7th gen (except that niche games can turn out to be hits)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:03:12 2015 No.2576702 >>2575975 Uuuuh I'm pretty sure everyone considers Wii a 7th gen console, Wii U and 8th gen console, and Dreamcast 6th gen. Power doesn't equal generational boundary, family and time or release does.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 12:18:35 2015 No.2576721

>>2576702
>Power doesn't equal generational boundary
I did not say power, I said capabilities and common features.

>family
If "family" is a generational boundary, the Wii is not in the same generation as the 360 or PS3, due to the already mentioned differences.

>time of release
The DC was released 2 years before any of the other "6th gen" systems, one year after the last "5th gen" system. So, if you try to use release date as generational identifier, the DC fails to fit.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:23:07 2015 No.2576794

>>2576721
>If "family" is a generational boundary, the Wii is not in the same generation as the 360 or PS3, due to the already mentioned differences.

Generation boundaries are pretty clear cut in any other context. Generation as a reference to consoles are fairly simply defined by what what period a brand's console was introduced, and how many drastically different iterations of console have been created since.

The Wii in particular had more in common with the PS3 and 360 than it did with the PS2 and Xbox, namely downloadable apps and an assumed constant internet connection. Of particular note was the Wii mote pushing motion controls, which was copied by both Sony and Microsoft.

>Also
knock it

>off with
this shit.

If you've got a point, write it out like a god damn human being and not some ADD addled retard who can't comprehend where a sentence starts or ends.

Anonymous Thu Jul 30 13:37:13 2015 No.2576824

>>2576794
You need to calm down. There's nothing wrong with the format of that post; it's perfectly reasonable to preface multiple points with a header that signifies what's about to be addressed. Attack the content of his post as you will, but this just comes off as pettiness born from anger.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 14:23:13 2015 No.2576872 Dream cast isn't retro. GBA is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 15:13:20 2015 No.2576947 >>2576872 GBA isn't retro. Dreamcast is. seriously keep trying but you could make the same argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 30 20:41:48 2015 No.2577502 I consider the PS2 and GBA to be retro by now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 01:54:30 2015 No.2578074 >>2574674 >Having been into this hobby for almost 40 years now 40 years ago was 1975. You were still a good 15-18 years away at that time, child.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 01:56:51 2015 No.2578079 Retro is Pong to N64. And that's it.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 01:58:48 2015 No.2578085

>>2575530
https://archive.moe/vr/thread/2520820/#q2569678

https://archive.moe/vr/thread/2514885/#2515706

https://archive.moe/vr/thread/2555332/#2569517

https://archive.moe/vr/thread/2470898/#2517961

I don't get why this autist doesn't just use a trip and be done with it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 02:52:42 2015 No.2578162 >>2578085 Why do you even care so much?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 03:00:30 2015 No.2578175 >>2578162 Global 10 - no spamming or flooding

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 03:10:50 2015 No.2578184 >>2578175 Good luck with that one. Maybe you should just learn to chill out and not care so much how other people express themselves. I mean, unless you really enjoy being angry all the time...

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 03:42:07 2015 No.2578210
File: 65 KB, 1024x768, 2021_full.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm dodgy on it myself, but I think Half-Life is near the edge. I consider it retro because it was my first FPS. It falls under a small fringe, to be sure. Better fitting would be titles like Quake, and games based on that engine. I think maybe the first Thief was built on that.
I can agree that retro is best known for 8-bit stuff, and that's great. It's what people think of when they hear the word, mostly, so therefor, that's as good a definition for retro gaming as any.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 04:18:12 2015 No.2578247 >>2578175 none of the posts was spamming or flooding. They were all on-topic and unique. The post size limit is 2000 characters and there's nothing wrong with using the given size.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 04:20:18 2015 No.2578251 >>2578210 >I consider it retro because it was my first FPS Nothing against your opinion, at all. But that reasoning is rather weak. It does not translate into a commonly agreeable definition.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 04:58:17 2015 No.2578296 >>2574180 Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 05:21:13 2015 No.2578317 >>2578296 Why 1999? And will that date shift in the future? If not, why not?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 05:57:00 2015 No.2578360 Anything from the Dreamcast to Pong, so like early 02-70s

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:04:39 2015 No.2578370 >>2578079 >>2578360 Why are you folks excluding OXO and Strachey's Draughts? >>2578360 And why are you including the DC, but not other systems from the same "generation"?

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:08:46 2015 No.2578381

>>2578317

I think it should just cutoff at the 5th generation for now, and expand as generational consoles reaches 20 years of age at the bare minimum. This covers games that were made in 2001 like Conkers bad Fur Day since it belongs in the 5th gen console despite it being developed in 2001 while the Gamecube was starting out. It also allows for the inevitable consideration of systems like the GBA to be given retro status to future generation gamers. Like it or not, they will deem current gen as retro 20 years from now.

The Dreamcast while released in 1998 at it's earliest still belongs in the 6th generation, and have features of a 6th generation system, which means pretty soon that generation should be considered retro.

Also, the problem with splitting the board, is that it obviously becomes convoluted very quickly. These arguments will never end even if you do split it any way you like. People will always find something to argue about. If you keep splitting hairs when will it end? When each individual game has it's own board? Might as well have 4chan become Reddit. If you split it between 2D and 3D, then where would the ones in between fall into? Games like StarFox are obviously in the retro sphere of influence, but splitting the board based on whether it pushes polygons or not would mean that it would either fall on 2D based on the 2D sprites via the interface and character rendering, or 3D based on the polygons it pushes with the SuperFX chip.

I know it's been said before, but this argument is incredibly stupid.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:12:37 2015 No.2578386

>>2578381
That's a nice response, well reasoned too. Please keep in mind though, OP is interested in what you consider retro, not the board rules. This is not an attempt to split boards, or redefine rules, but merely to work out the concept of retro gaming.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:14:59 2015 No.2578389 The games and generation I played when I was a kid/preteen, there are kids that played CoD and Halo at that age and they would consider those games as retro when they grow up.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:14:59 2015 No.2578390

>>2578381
The Dreamcast is a perfect cutoff IMO for historical, contextual, technological and chronological reasons. I'd let the GBA slip too but I can understand the reasons why it is not allowed. It's more or less like the DC for the non-vr era: a modern showcase of what was before (like the Dreamcast was a retro showcase of what was to come technologically at least).

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:20:46 2015 No.2578394

>>2578390
>It's more or less like the DC for the non-vr era: a modern showcase of what was before
Is that supposed to refer to the GBA? Because the GBA was not meant to be a retro system. It does not mimic the SNES in terms of hardware (CPU, resolution). Its tile engine is not unlike the GB(C), which itself is not unlike the NES and SNES. What I'm saying is, the GBA was not made to act like a SNES, it just takes what many other Nintendo systems established, and modernized it as far as was reasonable. On top of the tile modes it also had a pixel mode, which was something no other Nintendo system did before, but is useful.
The power and capabilities of the GBA were not established in terms of previous systems, but to find a sane balance between price, battery and power. Back then Nintendo understood that it's kind of important for your handheld to handle a full day of uninterrupted and unrecharged gaming, so the 20h battery life of the GBC was the target for the GBA as well. That limits the available power to the point that the GBA's ARM processor was underclocked.
Treating the GBA like a portable SNES is doing it a lot of disservice.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:27:30 2015 No.2578397 >>2578386 Oh, yeah I should have been more clear. I was referring to >>2574678 and >>2574825. >>2578390 Then why Does the Dreamcast have characteristics of modern systems?

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:29:21 2015 No.2578401

>>2578394
Yes I was refering to the GBA.
I read somewhere that the video subsystem was quite similar to the one on the SNES. I don't mean the GBA is a portable SNES, but it really was a console that kept 2D alive when most of the stuff had to be 3D to stand a chance. It also had a short life-span but got very good games. And the games were 2D but with post-2000 menus and presentations. What I mean is that it feels like the other side of the coin to what the Dreamcast was. The DC had very futuristic (PC-looking internet enabled) games but most of them where made applying ideas from arcades and the 5th gen.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:31:03 2015 No.2578402

>>2578397
>Then why Does the Dreamcast have characteristics of modern systems?
because it was supposed to live along them
we could say it is not really a retro system, but given its lifespan and the games it got I feel very at home considering the DC the epilogue of the VR era

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:35:03 2015 No.2578405

>>2578401
>I read somewhere that the video subsystem was quite similar to the one on the SNES
About as similar to the SNES as it is to the GBC or NES

>it really was a console that kept 2D alive when most of the stuff had to be 3D to stand a chance
I admit it's my opinion, but I believe power was the governing factor here. Nintendo figured they can not do playable 3D with the available hardware at the point (keeping price and battery time in mind). So the best thing to do is to improve on the GBC, by giving it more tile layers, hardware support for common sprite operations (scaling, rotation) and so on.

>And the games were 2D but with post-2000 menus and presentations
Mostly because it's a post-2000 system.

I know you said you aren't, and I understand that, but in a way it's hinting throughout your comment, that you do see the GBA in context of the 16 bit consoles, even if not intentionally. It is only in so far that Nintendo didn't want to switch to inferior looking and playing 3D graphics. Other than that, it IS a system of post-2000, just one that's doing the maximum you can do with hardware supported 2D graphics.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:43:08 2015 No.2578408

>>2578405
>Nintendo figured they can not do playable 3D with the available hardware at the point
Of cournse they couldn't

>... that you do see the GBA in context of the 16 bit consoles, even if not intentionally
No, I'm thinking more about the latter half of the '90s, where everything had to be 3D to be big. There was the GB and the GBC and they were huge but the games were considered jokes compared to home console's games ("16-bit" games were still somewhat serious even if mostly non existant by the time, gb games were a bit like phone games today). The GBA became serious 2D gaming and since 2D was already used to oblivion and back (and a lot in Nintendo consoles) the GBA was like a 2D master.
But 3D was the norm and the next handhelds would be 3D as well that's why I feel that historically the GBA has a position not unlike the DC, just flipped.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 06:48:26 2015 No.2578413

>>2578408
>There was the GB and the GBC and they were huge but the games were considered jokes compared to home console's games
That's sad. The GBC is by far my favorite handheld, if not 8-bit system. I prefer it over the GBA. Its library is so freaking varied, drawing a comparison to phone games is kind of insulting.

>2D was already used to oblivion and back
What does that mean? Is 3D nowadays "used to oblivion and back"?

>But 3D was the norm and the next handhelds would be 3D as well
The DS got a lot of shit for its rather limited 3D capabilities. As far as I understand its 2D capabilities are on par with the GBA. You can place the blame squarely on developers, that would prefer to use "crappy" 3D (I personally like the 3D limitations on the DS) over high end 2D. The GBA just didn't give them that choice, so they did what they could with a pure 2D system.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:01:02 2015 No.2578486

>>2578413
>Its library is so freaking varied, drawing a comparison to phone games is kind of insulting.
Sorry I didn't mean to offend you and I also think the GB and GBC are great. At the time they were selling like hotcakes and people liked them but the awe was on the new technologies. "16-bit" games were not the bleeding-edge but still quite recent while "8-bit" games had been around for long. Everyone had a NES, a famiclone or the GB, it was old technology that stuck around and became standard for a long time (that's also why the GB/GBC had so many veried games). When the GBA came out it really felt like a big jump even if it wasn't really that big. Still I don't think anyone expected to have 3D graphics on a handheld yet (still the GBA could do Doom or super scaler stuff).
The phone game comparison wasn't really about quality but more about ubiquitous standarized tech.

>Is 3D nowadays "used to oblivion and back"?
Pretty much IMO, at least when we talk about polygon-based 3D rendering.

>The DS got a lot of shit for its rather limited 3D capabilities.
That happened because of the PSP but I think the PSP was really a huge leap.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:23:26 2015 No.2578514

>>2578486
>Sorry I didn't mean to offend you
Just in case, you haven't. I meant it's insulting towards the GBC and its library, like a terrible way to misunderstand and dismiss a really neat platform. I do know it's a view that exists.

>Everyone had a NES, a famiclone or the GB
For fun: The first Nintendo hardware I purchased was a GBC, mere months before the release of the GBA. When I saw the GBC screen in action I was sold. THAT was the GB I've been waiting for ever since the GB was a thing.

>Pretty much IMO, at least when we talk about polygon-based 3D rendering.
Just saying, it's not a good reason to do or not do some kind of gameplay and visualization. The game should trump the technology.

>I think the PSP was really a huge leap
I'm strongly biased, but I hate the PSP with a passion because it did EVERY mistake you can possibly do on a handheld. It casually forced Nintendo into handheld 3D graphics and to sacrifice battery life. If the PSP was a huge leap, then we were standing on the edge of a canyon and it leaped forward like a mad man.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:33:36 2015 No.2578532

>>2578514
>THAT was the GB I've been waiting for ever since the GB was a thing.
But it was basically a GB with color. The GBA didn't take long to come but the GB had been around for almost a decade.

>The game should trump the technology.
Of course, and tested technology is more serviceable than experimental technology.

>All that PSP stuff
Those mistakes is the price they decided to pay for the technological advancement. Going back to phones it's like today's smartphones, so advanced yet so flawed at basic stuff.

Anonymous Fri Jul 31 08:44:55 2015 No.2578541

>>2578532
>But it was basically a GB with color
And 4 times the processing power, twice the character map size, much larger cart size, new infrared communication, new DMA mechanisms and so on. Yeah, no, the GBC is quite a step up. The difference between GB and GBC is comparable to the difference between GameCube and Wii. Same architecture and general structure, but a lot of new bells and whistles.

>Those mistakes is the price they decided to pay for the technological advancement
No sorry, disagreed. There is NO technological advancement in using moving drives on a handheld. There is NO technological advancement in dropping the battery life so severely on something that is meant to sustain without an outlet for at least a day. There is no use in pushing graphical complexity on a screen that's in movement. The PSP was a cheap console squeezed into a handheld format, not a handheld. It was Sony trying to apply console logic to a handheld. That it had success, and even worse, enough success to force Nintendo to make a move, is upsetting me. Not because I'm a Nintendo fanboy, I only have two of their systems, but because their approach towards handhelds was sound before the 3DS.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 09:34:34 2015 No.2578627 >>2574497 please type properly, this isn't facebook or tumblr.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 11:55:46 2015 No.2578825 I feel like the NES was considered "retro" a mere few years after it ended production. How come that become retro quickly but not the PS2?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 31 14:53:15 2015 No.2579142 >>2578825 because the only things that can be called retro are the things that were out when I was a kid

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 01:50:16 2015 No.2580351 >console -no installation process -no update process/DLC >PC -Direct X9 or older >handheld -32 bit or older

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 01:55:39 2015 No.2580363 Playstation isn't "retro" as far as I'm concerned. It has so few fast, fun, oldstyle games and is mostly about bring clunky, ugly 3d environments to life for proles to gawk at. A very modern design goal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 02:00:10 2015 No.2580365 >>2580351 >-Direct X9 or older Windows RT and Managed DirectX use DirectX 9 today. >-32 bit or older The Nintendo DS and 3DS are 32 bit systems. The PSP is a 64 bit system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 02:09:35 2015 No.2580373 >>2580363 is the 3DO not retro either?

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 02:15:56 2015 No.2580385
File: 169 KB, 1422x1000, ctworldmap1000ad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2580363
>fast
That's only a subset of games, in 2D and 3D.

>is mostly about bring (...) environments to life for proles to gawk at. A very modern design goal.
pic related. It's not 3D, it's the pre-PS attempt of bringing environments to life. That goal is far from new.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 11:03:43 2015 No.2581094 It seems like a lot of you equate "retro" with "good" and modern with "bad". Retro means the games you liked and looked up to when you were young (and changes depending on age) and modern means whatever you don't like about new games.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 12:56:03 2015 No.2581342

Personally, I take "retro" as an objective matter.
I don't mean to come off as a shitposter or rude, but this board is stuck in one period of time. Have to wait for the NES kids to turn 30. Have to wait for the Genesis kids to turn 24. Have to wait for the Jags to turn 38. Kids younger than you had childhoods too.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 13:32:24 2015 No.2581402

Personally, the dividing line for me is anything before Dreamcast.

The reason for that was Dreamcast introducing the first actually good looking realtime 3D, and many amateur developers even today are putting small titles out with graphics equivalent to DC games. Certain DC titles that have been rereleased on newer platforms still look great (I have the steam versions of Jet Set Radio and Ikaruga, and they hold up very well).

With PSX and N64, there were severe limitations with power and image quality, that even with high resolutions and filtered textures, still puts those games firmly in the mid 90's. But the nicest looking DC games will look great when upscaled.

I do have to make the point that game design has changed immensely since the Dreamcast era though. I'm certainly open to the idea that its games could be considered "retro" in their design principles and execution. There isn't really a hard dividing line, and what is considered nostalgic has to be decided by feel.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 13:47:21 2015 No.2581416

>>2574353
The DS is like the anti-N64. It has ridiculously fixed hardware (to the extent that it is pretty much the only polygonal console with a hard polygonal limit). They went for the sharp, jaggy and unfiltered look.

N64 on the other hand is RIDICULOUSLY programmable. You can fully change the microcode of the T&L core, you've got a multi-stage texturer/rasterizer core with all sorts of crazy features (quite a few that barely got used, like a rudimentary pixel shader color combiner). The console is all about the heavily filtered look.

I think the N64 would still be quite a bit more powerful than the DS. I couldn't imagine a game like Conker running on DS.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 13:55:04 2015 No.2581428

>>2581416
>The DS is like the anti-N64
>I think the N64 would still be quite a bit more powerful than the DS.
Nowhere in my comment have I implied the DS is as capable as the N64. In fact I explicitely said I consider it to be in the middle between PS and N64, which means less capable than the N64.

>pretty much the only polygonal console with a hard polygonal limit
resulting in a guaranteed 60fps.

>sharp
good

>jaggy
anti aliasing, on a handheld? What for?

>unfiltered
It's all nearest neighbor filtered, which adds to the sharpness, just like the lack of anti aliasing. It's almost like Nintendo made a handheld.

As for my comparison to the N64, the DS has a bit more hardware support for 3D than the PS has, but not as much as the N64. I tried to make clear that I do consider it less powerful than the N64. Just also quite a bit more capable than the PS. And even though it's using nearest neighbor filtering, I'm quite confident the texture lookup is going through some fast dedicated pipes.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 13:59:23 2015 No.2581441

>>2574180
to me retro is everything that's obsolete, the more the better. 8 & 16 Bit are retro because 2D. N64 is 3D but still retro because cartridges. PS1 is retro because of stupid gore games in 90s fashion.

I think it's a matter of how much more different it is done than you would do it today. And the vibes you get from playing it, it's a timetravel back in the days.

>> nostalgia intensifies

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:03:03 2015 No.2581448 >>2581342 But some kids are too young to have childhoods far enough back to be retro. I really goddamn wish N64 children would understand this and get their crap off this board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:03:35 2015 No.2581450 >>2581428 >It's all nearest neighbor filtered Thanks for the chuckle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:07:56 2015 No.2581460 >>2581450 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation http://alvyray.com/Memos/CG/Microsoft/6_pixel.pdf A Pixel Is Not A Little Square, A Pixel Is Not A Little Square, A Pixel Is Not A Little Square! (And a Voxel is Not a Little Cube)

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:08:09 2015 No.2581462

Retro style is style that is consciously derivative or imitative of trends, music, modes, fashions, or attitudes of the recent past.

“Retro” can be applied to several things and artefacts, for example forms of technological obsolescence (including, for instance, manual typewriters, cash registers, bulky hand-held cellphones, etc.) and also the resurrection of old computer games and the equipment on which they are played.

But most commonly “retro” is used to describe objects and attitudes from the recent past that no longer seem “modern.” It suggests a fundamental shift in the way we relate to the past. Different from more traditional forms of revivalism, “retro” suggests a half ironic, half longing consideration of the recent past; it has been called an “unsentimental nostalgia”, recalling “modern” forms that are no longer current.

Therefore, Retro is stuff that can't be considered modern, that can be applied to video-games. Why would a PS2-era video-game be considered retro? It has modern features. Graphics and shit like that is not what changes something to retro or not..

Then again, I don't know, someday it will be retro while really old shit is just old shit? I don't know, video-games are too recent past for that. Someday shit like internet and HD graphics, 4k will be considered "modern"? I mean, fuck it.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:08:42 2015 No.2581463

>>2581428
>Nowhere in my comment have I implied the DS is as capable as the N64
You've being a little defensive here considering my post wasn't being accusatory. Chill, we're not always trying to shitpost here.

>resulting in a guaranteed 60fps.
Not necessarily because there's no cap on fill.

>anti aliasing, on a handheld? What for?
Well, jaggies are a bit of an issue on 3DS when you have 3D turned off, so I wouldn't exactly call anti-aliasing unnecessary for a handheld.

>It's all nearest neighbor filtered, which adds to the sharpness, just like the lack of anti aliasing. It's almost like Nintendo made a handheld.
I think Nintendo just weighed it up from a cost reduction perspective and decided not to include a texture filtering unit on the die. The units are not insignificantly big so you can save good space by removing it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:12:23 2015 No.2581469 >>2581463 (cont...) Actually it seems the DS does have some limited anti-aliasing built into the hardware, but unlike the N64 algorithm it doesn't try to chase after every single edge.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:13:08 2015 No.2581470 >>2581460 That's like calling darkness a negative light source, it's retarded and does not actually interpolate anything.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:14:36 2015 No.2581473

>>2581463
>You've being a little defensive here considering my post wasn't being accusatory
Sorry, it sounded as if your post suggested I implied the DS is anywhere in capability range of the N64.

>Well, jaggies are a bit of an issue on 3DS
Ok, can't comment on the 3DS. I dislike it, because it moved away too far from the DS.

>The units are not insignificantly big so you can save good space by removing it.
Also, given the size of the textures, bilinear filtering would have turned everything into an N64-style messy blur. Sure, nearest neighbor has its drawbacks, but one of its biggest advantages (performance aside), is that it will stay crispy sharp. Possibly too sharp, but never too blurry. On the small screen of the DS, and with these small textures, that's valuable.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:18:54 2015 No.2581481
File: 346 KB, 636x239, texture_filtering.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2581473
>bilinear filtering would have turned everything into an N64-style messy blur
I wouldn't go that far. Texture filtering is a valuable thing to have. The "N64-style messy blur" is more to do with the textures being low-resolution, not the fault of the filtering itself. You can either have a blurry mess or a pixelated miss.

But generally speaking, the blurry mess is better. Here's a picture from that other thread that is discussing Outcast. Exactly the same scene (and same texture resolutions), but with bilinear filtering turned on and off.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:19:31 2015 No.2581484

>>2581470
Read the damn paper. Pixels are samples. There is NOTHING between these samples. No color, no value, nothing. To render a pixel raster (sprite) onto a screen raster that does not match the pixels, you need to interpolate. That is, you try to "sample" fractional values that sit between the samples of the pixels. A common and often used interpolation method is to just pick the color of the nearest existing sample. That's called nearest neighbor interpolation, nearest neighbor sampling or nearest neighbor filtering.
If you do not interpolate when you upscale, you produce point samples with nothing in between.

Let's go one step further and say what an actual developer manual has to say on the matter:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.xna.framework.graphics.samplerstate.pointwrap.aspx
>Contains default state for point filtering and texture coordinate wrapping.
>point filtering

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:23:49 2015 No.2581494

>>2581481
>The "N64-style messy blur" is more to do with the textures being low-resolution, not the fault of the filtering itself
Right, and I said DS texture resolutions tend to be kind of on the low side as well.

>But generally speaking, the blurry mess is better
Disagreed. Try to draw sharply outlined features (sign on a wall, artificial object on the floor) and bilinear filtering will fuck you hard, turning your sharp outlines into a mess. Also, do not underestimate the effect of resolution and movement of the screen (you're on a handheld)

Your outcast image is misleading, as that's interpolation of the voxel heightfield, which is likely not bilinear filtering in the sense it's used on textures, as there are more efficient methods for height fields.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:29:17 2015 No.2581503
File: 99 KB, 344x128, texture_filtering.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2581494
>Try to draw sharply outlined features (sign on a wall, artificial object on the floor) and bilinear filtering will fuck you hard, turning your sharp outlines into a mess
Then you don't render sharply outlined features with bilinear filtering, and you do with things that are not. It's not an all-or-nothing approach (unless you lack the ability to filter, that is).

>Your outcast image is misleading, as that's interpolation of the voxel heightfield
Yes, you are correct. I pulled the wrong image.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:33:34 2015 No.2581512 5th gen is iffy tbh.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:33:49 2015 No.2581513

>>2581503
Better image indeed. Good reason on the all-or-nothing, I got to admit that.
Though if I had to nitpick, the only reason that image maintains a sharp line between the block and neighboring features is that they're distinct polygons. If there's one thing you don't have enough on the DS it's polygons. But yeah, I do understand your general point.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:41:01 2015 No.2581535

>>2581513
The primary advantage of texture filtering is less aliased minification (particularly if used with mipmaps) and a more "realistic" (but sometimes less stylized) magnification.

It's not really a deal breaker if you aren't going for realistic looking visuals, so I can understand why Nintendo excluded the DS from having a texture filtering unit.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:44:32 2015 No.2581546

>>2581535
>less aliased minification
bilinear filtering has no (good) effect on minification. Mipmaps are necessary for that, to stay in the domain of magnification.

>more "realistic" (...) magnification
debateable. I consider the drawbacks (loss of sharpness) often bigger than the gain (hiding the square artifacts)

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 14:55:01 2015 No.2581574

>>2581546
>bilinear filtering has no (good) effect on minification
Actually it does (marginally) reduce the minified aliasing over nearest neighborer by itself, but you need mipmaps to truly get a benefit. You could also mipmap nearest neighbor and it would probably minify the texture quite decently (but not perfectly), but the only way to truly remove the jaggies is to combine filtering with mipmapping.

>debateable. I consider the drawbacks (loss of sharpness) often bigger than the gain (hiding the square artifacts)
I called bilinear more realistic because in nature you atypically get the sort of high frequency contrasts that typifies nearest neighbor.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 15:02:02 2015 No.2581580

>>2581574
>it does (marginally) reduce the minified aliasing over nearest neighborer by itself
Since it's only using its 4 adjacent samples to determine the color, during minification the individual samples might skip several "groups" of these 4 samples. The result is that adjacent result pixels do not blend. That's different from the behavior during magnification. In other words, bilinear is no "better" than point filtering at that point. Only that the samples it pics are not straight from the texture but bilinear filtered, which means the minified area will not only lack blending of adjacent pixels, there's a good chance none of the pixels reflect the actual texture values.

>You could also mipmap nearest neighbor and it would probably minify the texture quite decently
That's not just theoretical, it's done.

>but not perfectly
We're talking about realtime 3D. Nothing's perfect. All that filtering and stuff is trying to compensate artifacts.

>but the only way to truly remove the jaggies
I have no interest to remove "jaggies" (are you refering to in-texture boundaries, or edge aliasing?)

>I called bilinear more realistic because in nature you atypically get the sort of high frequency contrasts that typifies nearest neighbor.
Depends on your granularity. When your texels are like 0.1" objects, then sure, bilinear filtering can do something. When they're in the range of 5" though, bilinear filtering does not add any kind of realistic behavior, and chances are the developer accounted for the texel size, by producing a reasonable texture.

Regardless, this is all a technical discussion on miniscule details. In general we're in agreement and probably shouldn't derail the thread too much.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 15:04:36 2015 No.2581583

>>2581428
Do you know what "Golden Age" comics are? Or Golden Age Hollywood cinema? Or Golden Age television?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_comics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Hollywood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_television

If 4chan added new boards to discuss any of those, would you go to >>>/gaco/, >>>/gamo/ and >>>/gatv/ to similarly piss and moan that they don't discuss Constantine, The Matrix, Breaking Bad, respectively, or other things that are more recent?
I wouldn't. And neither should you. I'd either discuss the subject those boards were created to discuss or just not go to those boards at all. And so should you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 15:13:21 2015 No.2581592 >>2581583 Your argument is dumb because those are specifically defined periods in time whereas the word "retro" is relative.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 15:31:27 2015 No.2581615 >>2581580 >there's a good chance none of the pixels reflect the actual texture values. Yes, that's correct (though it does depend on how the specific filtering unit reacts).

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 15:38:10 2015 No.2581626

>>2581592
Your argument is dumber for precisely the same reason.

Since there is no definition of 'retro' or 'classic' according to some academic body who sets such definitions, it's up to /someone/ to define it. For this board, that someone was whoever wrote the sticky, which gives, clear as crystal, its definition for the terms.
If you disagree with the sticky, you're welcome to post elsewhere. It's that simple.

Annoying the rest of us who rightfully don't consider something that stopped production less than three years ago (PS2; look it up) by trying to discuss it here isn't a good use of your time.

Annoying the rest of us who rightfully don't consider something that stopped production about four years ago (GBA by way of DS Lite; look it up) by trying to discuss it here isn't a good use of your time.

Take it elsewhere. Posting it here accomplishes nothing but disputes. People rightfully get pissed that you posted off-topic (PS2/GBA) consoles and you wrongly insist that you've every right to then you get pissed that those people chide and talk down to you when you do. Clearly, this board wasn't made for you and your interests, so why are you here when you meet so much opposition?

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 15:44:05 2015 No.2581645

>>2581626
>there is no definition of 'retro' or 'classic' according to some academic body who sets such definitions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_style
>Retro style is style that is consciously derivative or imitative of trends, music, modes, fashions, or attitudes of the recent past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrogaming
>Retrogaming, also known as classic gaming and old school gaming, is the playing or collecting of older personal computer, console, and arcade video games.

While Wikipedia is not an authority, it's useful as a starting point and for widely accepted definitions.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 16:20:51 2015 No.2581719

>>2581645
That's irrelevant and you know it. Wikipedia /does not define the rules for 4chan./

The sticky gives the definition as it pertains to this board. In case you missed that, it's:
>>2574909 >>2575741 >>2578296
>This board is for the discussion of classic, or "retro" games. Retro gaming means consoles, computer games, arcade games (including pinball) and any other forms of video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier. With the release of the 8th generation of consoles, the Sega Dreamcast will now be considered "retro", though the remainder of the sixth generation (Xbox, PS2, GameCube) will not.

As said, if you don't like it, post elsewhere. I will never understand people who insist on disruptively "participating" in communities they have an active, clearly voiced and continued distaste for (and for whom the community feels similarly).

It's like doing your shopping at the fishmonger's but complaining every time you're in there that you hate seafood.
You know that's what the store is for.
It's clearly not for you.
Why would you do that? Just stop. Stop going there.
Go somewhere else where you can get what you want and the people there will be happy to tolerate you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 16:25:17 2015 No.2581725 >>2581719 >Wikipedia /does not define the rules for 4chan./ Fortunately this thread is not about the rules of 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 18:22:58 2015 No.2581981 So by 2020, can we discuss Gamecube/XBox/GBA games on /vr/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 18:24:15 2015 No.2581984 >>2581981 yeah

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 18:41:46 2015 No.2582028

>>2581981
We could discuss them right now and the only reason /vr/ would see any drop in quality would be the faggots spouting "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE". /vr/ doesn't move fast enough that the occasional Gamecube, PS2, GBA or Xbox thread would push active topics off the board.

For all the talk about Reddit this and Reddit that, we're just as much a self censoring community, only we do it by shitposting instead of downvoting.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 19:45:00 2015 No.2582137

>>2582028
I agree, but I hope by 2020, the whole "It's not retro because they came out in 2001!" will seem even sillier then.

I imagine people are afraid of some /v/ boogeymen coming to discuss GTA3 or Halo 1, but those two games aren't discussed on /v/ and haven't been discussed on /v/ in years. I don't think *any* Gamecube games are discussed on /v/.

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 19:47:26 2015 No.2582140

>>2582028
Again, if you dislike what this board is meant to be about and want to discuss things this board is not meant to be about, why come here? Why post here?
It doesn't make sense.

You're actively hostile to on-topic discussion and unpleasant towards people that want the board to remain on topic yet insist you're somehow in the right? What?
It's clear that you don't like this board so stop coming and posting here. Why subject yourself to the flack you admit you understand you'll get for posting off-topic things? Why subject us to your off-topic posts?

Why interfere with our quiet enjoyment? What did we do to you? We don't go down to the docks and swat sailors' dicks out of your mouth, so why do you disrupt what we like to do?

Anonymous Sat Aug 1 19:49:34 2015 No.2582148

>>2582140
>Why interfere with our quiet enjoyment?

Not him, but will talking about Luigi's Mansion or Advance Wars disrupt the "quiet environment"? I think /vr/ is a great board, and I hardly think moving the goalposts forward a few years will cause any headache. Like I said >>2582137, /v/ will not come and invade this board as they don't discuss games older than 2011, let alone from 2001.

What do you think anon, will this board be open to discussing PS2/GCN come 2020? I mean this curiously, I'm not trying to be rude.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 19:49:55 2015 No.2582150 >>2574281 There's a port of Flappy Birds for the 2600.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 19:50:48 2015 No.2582151 can't Halo and GTA3 fans be as cool as Doom and Quake fans?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 1 19:53:56 2015 No.2582157 >>2582148 I think it will, yes, but I won't like it. I'll likely have left by then. :-(

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 00:15:23 2015 No.2582617
File: 1 KB, 256x184, manic_miner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2581441
> to me retro is everything that's obsolete, the more the better. 8 & 16 Bit are retro because 2D. N64 is 3D but still retro because cartridges. PS1 is retro because of stupid gore games in 90s fashion

Not just 2D, but also very weak cpu, lo-fi sound (sometimes even no sound), very limited & slow memory and storage, and low-resolution displays with limited palette.
Because of all those factors, you program the 8-bits differently than the 16-bits, and so on. You naturally end up with games that have a particular look and feel associated with that time period.
.
> I think it's a matter of how much more different it is done than you would do it today. And the vibes you get from playing it, it's a timetravel back in the days.

Yes, it's more of a quantity than a quality. The question should be how retro is a game, not if it's retro or not. Even if something new is made today, it can still have some or many of the same traits as games from ages past. You can make a text adventure or ASCII roguelike that's indistinguishable from the 70's and 80's stuff, and I'll consider it retro as much as the old ones. But you can also make a 3D Manic Miner clone in HD, even using the exact same levels as the original, and I'll consider it not very retro. But if they make an effort to accurately emulate the crappy physics like how the dude jumps, then I'll give it more retro points (ok, probably this is a dumb example and a game like this would just not work in 3D).

>>> nostalgia intensifies
Yay! And there was much rejoicing...

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 2 01:52:57 2015 No.2582738 >>2582148 I certainly would hope so. Nobody's discussing them in other boards, and like I posted earlier; No matter what, younger crowds will consider the PS2/GCN/Xbox retro, much like we considered Atari, Coleco, and Intellivision retro.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 11:32:30 2015 No.2583234
File: 122 KB, 200x200, m64sm1.gif~c200.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2581583
OP here, in an attempt to remind you that in my original post I made a point of saying I didn't want this to be about the board rules. The board rules as far as I'm concerned work well for splitting up the systems. Dreamcast goes well here because it's not popular enough to hold it's own /vr/ generals. \

I have no agenda of trying to get PS2/GBA/whatever talked about here, I like this place the way it is. That's why I come here. I just made this topic to see what various people's ideas of what the term "retro" is and what it means to them.

Personally I think the whole thing is a little silly, they're all just games. Like music, storytelling and everything else they change and evolve with the times. So of course the games from the 70's and 80's feel very different from those of the 90's, 00's and on. But for the most part I just see them all as games. What "retro" means exactly I'm still not sure.

This has been a fascinating and wonderful topic to read though. It seems a lot of you equate "retro" with what you see as the best aspects of old games. Also I'd like to say that while I am all for not talking about modern games here, I think that should also include not bitching about modern games. Just as bad as the guy who wants to make threads about Call of Duty, is the guy who can't go a post without complaining about it.
Also this guy gets a gold star >>2575974

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:04:22 2015 No.2583334

>>2574320
I have no input on the dreamcast, never played it. But as for the GC, if anyone thinks RE4 and the likes should be open for discussion here, they are morons. How anyone can call that a retro game is just ludicrous.
>>2574325
Like someone else mentioned, if you wanted to further splice the gaming discussion, maybe lump 5th and 6th gen in. But to discuss PS2 alongside NES games under the same branding of retro is silly.
>>2574384
It's not just being 8/16bit. It's the whole concept of production and styling of more modern games to older ones. Also the much more massive budgets, people were more innovative in pre 6th gen consoles/games in my opinion (I still love modern games but that's what I believe), and as I said before something akin to RE4 has no place being discussed alongside the things currently allowed on this board.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:09:54 2015 No.2583339

>>2583334
>But to discuss PS2 alongside NES games under the same branding of retro is silly.
That's what retro means though.

>It's the whole concept of production and styling of more modern games to older ones. Also the much more massive budgets ...
So you're talking about the admittedly very visible change in commercialisation that happened in the mid to late 90s. That's fair. That's not retro though. Someone else threw in the "golden age of ..." naming earlier. That would be closer to it. Then you can keep a timeframe forever, no problem. That this timeframe lies entirely within the period of retro gaming is also true, but it's not retro gaming by itself.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:29:37 2015 No.2583371

>>2583234
No one would bitch about contemporary games if no one posted them here when they're not welcomed or on topic in the first place.

Stop doing that.

Again: I don't understand why people who hold a contemptuous attitude for the /vr/ community insist on coming here and insist on having their opinions valued. You don't want to discuss what this board is about and we don't want to discuss what you want to discuss, so why are you coming here? Seriously? Why? What's the motivation? It's obvious: to troll. There really is no other purpose.
The people who post all the off topic stuff have admitted ITT several times over that they understand that it's disruptive and that it doesn't follow the spirit of what this board is about. So... doing something to/on an online community that will knowingly disrupt that community... that's called "trolling."
So we can't take PS2 talk seriously because we know it's only for trolling. It's not retro. It's not /vr/. It doesn't belong here. And neither do the trolls who post it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:30:52 2015 No.2583373 No real set date for me. In two or three more years I think ps2 and gc games should be on here.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:36:34 2015 No.2583384

>>2583371
>No one would bitch about contemporary games if no one posted them here when they're not welcomed or on topic in the first place.

Except that's not true at all. People bring it up out of the blue all the time.

For myself, I love the /vr/ community and these old games in general which is why I come here. But it's hard to understand, as someone who just likes games in general and has favorites in every era why there's so much hate between fans of this type or that type. The less you troll each other in both directions, the better. That's all I'm saying.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:37:30 2015 No.2583385
File: 55 KB, 360x500, latest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2583373
To add onto this, consider the fact that some GC and PS2 games are older than the majority of people on /v/. Especially two years from now.

I feel like this board is made up of people who are older than your average /v/irgin, so the years and terms involved are going to be different for each person.

I'm 22 and consider the N64 and PS1 to be "retro" even though alot of people on here probably don't agree.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:41:36 2015 No.2583392

>>2583385
You mean allow consoles that are old enough to post here? It's a pretty neat idea, but I like it the way it is now and wouldn't really change it. PS2/GC games can still have a lot of talk on /v/, especially since most of them are currently remastered in some way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 2 13:44:08 2015 No.2583395 >>2583392 Yeah, pretty much. Just a few years down the line is all. I guess 15 or 16 years is a pretty good line to draw in the sand. Hadn't really though about the remasters discussed on /v/.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 14:03:45 2015 No.2583429

>>2583384
For one, I've never seen anyone bring up contemporary games "out of the blue" (other than people asking about PS2 and shit like that trollingly) on here and I've been posting near daily since day 1 cuz I love my /vr/os. If you're being honest and that it happens, screencap it some time.

Secondly, it shouldn't be a "don't troll each other" thing because the ones who insist on contemporary games shouldn't be posting them in the first place. Since we don't have the luxury of self regulating the board, all the end user can do is make reports that usually go ignored and insult people who purposefully disrupt the community by posting off-topic, contemporary games.

The Skeleton Man !MAxPETUTTk Sun Aug 2 15:13:42 2015 No.2583532

>>2574281
> This would be "retro"

Hey dumb-fuck, guess when the last game released on the Dreamcast came out.

*GASP*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmwind

WHATS THAT? 2013? GEE, I NEVER WOULD'VE GUESSED!

Fucking retarded autistic dumb-faggot, I swear to fucking christ.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 2 16:25:55 2015 No.2583671 >>2583532 You're point? Seems to me, the only point you've got is the one to your skull, pinhead. Sturmwind doesn't count because it's /an independent game/ and not licensed by Sega.

zane Sun Aug 2 17:37:02 2015 No.2583776

>>2574180
To me, retro, when applied to video games, mean any gaming device made before the current millenium, Dreamcast not included. Though at some point, we will have to make room for the PS2, X-Box, and Gamecube, as they will soon be more widely considered retro.

>>	zane Sun Aug 2 17:39:23 2015 No.2583779 >>2583532 Can we please be more civil?

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 18:34:05 2015 No.2583869

>>2583429
>For one, I've never seen anyone bring up contemporary games "out of the blue"

I'm not talking about them directly bringing it up. It's the little troll comments people make about modern games that happens around here all the time and all it does it make the environment worse around here. Again I'm fully, completely agreeing that this isn't the place to discuss PS2 and GBA games. But the less little shit comments the "retro gaming was the only good generation of gaming" people make, the less it will attract the trolls on the other side. That's all I'm saying. If you bait your hook, don't be surprised when people bite and then bait back.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 19:04:06 2015 No.2583935

>>2583869
How things actually happen:
>trollcunt posts
>"PS2 WHEN?!?!?!
>gets rightly flamed
>you: "waaaaaaaah!!! stop being mean to people who like non-/vr/ games!!!"

Scenario 2:
>average /vr/o posts
>"yeah, i'm just not a fan of newer games. i've tried and i don't like them. that's why i'm here."
>trollcunts flame that PS2 is, like, totally retro now because it's so old and stuff and nobody talks about it on /v/ and old games suck
>you: "stop baiting people who like newer games, /vr/o, it's making the board worse"

That's not how this board should work. And you know it. I'm sure we would ignore it if the reports were taken seriously and/or the board's janitor and/or 4chan mods did something about them. But they don't. So we get several of these posts all the damn time. And it gets annoying.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 20:41:52 2015 No.2584165

>>2583935
Those scenarios are ridiculously exaggerated in your favour and you know it. If more people actually said

>"yeah, i'm just not a fan of newer games. i've tried and i don't like them. that's why i'm here."

instead of
>PS2 babies suck, go back to /v/ you faggot

Then there wouldn't be nearly as much trolling. And don't make it out like I'm the one causing it. I'm neither posting PS2 threads and baiting, nor am I acting like 1995 was the last time a decent game was made and everything since is shit.

What I am trying to do is get both of you to stop shitting up my beloved forum. You are part of the problem, and that you don't realize it and deny it at every turn is a key part of that.

Anonymous Sun Aug 2 22:28:57 2015 No.2584443

>>2584165
>breaking no rules
>part of the problem
Anon, stop being silly.
If the PS2 babbies don't post their PS2 babby posts here, against the rules, I might add, no one would flame them. They're the problem. For breaking the rules.

There is no "both of [us]" because PS2 babbies don't belong here since the board wasn't made for their interest. It just wasn't. So you defending them is bad for your oh so beloved forum.
You are part of the problem, and that you don't realise it and deny it at every turn is a key part of that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 3 00:34:20 2015 No.2584692 >>2583392 >PS2/GC games can still have a lot of talk on /v/ No they don't. I don't think Wave Race or Pikmin threads will get any response. Just because Zelda games are always remastered, I suppose we should leave all Zelda discussion to /v/ too?

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 00:45:30 2015 No.2584712

Ultimately, the way I see it, sixth generation consoles are stuck in a weird limbo. /v/ has long stopped talking about these consoles, though sequels will be discussed. /vr/ refuses to accept these consoles as retro, despite being released only one year after the arbitrary 2000 cut off, Come November, the Gamecube and Xbox will be fourteen years old. For reference, the N64 was seventeen years old when /vr/ was created. Perhaps it's too soon to include sixth gen, but it seems kind of silly to think that it won't ever be allowed on /vr/.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 00:54:20 2015 No.2584724

>>2584712
>arbitrary
Everything is arbitrary when it comes to categorising this sort of stuff.

How about this:instead of "release date,", how about "last day of production" of either

>the original hardware?
or
>all official hardware by the first party company capable of playing the entire original media library with no issues?

Much better, I think.
For example, the last console made by Sega capable of playing the entire library of MD/Genesis games from their original, cartridge-based media was the Nomad and all first party MD/Genesis-capable machines, including the Nomad, ended production some time in 1999. Nintendo ended production of the SNES/SFC in most of the world the same year (though continued production into 2003 in Japan).

>but playstation 2 plays playstation 1 games!!
>and it stopped production only three years ago!
Not quite.

Read above:
>capable of playing the entire library
See my point? Were it capable of playing the entire PS library, the following list wouldn't exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_games_incompatible_with_PlayStation_2

Personally, I don't consider PS a "retro" console but I don't mind if others do. It ended production in 2006, though.

However, in no way are PS2, GC or Xbox retro. PS2 only stopped production in 2013 and the others only shortly before that.
Nor GBA when the last machine capable of playing its entire original media library stopped production in 2011. Just no.

So how about consoles that ended production in 2006 or earlier and arcade or PC games release in 1999 or earlier?
That will keep everything here pretty much as-is but allow for discussion of Wonderswan Color.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 09:59:32 2015 No.2585373

>>2584443
>breaking no rules
>part of the problem
>the PS2 babbies
>PS2 babby posts
>PS2 babbies don't belong here

Okay it's clear now that you're either a world class troll or a complete idiot. Also confounding considering the age you're claiming to be and the amount of time you've supposedly spent on this site. I was trying to explain to you how to reduce trolling, but you're clearly not interested in that at all. You're acting like an asshole with the full knowledge that it's baiting other people to troll more so you can feel smug and self important. You are a huge part of the problem here and you know it. Of you're genuinely a 40 something adult who is so socially inept that you don't understand what's going on here which is even worse.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 3 10:11:58 2015 No.2585393 >>2584724 If we go by your criteria of last day of production, when can we discuss Sixth Gen?

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 11:26:56 2015 No.2585513

>>2585373
I've started trolling you at that point because it's become clear that you refuse to admit that they shouldn't be here in the first place.
We shouldn't have to show them courtesy when they shouldn't be here in the first place.
We shouldn't have to show them courtesy when they come here and break board rules.
It's indefensible.
No amount of hooting or hollering from you will change that.

The board. Is for. Retro stuff. As defined. In. The sticky.
That's it.
There's nothing else for you to say about it.
It doesn't belong here. It's disruptive.
Stop trying to defend disruptive behaviour that shouldn't be here to begin with. We're in the right. They're in the wrong. And that's that. What part of this very, very simply concept eludes you?

If you understand that going into a library and speaking loudly into your phone is wrong because it's not the place to do that and are okay with such an inconsiderate person being forced to leave, then you should also understand that coming into /vr/ and discussing non-/vr/ is just as disruptive. However, since we, as said before, lack the ability to kick them out ourselves and the reports system all-too-often goes unanswered, our only recourse is to troll at them.
So, if you want to defend behaviours and actions that are disruptive in places they don't belong, such as non-/vr/ on /vr/, then defend loud phonecalls on phones in libraries, too. It's. The same. Thing. Fuckwit.

>>2585393
I don't know. I think it's a good way to do it, but I wouldn't think it would ever be implemented. Were it up to me, we'd never discuss 6th gen here, including Dreamcast, but I think the end-of-production thing is fair because it keeps things as they are. I would never push the dates back, personally. It's kind of like English historical periods. People don't push the Georgian period's dates into the Edwardian. It's just not done. They're two separate things.
Similarly, I'd start a separate board for 6th and 7th.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 11:32:16 2015 No.2585526

>>2585513
>Were it up to me, we'd never discuss 6th gen here, including Dreamcast

I would be fine with this but /v/ really doesn't talk 6th gen. Sixth Gen is now in a weird limbo where it's too retro for underaged /v/-tards but not retro enough for /vr/.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 11:58:39 2015 No.2585587

>>2585526
I know and I'm not happy about it, either. Which is why I'd be more than okay with there being a new board for that stuff. That's asking a bit much, I'd think.

I wouldn't even call it a containment board because I think that term is needlessly derisive.

I don't want it here because people that like 6th gen gaming outnumber those who prefer 5th gen and earlier by around 2:1. Seriously. I've done the maths.
How is it okay to allow 6th gen gaming here when it would marginalise the current userbase? We'd be down to 33% of the board population.

Mathematically speaking, it's best to create a separate board for 6th gen then eventually allow /it/ to accept 7th gen discussion than to ever allow 6th gen here.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 12:21:05 2015 No.2585636

>>2585513
You really don't understand that you getting all huffy and then trolling back, pissing and moaning about "PS2 babies" is exactly what they want, do you? That what trolling is all about and you feed it day in and day out. I'm not saying be polite because the people who troll here deserve to be babied or some shit, I'm saying it because not feeding trolls is the best way to discourage them. But that you've now admitted that's what you're doing, I think we're done here. If you want to go about encouraging it then that's your deal, but don't delude yourself thinking you're not part of the problem.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 12:35:15 2015 No.2585657

>>2585587
>We'd be down to 33% of the board population.
So what? If you want a bunch of tiny, super specific boards then go to Reddit or another more specific forum. There are plenty of dedicated ones out there. But this is 4chan, it's kind of wild and disorganized by it's very nature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 3 13:48:52 2015 No.2585784 >>2585636 Typically, tort is on the party that initiates the problem. >>2585657 >so what You can't claim to love retro gaming when you desired its marginalisation on the sole board on 4chan that was made to discuss it in the first place.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 15:22:12 2015 No.2585932

>>2585784
>implying I have to pick between loving retro gaming and modern gaming

Sorry, but I don't only like games from one era. I like games from all eras, so I'll have no problem when they add GBA and the next generation of systems eventually. All I'm sayin is that there are many many dedicated niche forums with invested moderators out there... and then there's 4chan which just isn't like that. Which is why I like it, but it's not for everyone.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 17:32:55 2015 No.2586229

>>2585784
Never said you had to love one or the other. Learn to read.
If you're the same Anon as >>2584165 (and I'm assuming you are, but please correct me if I'm wrong), you've already called /vr/
>your beloved forum
You can't love it all that much if you wish to actively destroy it by marginalising its users. That's not love. That's abuse.
You are an abusive person and nobody will ever love you and you have no friends.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 19:26:42 2015 No.2586501

>>2586229
Different people, >>2584165 is me (OP), and I really do love this place. /vr/ specifically, but all of 4chan in general. The other guy is actually the one I'd been trying to reason with until he came right out and and said he was trolling and that his only response to the shitposting that goes on here will be to shitpost even harder. Because it's always worked so well in the past.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 19:57:42 2015 No.2586585

>>2586501
I (>>2586229) am the one who said he was trolling (>>2584443\>>2585513).

I did it because it's clear that you dont understand that /vr/ was not created for 6th gen games. I like some 6th gen. I do. But, as I said earlier ITT, I don't discuss them here because this is not the place for it.

6th genners shouldn't be posting here. This is not the board for them. It's as I said: we lack the luxury to kick out said PS2 babbies, the reports system does near nothing and ignoring them doesn't seem to work at all because they just keep and keep and keep posting their off-topic 6th gen stuff. Disruptive people anywhere else are tossed out on their duffs. But seldom on /vr/.

Also, >>2586229 was meant in reply to >>2585932 but I missed the click and didn't notice it. Oops.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 21:44:04 2015 No.2586806

>>2585784
But sixth gen will actually BE retro, and it's close to it at the present time. How is that marginalization? You just don't like those consoles. Imagine if an Intellivision fan was having a fit that N64 could be discussed on here. It's equally ridiculous.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 21:48:26 2015 No.2586816

>>2586585
Ohh it's you. Listen, frankly I think you're a colossal idiot. I appreciate that you pretty much only like retro games, but that's not the case for most people who come here. And throwing shit like "ps2 babies" around is only going to encourage more shitty posting, which you don't seem to care about.

Anyways, I thought we were done until you "mistakenly" replied to someone else's post but linked to mine. Hopefully we can just drop this. I would appreciate it if you trolled here less, but the nature of this place is that I you're free to do so if you want. Please just think before you post. Trolling against trolls never works well.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 22:05:28 2015 No.2586847

>>2586816
The one and only time I've ever trolled on /vr/ was ITT. I don't do it. But I understand people who do. 6th genners are a nuisance here. This board. Is not. For their. Interests. It's that simple.
Due to the complete lack of response from the reports system, tolerating off-topic 6th gen posting is the downfall of the board, no matter how you cut it.
Insult me all you like, but I'm right. People that don't like or play 6th gen stuff will become marginalised on a board that was originally created to escape that sort of thing. And people like you are ruining that. The worst of it is: you don't even realise it. It's sad.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 22:29:31 2015 No.2586916

>>2586806
No, it really isn't the same. It's just not.
How?
Because periods. >>2585513:
>People don't push the Georgian period's dates into the Edwardian. It's just not done. They're two separate things.

Up there, Anon misspoke and said "Georgian into Edwardian" when it should have been "Georgian into Victorian."
Derp.

Anyway, the point still stands: no one pushes Georgian period concepts into the Victorian (or Edwardian) periods because Georgian styles, aesthetics and public attitudes and policy and so on are distinct from those of the Victorian era.

Similarly, 6th, 7th and even 8th gen are alike enough that they can be lumped together and are distinct in style, aesthetic and concept from earlier gens, just as 3rd and 4th gens are quite alike and rather distinct from 1st and 2nd.

5th is in an odd place because depending on your perspective, it can be lumped with 3rd/4th, 6th/7th/8th or left as its own thing. The only reason 3rd/4th and 1st/2nd are lumped together as /vr/ along with 5th is because there's too little interest in each niche.

So, not only do 6th and later gens differ too greatly from earlier gens, but they also enjoy the status of being a more common interest to the average 4chan user than any earlier gens are. Allowing 6th gen would marginalise the earlier gens because 6th gen alone has more interest in it than all earlier gens combined.

Anonymous Mon Aug 3 23:16:15 2015 No.2587012

>>2586847
>The one and only time I've ever trolled on /vr/ was ITT

Unless there's another dude who writes like you and throws the phrase "ps2 babies" around like it's going out of style, you're one of the biggest and worst trolls on this whole board as far as I'm concerned. You stir the pot at every single opportunity and pour as much venom in as you can. All the while declaring you're doing it to "uphold the rules" but all you're doing is making things shittier.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 3 23:19:12 2015 No.2587020 >>2587012 This was also the first and only thread I've ever used the phrase "PS2 babbies." I was following your (or someone else's?) lead at >>2584165 as that was the first post ITT to use the phrase. Like I said: I don't troll.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 06:33:46 2015 No.2587805 >>2584724 But the GBA was discontinued in 2008, and the DS cannot play all games without issues, as it has no link cable port. Some games, like Four Swords, can't be played on the DS at all becasue of this.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 09:31:06 2015 No.2588012

>>2586229
>>2586585
Nope! I've been saying this whole thread that "retro" is a sliding scale. This board is just the catchall for shit too old for /v/ to care about and sooner or later they are going to add GBA and the other systems. GBA might not be quite retro yet, but in 5 of 10 years it definitely will be. /vr/ being one of the slowest boards isn't going to get split. If anything in 5 years it will be even slower here than it is now. I hope they let GBA in before that though.

That's all beside the point though. Why are you here in the first place? You want strict moderation and very specific boards, and you choose to spend your time on 4chan? Really? There are ALWAYS going to be posts that go off topic here and mods are never going to care much.

Again I'm just sayin... the kind of forum you want is out there. Reddit's retro forum is limited to just 70's-90's and there are others that are just 8-16 bit if that's what you want. Or just stay here and keep getting mad. :)

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 12:14:10 2015 No.2588321 >>2587020 >Like I said: I don't troll. Which is what all trolls say. Go fuck yourself.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 15:00:19 2015 No.2588658

>>2588012
And I disagree and say it's period/era-based and not a sliding scale.
Nowhere in /vr/'s description does it say it's a sliding scale, either, though I admit that it's implied with the whole "introduction of the 8th gen stuff Dreamcast is now allowed." I'd guess that's because people whined about DC not being allowed here.
I remember it and I remember the thread on /q/ asking for it to be allowed. I remember it because I started the thread.
Even though I don't like DC /at all/, I'm actually okay with allowing it here. Its extremely short lifespan means that were it not accepted here, it'd be in vidya limbo, as /v/ and /vg/ don't discuss it at all, either. And it has near zero interest altogether. It's like /vr/'s adopted bastard child.
Look, you seem to think I'm some tyrant about non-/vr/. I'm not. I'm a pretty easy-going person about stuff I don't like, but I nonetheless worry about allowing the rest of the 6th gen here due to the reasons I described elsewhere ITT: I don't want it to marginalise other gens.

>>2587805
True, true. And that's fine as the GBA was discontinued after my proposed cut off, anyway and it's not currently allowed here. I'd be okay with it, actually, but more because, as I said earlier ITT, it feels in the spirit of the 4th and 5th gen so I don't harp on GBA threads/posts/questions.
Actually, I reread an earlier post of mine and it seems I forgot to finish a thought in it, so let me clarify that:
> >>2584724 Nor GBA when the last machine capable of playing its entire original media library stopped production in 2011. Just no.
>However, just because I don't consider it retro personally doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome it here. Most of its games are in the spirit of 4th/5th gen games, so I'd personally allow it here /even if it's not itself retro./
Dunno what happened there. I think I deleted to rewrite something and forgot to reinclude it.

>>2588321
Show me another example of anywhere I've trolled ITT. I'll wait.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 15:05:37 2015 No.2588668 Maybe just ditch the "retro" and call the board "outdated games"

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 15:56:42 2015 No.2588763

>>2574319

>It's a bit of a subtle difference, where the game assumes the player is not a thinking being, but a "consumer", that's just consuming what ever the game does.

Not quite, phrased like that it's a strawman.The change was from "Assume your audience is pre-informed" to "Assume no more than base competence on startup".

Both are reasonable assumptions, depending on the game. If you're playing a grand strategy game, odds are you are familiar with the genre because it's pretty niche, you probably don't need more than a very simple tutorial level, a splash screen, or a wiki/faq.

If you're making something that's meant to be played by everyone, or you're doing something new like Mirror's Edge when it came out, why the hell would it make sense to assume players know the system? In that case, the latter method makes more sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:07:22 2015 No.2588787 >>2588668 Outdated games is a much better term to use and probably more appropriate to what this board actually is. Most people here don't actually think the board rules reflect what they think of as "retro" anyways.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:10:29 2015 No.2588794 GBA is retro for me PS2 is retro im 20 year old and not much people under my age know those

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:10:59 2015 No.2588795 >>2588763 I think in game tutorials generally work better at teaching a player the game than manuals did.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:11:56 2015 No.2588796 >>2588794 >and not many my age know those bullshit >i'm 20 year old bullshit

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:12:08 2015 No.2588798 >>2588794 So babies first consoles are retro?

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:12:57 2015 No.2588803

>>2588763
You know what works for both?
An /optional tutorial/in-game manual/. Like Final Fantasy Tactics had.
I detest having to go through the boring-as-fuck tutorials just to get into the actual meat-and-potatoes of the game. Hate, hate, hate it.

There are some games I enjoy, for example, that I've never replayed simply because I don't think I can stomach the tutorial all over again.

Do you think tutorials should be forced, always?

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:16:23 2015 No.2588810
File: 666 KB, 618x800, 1433224181357.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2574180
Why do we have these constant "what does retro mean" or "why isnt X considered retro" threads these days?

The rules for this board clearly outline what the "retro" in Retro Games is defined as for this board. Why not discuss this - which is only hazily relevant to the board's subject matter - on a board like /v/ or /vg/ which will warmly welcome this type of subject? Or if you need to discuss this board's rules in particular move on over to /qa/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:18:41 2015 No.2588814 >>2588810 It's obvious why we have them. The kids that grew up with the later consoles are hitting their 20s or close and want that shit here. They basically want a v2.0. Basically the retard generation of DLC, online paywalls, preorder shit, and DRM.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:19:36 2015 No.2588817 >>2588796 let me remind you that the PS2 was released 14 years ago and GBA is pretty old too, most kids wanted one just to play pokemon now kids want minecraft or tablets

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:21:38 2015 No.2588821 >>2588817 Don't even try to make the latest generation seem worse than the one that grew up with 6th gen. They're both horrible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:21:56 2015 No.2588823 >>2588814 >Basically the retard generation of DLC, online paywalls, preorder shit, and DRM. Other than preorder, I have no idea what any of that is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:22:51 2015 No.2588825 File: 265 KB, 533x1583, Nemissa_render.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2574373 trash taste in women, this is the best retro girl

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:23:43 2015 No.2588827

>>2588798
That is actually kind of the consensus of the thread. Most people seem to consider the consoles that were out or just becoming out dated when they first started playing to be where the retro period starts for them.

>>2588796
There are tons of people 20 and younger who come to 4chan. Far more of them than people over 35, certainly.

Playstation 3 came out in 2006 when a 20 year old would have been 11. It's entirely possible that someone of that age would have have little exposure to the PS2. It seems crazy to think of, but that's how it is. To kids who are born today even the ps3 will look retro by the time they're 20.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:24:10 2015 No.2588828 >>2588823 Then you've been living under a rock since 6thgen started. Or you just blindly buy garbage.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:25:56 2015 No.2588834

>>2588803
I think tutorials should always be optional. But I also think a tutorial is a better way of teaching how to properly play a game than manuals. Manuals are great in some cases though, especially in games with large amounts of ancillary information the player might need.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:27:41 2015 No.2588837

>>2588810
>The rules for this board clearly outline what the "retro" in Retro Games is defined as for this board.

Which is why OP tried to make it not about the forum rules and wanted just a discussion of what the term means to various people, because it varies wildly.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:28:49 2015 No.2588840

>>2588827
>That is actually kind of the consensus of the thread. Most people seem to consider the consoles that were out or just becoming out dated when they first started playing to be where the retro period starts for them.
There are objective facts that separate 1st-5thgen from 6thgen and later.
-240p
-4:3
-no online connectivity

It's a pretty obvious wall between consoles from before 6th generation and after.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:29:31 2015 No.2588843 >>2588658 >Show me another example of anywhere I've trolled ITT. I'll wait. So you can claim "ohh that wasn't me!" or "but anon that's not trolling!" No. I know your game. You're transparent as glass and I'm done feeding you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:31:12 2015 No.2588848 >>2588821 >They're both horrible. >Anyone who grew up in a different era from me is horrible. You're an angry old man waving your cane at kids.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:31:53 2015 No.2588850

>>2588821
minecraft is the new pokemon
its what kids talk about in school with their friends
theres nothing inherently bad with that,
things change. it would actually be bad if nothing changed for so long right ?
>>2588827
isnt the PS2 pretty outdated by now? PS3 has loads of online cappabilities but PS2 has long been forgotten, despite its long run.
>>2588840
the sega genesis had an online service where you could download games in brazil. also despite the ethernet port, i bet 90% of 6th gen console owners never played online.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:33:40 2015 No.2588854

>>2588840
>There are objective facts that separate 1st-5thgen from 6thgen and later.

There are objective facts that separate every generation from one another. You're just picking a few arbitrary ones that align with your opinion. Fact is, in another 20 years PS2 will look a hell of a lot closer to NES than it will to whatever holographic hive-mind game systems they're using then.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:34:25 2015 No.2588857

>>2588834
Then we agree.

>>2588828
Maybe I've lived under a rock or maybe I've never cared much about most games beyond the 5th gen. I've been to /v/ once, saw nothing that interested me, and never returned.

>>2588827
Well, we have a consensus of what "golden age arcade gaming" is. It's all arcade games from the beginning of the 90s and earlier. Notice: arcade.
I don't think such a term exists for consoles, which is why there's all this argument about what's /vr/ and what's not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:34:40 2015 No.2588858 >>2588850 >isnt the PS2 pretty outdated by now? PS3 has loads of online cappabilities but PS2 has long been forgotten, despite its long run. Exactly yes. It's not AS outdated yet. But before we know it, it's going to look extremely archaic.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:35:55 2015 No.2588861

>>2588837
Right, but as you can see discussing things outside the boundaries of the rules here (e.g. GBA and PS2) is almost a given in the topic OP laid out which is why I'm questioning it.

This thread is either a troll farming experiment or a maliciously intended shitpost right from the start. This type of discussion just does not belong on /vr/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:36:54 2015 No.2588863 >>2588857 >Well, we have a consensus of what "golden age arcade gaming" is. Honestly, I don't even think we have that. But I've never liked the term "golden age" for anything.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:37:31 2015 No.2588865

And if we go by arcades the divide is more noticeable. People are just to emotional to think logically.
>>2588848
Not really guy. I was born in 1990. Had a SNES and Genesis. Also had a PS1, and N64 when they were new at release. I love the prior generations and the stuff I missed out on like Saturn.
>>2588850
>brazil
lol
>i bet 90% of 6th gen console owners never played online.
Xbox live says different.
>>2588854
>There are objective facts that separate every generation from one another.
Maybe really minor ones. The 3 I pointed out are main specifications.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:40:15 2015 No.2588869

>>2588843
But you're wrong. I can guarantee you that 100% of my other posts have been entirely civil. Notice the posters count: 105. With over 400 posts in this thread. I think there are three posts that are explicitly troll posts (not including OP's fishing) and one is mine. I've posted several, several other posts, none of which were trolling and, it's entirely likely, you and I have been talking and agreeing with one another on several points ITT or, also likely, have disagreed on points and remained civil.
Would you like me to tell you which posts are mine? I can do that, if you'd like.
I trolled once in this thread and that's it.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:41:37 2015 No.2588871

>>2588861
I see what you mean, but think there's a distinct difference between "I consider the GBA a retro system" type statements that popped up in here and "can you guys recommend me some cool GBA games to play?"

The second is clearly just talking about games that aren't retro according to this board and obviously doesn't belong here. But the first, even though it does mention them is talking broadly about the concept of retro and what it means to that person specifically. That's what most of the thread has been and why it hasn't been cut. Also outside of actually illegal content, 4chan is always pretty lax about it's rules.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:43:11 2015 No.2588873

>>2588865
of all the people i know in my town with PS2 none of them ever played online on it
maybe online cappabilities got popular earlier in the USA
also never met anyone who owned the original xbox

>>2588871
for me GBA always seemed like a small SNES with bigger sprites

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:46:03 2015 No.2588880

>>2588863
I could be mistaken, but pretty sure "golden age of arcades" was just before the 90s arcade crash brought on by mass-purchasing of MDs/Geneses (yes: that is the plural of Genesis) and SNESs, home consoles able to more closely approximate arcade-style gameplay than its predecessors.

I know about the crash because my parents predicted it. We owned an arcade in the 80s. When Nintendo made its wedge in video games with the NES/Famicom, my parents realised it was a good idea to sell the business ASAP. Good that they sold it at the height of arcade popularity, before it crashed. I shudder to think what happened to the poor sap who bought it from them.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:47:01 2015 No.2588881

>>2588865
>Maybe really minor ones. The 3 I pointed out are main specifications.

The online connectivity is the only one of those I consider major. Resolution has been changing continually and I consider aspect ration very minor. The move from d-pad to analog sticks was a bigger change than either of those two. And the more from just one to standardized dual analog control schemes is even bigger.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:47:01 2015 No.2588882

>>2588873
America is the biggest market for games. A successful thing like xbox live here shapes the market for the rest of the world. Which is exactly what happened.
PS2 wasn't the only 6th generation console.

And yes I'm aware of the many failed online addon for many of the retro consoles. None of them were a success. Maybe you could argue the BSX was. Still it was region locked and nobody but Japan really experienced it. Nothing like it has come around since.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:51:11 2015 No.2588890

>>2588881
The following shit here that I quoted is exactly what I'm talking about. You're either a dumb kid or far too emotional about your later consoles.
>The online connectivity is the only one of those I consider major. Resolution has been changing continually
Resolution has been static since 1st gen all the way to 5thgen. Very few exceptions.

>The move from d-pad to analog sticks was a bigger change than either of those two. And the more from just one to standardized dual analog control schemes is even bigger.
Arcades have been using dual sticks for a long ass time.

Just stop. There are littler to no objective facts to support something like the PS2 having more in common with the prior generations than the later.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:52:35 2015 No.2588892

>>2588873
It seems more like a Saturn or 32X to me than a SNES. It handled light 3D/polygon gameplay the same way Saturn did. Not as well as PSX or N64, but better than SNES or MD/Genesis.

Still, as I've said elsewhere, while I'd like to go on record as saying I /do not consider GBA to be retro/ (because it just isn't), I nonetheless wouldn't mind its inclusion here because all of the games for it feel very much in the spirit of 4th and 5th gen games.
It's kind of how GB and GBC were released in the 4th/5th gen and fit into both those generations respectively, yeah? But GBC was only about capable of gameplay somewhere between 3rd and 4th gen: not quite TG16/PCE capabilities, but beyond those of NES and SMS. For me GB/C feels very 3rd gen despite being firmly 4th and 5th.

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 16:52:48 2015 No.2588893

>>2588882
well yeah i guess you are right
the word on the street here was that xbox sucked and you had to either get a gamecube or a ps2 if u wanted to be the cool kid

looking back at 6th gen consoles PS2 probably has the worst picture quality of all and it just looks awful compared to xbox or dreamcast, besides the fact that most PS2 games had very unstable framerates.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 17:07:45 2015 No.2588929 >>2588892 great argument completely agree. GBA brought the torch of Nintendo's 2D games to the 21th century- so many ports of classic NES and SNES games such as Metroid or the original Zelda

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 21:45:46 2015 No.2589390

>>2588763
I know what I said, and no, it has nothing to do with being pre-informed or having base competence.
Not long ago someone posted a good blog article on the subject, which I'll partially quote/translate here, because it reflects my issue so perfectly:

After about an hour I get sceptical: Wasn't there more? Was I missing something? Shouldn't there be far more quests in my journal? Why am I still level 2?
Then, instead of clicking on the exit of a building, or its door, so my party will dutifully exit through the door, I lost in thought click somewhat aside. Almost expecting the path finding routines will help my boys and girls around the corner of the building. I almost fell off my chair when the party just opened the window and with a smooth animation jumped over the window sill outside. All my thinking was on rails. Characters enter buildings through doors, doors are open or closed. If they are closed, I need to turn around. No, I don't. I can check if there's an open window and enter that way.
I totally forgot how to play these awful old school games, which offer incredible freedom.
No, I won't get a quest handed to me on every occasion. Some people I got to bother, or be nicer than usual, or provoke. Or I got to complete a question for person A, which makes a quest for person B inaccessible, which softens up person C to give me a job, because they think B is an asshole.
(...)
I relearn to think with the world as part of the world, and not expect everything is handed to me because I played for 5 minutes. (...)
And it continues. I discover details, tasks and solutions where I previously ran past, looking for yellow exclamation marks. I forgot how to think, how to use my eyes and how to reason.

See the difference? None of this assumes RPG knowledge. All of this assumes a thinking player. It's rare nowadays.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 22:39:15 2015 No.2589464 >>2589390 /r/ing original article. I'm multilingual. I'll likely understand it if it's in just about any European language, few exceptions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 22:43:38 2015 No.2589476 >>2589464 https://seniorgamer.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/zwischenbericht-1-arcanum/ It was specifically the "Das Nicht-an-die-Hand-Nehmen" (the not-holding-your-hand) section

Anonymous Tue Aug 4 22:54:15 2015 No.2589495

>>2589476
Good think I can read Deutschbag!
Looking now. By the way, I'm not the guy you were talking to, I'm just curious who feels the same way I feel.

I sometimes think I'm alone because whenever I say I don't like something because it's hand-hold-y, about thirty Anons leap down my throat about how it's, like, totally not hand-hold-y at all, it's just showing you exactly where to go on this map and who to talk to when you get there and preventing you from going to any other area in the game until you do. Not hand-hold-y at all!

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 22:57:36 2015 No.2589507 >>2589390 >>2589476 Not that anon you're talking to but does the article make any reference?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 23:02:11 2015 No.2589515 File: 40 KB, 248x300, Arcanum_cover_copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2589507 The article is specifically about Arcanum, which, being from 2001, is ironically not even /vr/. It just happens to be a game respecting the player

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 4 23:03:10 2015 No.2589516 >>2589515 Never heard of it.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 10:15:54 2015 No.2590361

>>2588890
>Resolution has been static since 1st gen all the way to 5thgen. Very few exceptions.

Maybe we're talking about different things here, what exactly do you mean by "resolution"? Looking at it from the perspective of general graphical fidelity, in terms of things like number of pixels on screen, number of colours and colours displayed at once, sprite size and complexity, sprite numbers on screen, polygon counts etc... That has been steadily improving from the dawn of gaming to today.

I see no hard lines there at all. On the console side you can kind of draw lines along with the releases of new units, but even then Super Mario 3 looks worlds better than 1, or Altered Beast to Comix Zone, Toshinden to Soul Blade etc.

And that's just the console side, PC gaming is a complete blur. If you want to draw a line at 240p that's something, but it's arbitrary. You could just as easily draw it at games displaying more than 256 colours on screen at a time.

>Arcades have been using dual sticks for a long ass time.

Here you'll have to forgive me, I was never huge into arcades, so I'm not aware of any of the games that used dual analog controls the way they are currently where the left stick moves back/forth, left/right and the right one controls where you look. Virtual On?

At any rate, on the console side of things that switch was immense. Devs figuring out how to make FPS games work decently well with a controller instead of keyboard and mouse is what caused the massive influx of FPS games in gen 7 that completely changed the industry.

Younger gamers already lump PS1 and PS2 together and see PS3 as the major departure where things changed. But it's all perspective. They look at what they grew up with and how much it changed over that time. Which is the exact same thing you're doing. They didn't notice the big changes in the 80's because they weren't alive, you didn't notice the ones in the 00's because you weren't into those games as much.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 10:21:02 2015 No.2590380

>>2590361
lol comment to long, the TL;DR is that there haven't been 3 or 4 major shifts in the industry. There have been tens of thousands of small ones. Some, like the internet were huge. But the internet was huge for everything.

Also I would say more than games having internet connectivity in them, the very rise of the internet was what really changed them. It used to be you got a game and spend the the next week figuring out what the fuck you were doing. Then the internet happened and people spent an hour figuring it out and then went online to say "what the fuck am I supposed to do??" And of course now people do that before they've even bought it...

If there were any one big line to draw in video games history that's where I'd put it. But even then it would be just an arbitrary line for an arbitrary reason. The history of games is far too complex for that to have any meaning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 10:23:40 2015 No.2590384 >>2589516 Not a crpg fan, I assume.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 10:28:17 2015 No.2590395 >>2574180 > What is retro, to you? Anything from the PS2 on down

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 10:32:11 2015 No.2590406 >>2590395 How in the fuck is the ps2 retro. They were still releasing games for it 2 years ago.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 10:47:36 2015 No.2590429

>>2574180
The dictionary definition isn't "fuzzy". It just doesn't help answer your question because gamers misuse the word. Nothing to get excited about. Just a fact.

For me, retro vidya is anything no longer produced for the two major vidya markets, Japan and US. I'm sure this concept rustles the jimmes of a lot of people. At a certain age it's important to rage against anything post N64 and call everyone who disagrees a kid.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 10:48:21 2015 No.2590431
File: 26 KB, 480x360, c64montymole.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2574180
For me, Dreamcast and prior to 2005, over a decade ago.
I've been playing vidya proper since 1991 with the Sega Master System.
You never see any Spectrum or Commodore 64 games talked about around these parts. I wonder why.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 11:06:18 2015 No.2590458

>>2588857
>Well, we have a consensus of what "golden age arcade gaming" is. It's all arcade games from the beginning of the 90s and earlier. Notice: arcade.
>I don't think such a term exists for consoles, which is why there's all this argument about what's /vr/ and what's not.

/vr/ stands for retro games though, not "golden age games" Retro and golden age are not the same thing at all. A golden age is a fixed point in time, "retro" is a relative term based on the current time period.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 11:11:01 2015 No.2590468

>>2590429
The irony is that the games we label here as "retro" don't even technically fit the definition of the word. They're not imitative of a style, fashion or design from the recent past. They are the very things that are imitated.

So if we were going with the real definition of the word Mega Man 1 isn't a retro game. However Mega Man 9 is. Weird!

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 11:15:43 2015 No.2590474 >>2590406 They're still selling pro-owned PS2 games at my local Wal-Mart. PS2 is about as retro as a COD game.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 11:49:55 2015 No.2590582
File: 4 KB, 320x200, bomb_jack.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2590431
There's a bunch of threads here with 80's computer games, including Apple II and C64 stuff. Maybe less ZX Spectrum but it comes up occasionally. I often post Amstrad CPC game screenshots, because it's what I grew up with. Pic related, a very nice game.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 12:02:35 2015 No.2590614

>>2590474
Try telling someone who grew up with a PS2 that it's games are the same as Call of Duty and they'll totally loose their shit. They see as big a change in game design from generation 6 to generation 7 as we do from 16 to 32 bit. It's just that we're more invested in retro games and less so modern ones so the changes aren't as noticeable to us.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 12:41:06 2015 No.2590709

>>2590468
I mentioned it earlier in the thread, I think you're holding the wrong entity. It's not the games that are retro, it's the act of playing them, that is. Because it's imitative of playing games as was common/normal in the past, but isn't. Not saying games are played differently, but that when you play Pong now, for example, you do so imitating the act of playing it in arcades back then. People don't play it actively anymore, unless they make this decision.

To pick up your example of Mega Man: Mega Man 1 is just a game, playing Mega Man 1 nowadays is retro gaming. Mega Man 9 is a retro game. Playing Mega Man nowadays is just normal gaming.

tl;dr: Think "retro gaming", not "retro games"

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 12:53:38 2015 No.2590737 >>2590709 Ahhh interesting, yes I did miss that, but I concur. And I would say games are played differently now. If only due to the almost unavoidable internet.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 13:05:30 2015 No.2590747

>>2574180
>What is retro, to you?
Games made before I was born. So anything from the 80s and less. Calling 90s games "retro" seems retarded to me, because I used to read about those games as a kid in Score and Level and imagine what playing them feels like.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 13:24:45 2015 No.2590789

>>2590747

I feel you. I saw so much ads and tv programs when Saturn, PS and after 64 were released and that will always keep burned in my mind as "the future of gaming" and all that technology of 3D models and environments and shit, it's hard for me to think a game like Driver or Mario 64 are retro when I grew up playing "jurassic" things like Vigilante or Yie Ar Kung Fu.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 14:52:46 2015 No.2590959 >>2590747 I was born in the 70's and by comparison to what comes out these days, PS1 and Saturn games look super retro to me. Even though I can remember the time when they looked like cutting edge future tech.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 17:44:37 2015 No.2591305

>>2590361
>Maybe we're talking about different things here, what exactly do you mean by "resolution"? Looking at it from the perspective of general graphical fidelity, in terms of things like number of pixels on screen, number of colours and colours displayed at once, sprite size and complexity, sprite numbers on screen, polygon counts etc... That has been steadily improving from the dawn of gaming to today.
It's been catching up to arcades. Up till 6th gen when arcades were dead.

>I see no hard lines there at all. On the console side you can kind of draw lines along with the releases of new units, but even then Super Mario 3 looks worlds better than 1, or Altered Beast to Comix Zone, Toshinden to Soul Blade etc.
If you see no line between 4:3 240p to the 16:9 480i/480p/720p/1080i of 6th generation then you got some serious blinders.
This is also especially clear in the change chopping characteristics of TVs for the generations.

Again. Dumb kid or way too emotional.

>left stick moves back/forth, left/right and the right one controls where you look.
That wasn't even standardized in 5th generation if you want to claim it was. DualShock didn't come out till 97. The amount of games that actually used that set up aren't that popular. Ape Escape comes to mind. I think it's the ONLY game that actually required it too? And another point is ape escapes control scheme wasn't like the later generations that use the sticks just for movement and camera. Not really aware of the games that require the sticks. I know there aren't many.

cont'd

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 17:49:27 2015 No.2591313
File: 104 KB, 1123x947, 1403738253425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2591305
But I want to get back to the display point. This point is huge, anybody that messes with old consoles and wants picture quality to be its highest sees the line after 5th generation. People using scalers and/or CRTS etc. They all see it.
An example. I want to hook up all my old systems to my Framemeister.
Everything from 1st to 5th gen is 4:3 240p. Cool.
Everything later is 16:9 minus the some 3rd party shit. Not worth it. Minimum resolution is 480i/p
1st through 5th gen I want RGB or for the early consoles rf to composite. Easy.
Later is all component and vga. Then HDMI. Well that makes it less worth it.

Other example. I want to hook up all my old systems to my new SD Trinitron.
Everything from 1st to 5th gen is 4:3 240p. Cool.
Everything later is 16:9 minus the some 3rd party shit. Well I’m fucked unless my CRT can accept that or I give up 16:9 for 4:3 in game. Everything is limited to 480i too.
1st through 5th gen I want RGB or for the early consoles rf to composite. Cool all easy to transcode or just connect to my CRT. Or if I have an older Trinitron I can just use S Video.
Later is all component and vga. Then HDMI. Yep I’m pretty fucked there. Better hope my CRT can take digital audio too.

>>2590614
That's not us being invested. That them being far too emotional.
CoD was around like 2 years after PS2 came out... How fucking blinded do you have to be to make an opinion like that?
CoD IS PS2 era...

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 19:48:20 2015 No.2591558

>>2591305
>If you see no line between 4:3 240p to the 16:9 480i/480p/720p/1080i of 6th generation then you got some serious blinders.

It's not that I see no difference, I was quite clear about that. And though there is that change from CRTs to newer screen types, I just really don't see it as being nearly as monumental as you do.

Graphics were steadily getting better (in the ways I described) since games began. Once new TV types came out, the consoles followed suit as a natural course but that's all it was. Games continuing to progress graphically as technology improved, the same as they had always been doing.

Again, not saying I don't see the change. But I don't look at it as one single big change, I look at it as many changes. Was CRT to flatscreen big? Sure. One of the key turning points in video game history and design? Not so much.

>>left stick moves back/forth, left/right and the right one controls where you look.
>That wasn't even standardized in 5th generation if you want to claim it was.

Right, that's exactly what I was saying here >>2588881 about dual analog control schemes becoming standardized on consoles. That was one of the major shifts at least as big as the ones you're talking about.

But you won't realize that because of this
>That's not us being invested. That them being far too emotional.
>CoD was around like 2 years after PS2 came out... How fucking blinded do you have to be to make an opinion like that?
>CoD IS PS2 era...

Because you don't pay attention to modern games, your impression is that the modern era started and it's been the same the whole time. But it hasn't. The PS2 and PS3/360 generations are seen as wildly, wildly different.

Yes, Call of Duty was originally released in the PS2 days. But that's not the Call of Duty people complain about. They complain about the modern, ultra popular FPS one.

cont...

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 19:59:19 2015 No.2591572

>>2591305
>Again. Dumb kid or way too emotional.

Now let's get this out of the way, because I know how much you love throwing the "you must be a kid card" around, and boy am I tired of it. I'm 44, I've been obsessed with games since my first atari and I've never stopped.

Unlike you, I didn't loose interest in games when it turned out I needed to buy a new TV. I've always loved them and have favorites from every era. You come off as a know it all, but from my perspective you're actually pretty ignorant. You know a lot about the 80's and 90's, but then you stopped paying attention and it colours all your views.

That's why you think the monitor shift thing was such a massive deal. It was the point where you basically said "fuck it" and stopped paying attention to new games. But for those of us who didn't, it was just another tech bump and we kept gaming.

And finally, I'm not emotional about ant of this. It's 4chan, I'm here to relax and chat vidya. I think you're a tool, and kind of an idiot, but I don't really care. I'm just having a discussion.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 20:18:06 2015 No.2591609

>>2591558
>Was CRT to flatscreen big? Sure. One of the key turning points in video game history and design? Not so much.
Not flatscreen. Going from 240p to the 480i/p and higher of 6th generation changed how games were made.

>Because you don't pay attention to modern games, your impression is that the modern era started and it's been the same the whole time. But it hasn't. The PS2 and PS3/360 generations are seen as wildly, wildly different.
The differences are minimal. I don't care how casual players see it. That's just objective fact that they're similar. In terms of display.

If you want to get into opinion of game play I'd argue they're still very similar.

>Unlike you, I didn't loose interest in games when it turned out I needed to buy a new TV
I didn't just say kid. I said emotional. I still like modern games.

HALO shit has always been HALO shit. Maybe they add in an alien or two. Oh wow!

I really don't understand how someone thinks PS2 is that drastically different from even current 8th generation. The HD ports like that God of War HD are the exact fucking game from PS2 with better graphics.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 20:42:41 2015 No.2591634

>>2591609
>Going from 240p to the 480i/p and higher of 6th generation changed how games were made.

It was certainly one of the things that changed how games were made, but there were far, far more factors than just going from 240p to the 480i/p and higher.

>The differences are minimal. I don't care how casual players see it. That's just objective fact that they're similar. In terms of display.
>I really don't understand how someone thinks PS2 is that drastically different from even current 8th generation

All you're doing is highlighting that you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't pay attention to the modern gaming industry, so don't pretend to. It's making you look stupid. As is assuming all modern gamers are "casual"

>The HD ports like that God of War HD are the exact fucking game from PS2 with better graphics.
Which is exactly what a port is...

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 20:50:03 2015 No.2591648 >>2578627 how about u suk my dick fam, tbh

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 20:52:42 2015 No.2591654 Only 20-30 more posts until this thread autosages.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 21:03:39 2015 No.2591664

>>2591634
>All you're doing is highlighting that you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't pay attention to the modern gaming industry, so don't pretend to. It's making you look stupid. As is assuming all modern gamers are "casual"
It's funny because the reason I'm jaded about modern gaming is because I do pay attention.

You've yet to post any example about PS2 having more in common with the prior gens than the later.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 21:26:20 2015 No.2591697

>>2591664
>You've yet to post any example about PS2 having more in common with the prior gens than the later.

I'm not going to outline the whole thing for you. If you want a break down of why many gamers loved the PS2 era but hate 360/PS3 era, just ask /v/, they'll lay it all out in extensive detail. I don't have the time or care to explain it to you.

Also, the comment you're referring to about the PS2 having more in common with the older systems was also in relation to the future. I was saying that in another few decades all these systems will be lumped together.

Lastly, before I finish work and go play video games,

>Again. Dumb kid or way too emotional.
>I didn't just say kid. I said emotional. I still like modern games.

top lol to this. Also, care to point out where you think I'm being emotional in all this? I have a feeling it's going to be hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 21:30:02 2015 No.2591708 >>2591697 PS2/6th gen was a great era for gaming. That doesn't make it retro though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 5 21:51:40 2015 No.2591732 >>2590468 The even greater irony is that very little discussed here technically fits the definition of the word other than the Retron. >>2590709 Most people here use emulators and save states. A pretty poor imitation of how we played in the past.

Anonymous Wed Aug 5 21:52:20 2015 No.2591736

>>2591697
Again this isn't opinion nor do I give a shit about someone's opinion whose first console was PS2.

Objective fact, there's a distinct line between 1st-5thgen and 6th. Resolution, aspect ratio, display tech, online connectivity, etc.
On top of that objective fact you have many opinions to support it too.

Where as there is zero to little objective facts to support 6thgen being much different from 7thgen other than emotions.

Like your example of CoD. These people that grew up in 6thgen are fucking delusional. They completely ignore history just to try to say CoD wasn't part of their generation. It's funny shit really.

Anonymous Thu Aug 6 00:00:35 2015 No.2591934

>>2591732
>Most people here use emulators and save states. A pretty poor imitation of how we played in the past.
Doesn't change that it's an imitation. People dressing in retro 80s style look nothing like normal people in the 80s used to look either. Part of retro is distortion. It's inevitable.

That said, while I do use emulators, I have yet to use save states. They just get in the way of the game.

Anonymous Thu Aug 6 00:28:41 2015 No.2591983

>>2591934
So you feel a person who dresses in 80's style clothes is some how "retro". They're not. They're just wearing retro clothes. The person hasn't magically become all things 80's. Even if they wore the same clothes every day that wouldn't make them retro. They just wear retro clothes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 6 00:39:00 2015 No.2592010 >>2591983 >is some how "retro" meaningless phrase >all things 80's strawman >They just wear retro clothes. That's the thing, people didn't wear that shit back in the 80s. It's a distorted image

Anonymous Thu Aug 6 11:48:32 2015 No.2592625

OP here again, looks like the thread is going to 404 in a little bit, wanted to thank you all for a great thread. It's been really interesting to read what different people think.

Ultimately it seems the consensus on "retro" is that there is no real consensus on it. Right down to the last comments.

>is some how "retro"
>meaningless phrase
It seems to me, "retro" itself is somewhat meaningless. It means such different things to different people, it barely really means anything at all. Still, fascinating discussions.

Lastly, for the troll guy,
>>2588658
Show me another example of anywhere I've trolled ITT. I'll wait.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about
>>2591736
>Again this isn't opinion nor do I give a shit about someone's opinion whose first console was PS2.

Maybe "trolling" is too strong a word, but you consistently act like an asshole and it always makes things worse. But whatever, the thread was still interesting despite you trying to derail and shit it up. That's just this board I guess though, so whatever. Do your thing.

Anonymous Thu Aug 6 13:44:03 2015 No.2592765
File: 21 KB, 320x224, 616.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2592625
Yeah, he's not a troll. Trolls do it on purpose, he's just an arrogant idiot who's bitter that the game industry didn't stagnate in 1994 and keep making the exact same games over and over for eternity.

I do think it's hilarious though that he hates young people and loudly declares how much he doesn't give a shit about their opinions yet spends his time on a website almost entirely populated by them.

>>2591736
>Like your example of CoD. These people that grew up in 6thgen are fucking delusional. They completely ignore history just to try to say CoD wasn't part of their generation. It's funny shit really.

And again, it's not that Call of Duty didn't exist before 7th gen. It's that it was in 7th gen that it became the megalith that it is and a lot of the industry started focusing on FPS games.

Of course I think the people who complain about that are just as stupid as you are. I've been obsessed with games almost my whole life, but very rarely are the ones I'm into the big popular franchises of the day.

I've still never bothered to play through Super Mario World because the series never interested me a ton. But despite that, I still found countless games over the years to love.

And if anything, despite people bitching about CoD (another game and genre I don't give a fuck about) I think the game industry is actually overall better now than it ever has been.

So you can stay mad and embittered all you like, I'll be over here loving the fuck out of video games. And with that, I'm going to go run around as a raptor gutting humans!

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 00:56:20 2015 No.2593936

>>2591708
Dude PS2 was the golden age of Japanese gaming, Okami, Zone of Enders, MGS 2 and 3, Katamari, FFX... holy shit. 360 is when fucking microsoft took over and turned it all into western halo shooter bullshit. PS2 was the last real retro system because it's the last time Japanese games were on top.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 01:05:19 2015 No.2593947 >>2593936 Just....no. Half of the games you listed are 75% cutscene, too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 01:09:12 2015 No.2593953 >>2574180 I hesitate between 2 generation or 3 generation back so either (ps2 gamecube xbox) or (n64 ps1)

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 01:59:14 2015 No.2594041 >>2574308 I would consider GBA retro, but not DS.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 05:27:20 2015 No.2594295 >>2574180 10 years

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 13:00:04 2015 No.2594776

>>2591736
>Objective fact, there's a distinct line between 1st-5thgen and 6th. Resolution, aspect ratio, display tech,

Display tech? Really? Aspect ratio? These are the things you consider major changes? What are you fucking smoking? That's like saying the major changes in the music industry was when they moved from vinyl to cassettes. Not the actual music, that would be too emotional! We're talking about GAMES here. The shape of the screen or the cables you had to plug into it are the least important.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 13:10:44 2015 No.2594806

>>2594776
>Display tech? Really?
Yes, really. I'm not even them, but the change from "analog" (tube) displays to distinct (flat panel) pixels meant a very different way of using pixels, and the value attributed to them. Before you could, within reason, assume dithering to work, assume pixels are unsharp, etc. In fact, dithering can be counter-productive on flat panels, because of interaction between neighboring pixel's subpixels

>Aspect ratio?
A minor change that I don't necessarily agree with, however the wider displays disrupted established interfaces. Interfaces rely a lot on human interaction, field of perception, etc. So on a wider displays you "gain" two margins that are often out of focus. Moving all previous interface elements to the sides can actually backfire in that situation.

>That's like saying the major changes in the music industry was when they moved from vinyl to cassettes
Think more about the heavily disruptive nature of the introduction of sampling. It changed how (some) musicians thought of sound.

>the cables you had to plug into
Yeah, they don't matter much. Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions and actually spend a little time to evaluate in what context the statement would make sense.

Ruraal_Alaskan Fri Aug 7 13:44:06 2015 No.2594869

this entire thread
>Not intended as a discussion of the board rules definition, I'm asking about your personal feelings on the matter.

Collectible? Anything with cartridge or card media, failed consoles and rare games for any < 6th gen popular console.

experience? 16 bit or less and DOS

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 15:07:19 2015 No.2594978 >>2592625 I asked you to point out where I trolled, not where someone who is not me trolled. That's not me. Again: shall I point out all of my posts ITT for you?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 15:13:06 2015 No.2594983 First - fourth gen are retro. Fifth gen and after are modern.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 15:13:07 2015 No.2594984

>>2593947
>Just....no.
What a compelling rebuttal! MGS 2 and 3 have a lot of cutscenes because they're so story based, but I don't see how that's a bad thing. One of the great things about that era was the variety of games we got. Not just action games, which are great, but variety is better.

FFX has a lot of story scenes too, but that's what the whole JRPG genre has always been. Walk around fighting battles and then story scenes.

PS2 was incredible for all the weird experimental Japanese games. Then 360 came along and all they wanted was Halo Halo Halo

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 15:34:06 2015 No.2595015 >>2594984 >Then 360 came along and all they wanted was Halo Halo Halo Halo started on OGXbox, buddy. In fact it was a launch title. Xbox has always been about Halo, years before the 360.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 15:56:58 2015 No.2595070

>>2594806
I'm the guy who was debating this originally. I don't think it's nearly as ridiculous as he's saying (also sort of disagree on the whole vinyl thing) but I still really don't see HD screens as one of the top 3 massive changes that has happened in gaming.

Sure it happened, and things were very different afterwards. No argument there. But I think the change from limited numbers of colours, even up to 256 on screen at a time and the leap to millions at a time was at least as big a change as that. We went from games with limited and distinct colour palettes to just a gush of every colour.

My point was that if you take the types of screens being used out of the equation and just look at graphics as a whole, they steadily got "better" looking and more detailed from the time games started being made right to today. It didn't happen in one or two steps, it happened in hundreds.

And display and graphics are just one of the many things that have been changing about games.

>>2594984
That's still not really what a golden age is. If there was to be a "golden age" of games, it would probably be in the 3n and 4th generations. Though either 2nd, 3rd or 4th could probably be argued.

Point is, like in film and comics it's usually not just quality, it's more about a formative time in the medium. PS2 had amazing games, but it wasn't a "golden age" as the term gets used.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:05:03 2015 No.2595094

>>2595070
>Sure it happened, and things were very different afterwards
Among other things, flat panels (not even HD) killed the sprite. That's a pretty big deal. I'm talking about sprites in the sense of few pixels in a rectangle. Modern "sprites" are arbitrarily shaped vector objects, to cope with the massive resolution. It reduced super-deformed styles too. SD style was a necessity on the old systems, because of low definition.

>We went from games with limited and distinct colour palettes to just a gush of every colour.
And then we invented window tinting and turned everything brown or blue. While color may sound liberating at first, it's not really. It just "improves" visuals, without changing much in terms of content, to the point that the new colors did not introduce new gameplay, or new visual styles.

>they steadily got "better" looking
And that's the thing. The move to flat panels was not necessarily an improvement but a change. It prohibited certain former mechanisms, instead of just enabling new ones.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:11:21 2015 No.2595113
File: 478 KB, 650x650, 1403750061895.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2592625
A correct asshole.
>>2592765
CoD 1-3 (real CoDs) were big on PC. Some console ports too.
>>2594776
>>2595070
>It didn't happen in one or two steps, it happened in hundreds.

4:3 to 16:9 is a huge leap. Massive and greatly effects how a game is made. Just look at 2d platforms. That allows for a MUCH bigger board to play on.
The leap from 1st-5th generation and 5th generation solely to 6th gen is huge and happened the second progressive scan became a thing for the masses.

Different output standards
Different aspect
Different draw method (240p on 480i to progressive or just 480i)

I'm just repeating myself now.

But I do agree the step from 8bit to 16bit on consoles was pretty huge. During that time consoles were still reaching to meet arcade quality.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:23:21 2015 No.2595150

>>2595113
>I'm just repeating myself now.

And I really wish you wouldn't, because we're clearly not going to agree. You simply see that change as having been much more important than I do. I agree they're important changes, just not bigger than a lot of others that happened. But, whatever.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:41:48 2015 No.2595182 >>2595150 Just curious when someone thinks the difference between 4:3 and 16:9 isn't a big deal.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:46:12 2015 No.2595189 >>2595182 got some before/after games in mind, where the aspect ratio fundamentally changed gameplay or presentation?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:48:18 2015 No.2595197 >>2595189 Any fps, any side scroller, etc Vertical shmups basically died because of the change.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:50:54 2015 No.2595207 500 posts of autism and no definitive answer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:50:56 2015 No.2595208 >>2595197 side scrollers I can see. good point on vertical shmups. I don't get it on fps.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:52:26 2015 No.2595212 >>2595208 Fps have bigger fov.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:53:39 2015 No.2595216 >>2595212 that's not exactly a fundamental change. In fact, it's just a tweak to keep the fow within the same center region the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 16:54:54 2015 No.2595219 >>2595197 flat panels, at least smaller ones, can pivot. vertical shmups in 1080x1920 should be fun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:01:41 2015 No.2595232 >>2595216 Not really. On PC anyway the FOV was pretty fucking huge. Something like over 40% of the screen missing if account for the game settings adding to the the difference 4:3/16:9

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:03:36 2015 No.2595237 >>2595219 Tate setups exist. Most those are "modified" horizontal shooters though. And at that point it's pretty much a 1 game monitor. Generally not something you're connect multiple consoles too with different genres,

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:04:44 2015 No.2595240

>>2595232
people played Q3 with insanely wide fovs on 4:3. Doom 1 has 90° fov, which is still the standard, despite the wider displays. They basically just crop top and bottom.
And again, where is the actual impact? A 4:3 shooter plays virtually identical to a 16:9 shooter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:07:05 2015 No.2595247 >>2595240 The impact is how much you can see. Ya you max the fov on 4:3 to be close to a 16:3. You're playing in a fish bowl then.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:12:10 2015 No.2595258

>>2595247
>The impact is how much you can see
You see less vertically on a wider aspect on comparable fov.
And yet again, where is the actual impact? What gameplay was not feasible on the 4:3 that became possible with the wider aspect? What presentation relied on 4:3 and doesn't work anymore on wide aspect? "more" is not a difference, it's a minor evolution. The claim was that aspect for some reason changed the game.

>Ya you max the fov on 4:3 to be close to a 16:3
fov is not a function of aspect ratio

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:18:23 2015 No.2595271

>>2595258
>You see less vertically on a wider aspect on comparable fov.
I was confused when you mentioned this before. You can change the vertical and horizontal fov in games. Not the console port shit we get now a days. But good PC games you can.

>And yet again, where is the actual impact?
Seeing shit?

>fov is not a function of aspect ratio
It kinda is unless you ignore native aspect ratio.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:22:54 2015 No.2595281 If the last commercially available game on a system is older than 15 years it's retro.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:23:13 2015 No.2595282

>>2595271
>I was confused when you mentioned this before. You can change the vertical and horizontal fov in games. Not the console port shit we get now a days. But good PC games you can.

When you change the aspect ratio of the display to a higher ratio you have two ways to adjust fov:
- expand the horizontal fov, widening your view
- reduce the vertical fov, cropping top and bottom

aspect just affects the aspect of vertical and horizonal fov, not their values.
Good engines only provide a single fov value, not two, because setting vertical and horizontal fov to values that deviate from the aspect of the display leads to anamorphic distortion.

>Seeing shit?
So, none. Got ya.

Anonymous Fri Aug 7 17:31:48 2015 No.2595301

>>2595282
>Good engines only provide a single fov value
Console port shit is not a good engine.

>When you change the aspect ratio of the display to a higher ratio you have two ways to adjust fov:
>- expand the horizontal fov, widening your view
>- reduce the vertical fov, cropping top and bottom
>aspect just affects the aspect of vertical and horizonal fov, not their values.
Incorrect. Just stock values and matching the fov to correct match the vertical and horizontal aspect ratio 16:9 is what like 35"% larger.

Now in non console ports trash. Let me repeat this one more time because you keep bring up trash games. NON CONSOLE PORT TRASH you can change the vertical and horizontal fov independent of each other. This doesn't create cropping. You're changing how much horizontal or vertical resolution you're drawing. That changes the game's aspect ratio which then needs to be displayed on the monitor. Hence the fish bowl effect I was talking about.

Now with fps games you can get away with having a larger horizontal game resolution then your monitor's. That why on 16:9 you can see easy lily 40%+ more than 4:3.

Anonymous Sat Aug 8 00:28:00 2015 No.2595973
File: 376 KB, 800x619, dragonfly in a meadow_ss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2594978
If that wasn't you then I apologize, the thread's over by now so which ones were you doesn't matter. Whoever that guy was, is a troll but it's been tough to keep track of who's who with all the mudslinging that went on. Which I should have known would just get worse when I asked people to be more level headed, but there's 4chan for ya!

Anyways, before this falls into nothing here's a pretty picture you've never seen as thanks for a good thread. Hope you enjoy

Anonymous Sat Aug 8 01:30:23 2015 No.2596116

>>2595182
I just don't see it as a big deal is all. Maybe because I always played a lot of handheld stuff so I'm used to all sorts of wacky aspect ratios. Or maybe because I never really liked CRTs and was happy to be done with them. CRT general thinks I'm a crazy person, but to me the CRT always distorted the picture to me. I'm delighted now that I can use an HD screen and see the big crisp pixels I always wanted to.

But even then, I don't consider it a monumental change in gaming the way you do. It's just a different display. More visual space? Sure, good, but game changing? Not in my eyes.

When I look at the history of games changing over the years the things that pop out to me are trends in genres, new gameplay types. The occurrence of "metroidvania" as a genre, stuff like that. Screens are just screens to me. Sure they change how we play, but everything does. Just one of many.

Also that's not why vertical shmups died. Modern screens are easily tilted, and even if not I think a 1080X1920 vertical shooter could actually be really awesome. Very different, but that's what the genre needs. Cause that's why it died, fresh ideas got exhausted and the same as horizontal ones they got killed when bullet hell came along. But even take Gradius V, one of the best shmups of all time sold badly and wasn't very popular. Still... we got it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 8 02:05:01 2015 No.2596228 Retro should just be defined as "it's been 10 years since you could purchase this off the shelf of a brand name retailer". This isn't really that complicated guys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 8 03:15:48 2015 No.2596386 >>2596116 >Modern screens are easily tilted TVs not so much. Don't forget the consoles

Anonymous Sat Aug 8 11:10:23 2015 No.2596909
File: 182 KB, 600x450, shmuptv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2596386
I was only talking about modern screens being tilted anyways, but regardless there were a number of old games that had modes to let you rotate your old CRT for a vertical screen as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 8 11:11:57 2015 No.2596913 >>2596909 >I was only talking about modern screens being tilted anyways Yes, and people do not tilt their huge flat panel TVs. Monitors have a pivot function, but on TVs it's rare.

Anonymous Sat Aug 8 11:38:38 2015 No.2596965

>>2596913
It's rare, but I knew plenty of people who did it. That just supports the point I was making in the first place. Modern screens aren't the reason vertical shmups all but died. If anything they're easier to do properly at home now than ever.

It died because the shmup genre in general died out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 8 15:38:00 2015 No.2597273 >>2596386 Monitors > TVs anyways

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/vr/ - Retro Games